I guess, after 8 years of Bush, Rove & Cheney, I should learn never to underestimate Republican tactics. But I obviously didn't think this one all the way through last week. My initial reaction to the Sarah Palin announcement (along with that of many of my friends) was to view it as a cynical attempt to counter the Obama ticket… "Oh yeah, you're running an African-American? Well we've got a woman on our ticket!"
But then I saw this story.
Belittling Palin?
The latest McCain/Palin ad takes Obama and Biden to task for being "disrespectful" to Sarah Palin. According to the FactCheck.org article, those claims are blatantly misleading. (One could, uncharitably I suppose, call them lies. Let's just say I'm not feeling very charitable today.)
But the lying is beside the point. What's disturbing here is the notion behind this attack ad. We can see now that Sarah Palin is not simply there to balance the ticket, to serve as some (presumably misguided) sop to disillusioned Hilary Clinton supporters and as a rallying point for the Religious Right. No, Sarah Palin is the McCain campaign's Teflon treatment. Never again do they have to concern themselves with issues in this campaign.
Because, you see, Sarah is not simply a woman who is running for Vice President. No… Apparently, Sarah Palin is a lady, and must be treated with the deference and respect due to a representative of the fairer sex. (Let's ignore for the moment the notion that this pitbull needs protection from anyone in the political arena). This smacks of a mindset firmly lodged in 1950's era gender roles (which, considering McCain's age, probably shouldn't be a surprise.) The notion that opposing political candidates would treat each other with anything more than the barest minimum of respect would get you laughed off the campaign trail in any previous election — but in those previous elections, it was men doing the fighting, and obviously we're just better equipped to cope with it.
By this way of thinking, McCain and Palin never have to worry about addressing another issue — not that this election has been about issues to date, but we certainly don't have to worry about those ugly little nuisances getting in the way now, do we? Between lipstick on a pig insults and accusations of 'disrespect', it's obvious that the chief benefit Palin brings to the ticket now is a way to deflect any and all criticism back on Obama's camp, by the sheer implication that they're not treating her right. Presumably, if Hilary had won the nomination, McCain's running mate today would be African-American and we'd all be dancing around questions of racial tolerance.
I didn't like McCain going into this election. I was staggered by his pandering to political expediency in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. But I am filled now with loathing and contempt for the man, with the realization that there really is nothing he's not wiling to say or do to try and win this election.
I can only hope this all blows up in his face, for all our sakes.
But then I saw this story.
Belittling Palin?
The latest McCain/Palin ad takes Obama and Biden to task for being "disrespectful" to Sarah Palin. According to the FactCheck.org article, those claims are blatantly misleading. (One could, uncharitably I suppose, call them lies. Let's just say I'm not feeling very charitable today.)
But the lying is beside the point. What's disturbing here is the notion behind this attack ad. We can see now that Sarah Palin is not simply there to balance the ticket, to serve as some (presumably misguided) sop to disillusioned Hilary Clinton supporters and as a rallying point for the Religious Right. No, Sarah Palin is the McCain campaign's Teflon treatment. Never again do they have to concern themselves with issues in this campaign.
Because, you see, Sarah is not simply a woman who is running for Vice President. No… Apparently, Sarah Palin is a lady, and must be treated with the deference and respect due to a representative of the fairer sex. (Let's ignore for the moment the notion that this pitbull needs protection from anyone in the political arena). This smacks of a mindset firmly lodged in 1950's era gender roles (which, considering McCain's age, probably shouldn't be a surprise.) The notion that opposing political candidates would treat each other with anything more than the barest minimum of respect would get you laughed off the campaign trail in any previous election — but in those previous elections, it was men doing the fighting, and obviously we're just better equipped to cope with it.
By this way of thinking, McCain and Palin never have to worry about addressing another issue — not that this election has been about issues to date, but we certainly don't have to worry about those ugly little nuisances getting in the way now, do we? Between lipstick on a pig insults and accusations of 'disrespect', it's obvious that the chief benefit Palin brings to the ticket now is a way to deflect any and all criticism back on Obama's camp, by the sheer implication that they're not treating her right. Presumably, if Hilary had won the nomination, McCain's running mate today would be African-American and we'd all be dancing around questions of racial tolerance.
