Its not really the same. Sure, the typical response, like vecky's there, is shallow in thinking that all of them are apples. A look deeper though shows that one of these is not like the other. Obama's polarizing, the Mr Uniter himself, is absolutely historical.
Unless you believe in ponies and unicorns, to think that Obama is getting numbers back up among Republicans, the only way he even gets to 50% approval is if he's able to swing the independents by a substantial positive margin. its more likely that his numbers continue to sink.
It could be argued, and I'd nod, that with the financial meltdown, McCain had no way to win by going along with the bailout, and he had no choice but to go along.
But there's no question that without the meltdown, '08 was going to be a tight toss-up that leaned McCain just prior.
But the other thing here is that Palin doesn't really do policy well. I thought, after seeing her give the RNC convo speech, that they would roll her out doing a energy independence speech and then, a press interview after it about the policy. That instead they went the bio interview route proved to be fatal to her own framing, because she had no control in a hostile environment. That was pretty painful viewing.
A slim victory. Say keep the House with 5 seats, with 52 or 53 seats in the Senate. That would be a hollow victory. Nothing would get done, and it would just mean '12 is very tough to run on anything other than accomplishment.
I've always been one to give Palin her due. Its amazing how dim the left bloggers have been to her star power. When she came on the scene, I was damn impressed with her skills, and blogged it, getting the typical reaction. If this wasn't obvious to you, my thinking was at the time, then I pretty much knew who has no sense at all, and whom you could do better ignoring.
Then, when she retired, it also seemed obvious that she was jumping up. But there's actually an idiot blogger out there who blogged she was then toast, to try and point out how wrong I was about her future. Uh huh, sure.
OK, I do think though that her light is gonna fade in the near future. With the GOP gaining control, she's not going to have the vacuum for her noise. And she's probably not going to run. I could be surprised, but I think her teaming up with Beck is not a good move for her, and she's moving in the wrong direction (toward theocon) when she should be moving in the libertarian direction. Just my sense of the other side, we'll see.
I'm getting that same sense-- that of the blue dogs. They are running some good campaigns. It may be that the real surprises are that we keep some of the close seats, but lose among those that were loyalists.
Raese, running radio ads on Obama & Arizona ileagal immigrants, won the primary with a lot less votes than Manchin. But to date, Manchin's not been impressive; I think he's still got to be favored. The one ad by Raese did look hard-hitting.
Yes, a very good honorable mention, but for me because he called for Geithner to be fired.
Now, going off on that tangent, could Obama really have Bloomberg on the hook for the Treasury?
I think Bloomberg, more than anything, wants to play in 2012 on the Presidential ballot. I can see Obama moving to get him there too, as a VP-- because the last thing Obama wants is Bloomberg as Indy potential.