I didn't like McCain going into this election. I was staggered by his pandering to political expediency in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. But I am filled now with loathing and contempt for the man, with the realization that there really is nothing he's not wiling to say or do to try and win this election.
I can only hope this all blows up in his face, for all our sakes.
Comments
Well, I despise Obama, so I definitely root for anything to beat him.
But, that said, OF COURSE she's the teflon candidate. It's the EXACT same strategy Obama used against Hill. Anytime she tried anything to attack him, someone in the campaign would allege racism. He was teflon.
McCain saw it and realized they needed to fight fire with fire. Brilliant move. Of course, if she hadn't come out so well and been so popular off the bat it would have failed. But, she is popular. VERY popular. So, McCain has turned it on Obama. Now McCain is teflon and Obama can't get any traction on race. He tried last week with the same old 'racial coding' accusations. No go. No one is listening.
McCain also made a great move and combined the female/teflon strategy with his own 'change' campaign. And, it has succeeded in taking the wind out of Obama's 'change' sails.
It's a pretty fascinating fight, all things considered. Last week, I predicted McCain would win IF he made no mistakes...
And, then he made a mistake calling our economy 'healthy' at its core. He's right, but that's not something to say these days...and predictably Obama has jumped on it.
I think the race from now til November is going to be all about 'gotcha' moments - both real and perceived. They'll continue to attack with accusations when someone misspeaks and see what sticks.
Not surprisingly, I guess, our personal beliefs/prejudices are pulling us in directions so different that we may not even be able to see the horizon of the place the other's coming from. I can understand opposing Obama's candidacy, but can't fathom "despising" him. I assume that my contempt for McCain and Palin is only slightly more easy to comprehend simply because I rant about it more than you. I haven't seen the examples of race politics you mention (though I am aware of the allegations, coming — I usually assume — from the more lunatic fringe of the Republican hate machine), so I can't speak to them. I don't even know, based on my Andrew Sullivan reaction, if I'd view them in the same light as you.
I don't think I'm being blind here (or maybe I'm being willfully blind). It's more that I'm out of options. I can't, in all conscience, even consider McCain/Palin (and haven't been able to do so for any Republican candidate in longer than I can remember). So I know that I'm either voting for the Democrat, if I want my vote to count for anything, or finding a third party that I find agreeable, if I feel the need to "send a message" (even though it's only to myself), that I'm not impressed by either of the majority candidates. In this case, I like Obama, and would like to see what happens under his leadership. But I can, quite honestly say that the Democrats would have to run some bastard clone of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin before I'd consider voting for McCain/Palin. (How's THAT for hyperbole!)
I am not a McCain supporter either. Don't much like him at all. However, I have two mindsets: one is the anti-Obama voter who will vote for someone else and the other is a political junkie who is fascinated by the strategies and manipulation of modern politics.
I am curious that you find McCain to be pandering, sexist, AND insulting just in picking Palin as his running mate. But, I'm not surprised. This is the Dems stance from the beginning. But, when I hear your outrage or I see Jason Bourne on youtube saying the pick is absurd, I have to laugh. How is it more absurd than nominating Barack Obama? The guy is at least as minimally qualified to lead this country as Sarah Palin. It's one of the reasons she is a 'teflon' pick. Everytime Obama tries to hit her with the inexperience card it can and will be thrown back in his face. The 'community organizer' jokes were just the beginning.
FACT: He is minimally qualified. FACT: We live in America - where the only qualification is age and citizenry.
So, yeah...I knew about Palin back in February and looked into her. I dismissed her due to experience. Obviously, when running against Barack Obama that is not as much of a problem. Add to that, that historically, campaigning on a negative experience strategy has never worked. Truman was ridiculously inexperienced. So was Clinton. So was the idiot in the White House now!
As for sexist? Yeah, you and I are looking through different glasses. Let me see...she's a woman, she's a mother, she's well-spoken, she takes care of her family and seems happy with them, she is a good person, and she may be the first woman VP in history. That is sexist how?? Seriously, what is the Dems problem? Because she’s pro-life she can’t be a feminist?? WTF? Because she goes to church and has a family she is a throwback to a 1950’s mom?? Are you kidding me? That sounds sexist to me. I think she’s a great pick for two reasons: 1, she’s a woman! A successful, driven one at that. But, I also think the move was politically smart for McCain and the polls are proving that out.
As for defending her as a lady and making accusations of sexism against the Obama camp…how is this new? Hillary did it time and again. In fact, I’m surprised any time anyone says they haven’t heard or noticed the race baiting Obama uses in his campaign. McCain isn’t the first person he targeted with it – he also used it against Hillary. Dems were up in arms during the primaries over the dirty politics being played by both sides. Panic about a divided party was all over the lefty blogs. And, Hillary supporters clobbered Obama on using race and silly accusations.
And now it’s Dems vs. Repubs and suddenly no one remembers that Obama can get nasty too. How did you all forget?? I know how…the Dems have all slipped into their rants about evil Rovian politics and their guys is lily white. It’s laughable and biased. Which is why I like my side that tries to watch it all happen. I see both sides act surprises or innocent and neither has a claim to either. Which is why I laughed at that Sullivan blog. He’s railing against the ‘evil’ politician McCain. It sounds just like the ranting he did about the ‘evil’ politician Hillary Clinton a few months ago. But, absolutely no recognition of Obama as a politician or a dirty player.
As for his accusations of picking Palin without vetting her, he can keep drinking the kool-aid if he wants. But, when will the Dems face the music? She was a brilliant pick, she was well vetted, no matter how many attacks the Dems try they cannot take away from her popularity. And, to dismiss her popularity as ‘just’ the Christian base is either naïve or in denial. To say it is a ‘gamble’ to trust an ‘unknown’ with the security of this country is an hilarious, hypocritical joke coming from any Obama supporter.
Did the polls show she would be a good choice? They must have or they wouldn’t have done it. Does she fill McCain’s public weaknesses? Yes – she’s young, female, driven, and conservative. And, she’s a Washington ‘outsider’. Didn’t Obama do the same thing? Biden is old, has foreign relations experience, is an ‘insider’. He fills out the card. This is how they choose VP’s.
Instead of hopping on the Dem bandwagon and railing against Palin, try asking yourself two questions: Why do the Dems hate her so much? And, why does America love her so much? And, the polls show they love her and have embraced her. She has higher polling numbers than any of the candidates.
"I am curious that you find McCain to be pandering, sexist, AND insulting just in picking Palin as his running mate."
I don't find it pandering, sexist and insulting that he nominated a woman as his VP.
I find it pandering that he nominated THIS woman, who appears to be on the ticket for the value she'll bring to the conservative Right (the pro-life, creationist end of the platform).
What I found sexist and insulting is the ad campaign accusing Obama of being disrespectful to Palin. Are we to assume that, if his VP choice was a male, and Obama had said the things McCain is accusing him of saying, that they'd run a "be nice to our candidate" campaign? Yeah, it comes across as sexist and condescending that they chose to defend his running mate in this fashion.
I'm sure I'll have more to say later, but didn't want that to fester any longer than necessary.
So what? Again, my point is that is what a VP is - something that adds to the ticket and fills the weakness of the top of the ticket. Biden was picked to fill out Obama's weaknesses. This is how it is done.
No...what you and so many find insulting is that she IS pro-life and openly Christian. I find that insulting. I'm not even Christian and I find it insulting. But, this is the Democrat Party way. They are very much in favor of free expression - as long as it meets their standards.
I'll quote the very liberal Aaron Sorkin through the mouths of his characters:
SAM:
It's not about personal freedom, and it certainly has nothing to do with public safety. It's just that some people like guns.
AINSLEY
Yes, they do. But you know what's more insidious than that? Your gun control position doesn't have anything to do with public safety, and it's certainly not about personal freedom. It's about you don't like people who do like guns. You don't like the people.
Think about that, the next time you make a joke about the South.
Sorkin is a liberal Democrat...but, he's right. The party holds certain people in contempt. Certain gun toting, church going people. It's the one reason I could never go to the Democrat party (though, I would have voted for Hillary).
"What I found sexist and insulting is the ad campaign accusing Obama of being disrespectful to Palin. Are we to assume that, if his VP choice was a male, and Obama had said the things McCain is accusing him of saying, that they'd run a "be nice to our candidate" campaign? Yeah, it comes across as sexist and condescending that they chose to defend his running mate in this fashion."
I'll take off my 'defense of Palin' hat and put on my political strategist hat. How would you have done it? It was the smart move. And, just like Obama likes to try to make everything about race, it's all about putting your opponent on the defensive. If he's on defense, he spends less time putting forward his platform. It's just smart politics. Dirty? Yeah, but smart. Just like using race.
We should be getting paid!! We scooped the WaPo!
And no, I'm not done replying to your earlier post. ; >
(God, I hate smileys, but sometimes I feel the need to 'punctuate'. Oh well.)
Again, I never said I found her nomination insulting or sexist. Nor do I find it insulting that she's pro-life and Christian. I would have been fundamentally surprised if their VP choice weren't pro-life and Christian. As you point out, she helps fill out that gap in his ticket. Perhaps I over-simplified things when I said her ONLY qualifications are that she's pro-life and Christian. Of course, that's not the only thing she brings to the ticket. She also appeals to that "Traditional Family Values" camp, and the "small town values vs. big city values" contingent (as well as, I assume, other parts of the Republican platform that are in danger of falling off the Right edge.) It's the fact that I find her woefully under-qualified for the position that I called it pandering.
And please, don't lump me into your "that's what the Democratic party stands for" BS. I'm sure there are Democrats that feel the way you assume all Democrats do. I'm sure that you see the party as representing that point of view. You may be right. I don't care.
I don't object to someone being Christian. I don't object to someone being pro-life. I don't object to them believing in creationism and being opposed to homosexuality or premarital sex. I disagree with every one of these points of view, but I believe that, as our Constitution promises, they're entitled to these points of view.
What I object to is their conviction that, because they believe these things are true, then everyone must agree. You want to practice your religion? FINE. Respect my choice, whether it be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Atheist (and yes, that is a religious choice). Sarah Palin and the people like her don't respect that. You believe that abortion is wrong? I believe that's a personal choice, one that affects the pregnant woman and, at most, her immediate family. Sarah Palin and her supporters don't believe that, and seek to control the choices that a pregnant woman has. BUT, and this is what galls me more than any of it, they ALSO don't believe in birth control and sex education. (Unless, of course, it's the patently useless "abstinence only" brand of birth control, and we all can see how effective that is. Of course, there's a study from Health and Human Services that shows that abstinence only education doesn't work, but that got buried years ago, so we'll ignore that one, shall we?) They want to inflict their moral (and religious) convictions on everyone in this country.
You talk about personal rights like it's something Democrats only want for themselves. I just want everyone to have the freedom to make their own choices. Sarah Palin and her ilk disagree.
This is, perhaps the one thing I most object to about current Republican politics… they're constantly harping on "less government" when what they really mean is just fewer taxes and less business regulation. (Which is working out really well on Wall Street these days, right?) But they're perfectly comfortable regulating people's personal lives, and dictating what sex is appropriate for your life partner, and whether a woman should have ultimate control over her own body. So when you bitch about how Democrats don't believe in personal liberties, it makes me want to laugh. Or scream, I'm never sure which.
I'm done ranting for now, and I haven't even GOTTEN to the whole question of qualifications and experience. We're going epic on this one, I see. Later.
I thought you found both her nom and the ad sexist.
You're right - I should not lump you in (and I don't mean to) with my generalizations of the DNC.
"What I object to is their conviction that, because they believe these things are true, then everyone must agree. You want to practice your religion? FINE. Respect my choice, whether it be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Atheist (and yes, that is a religious choice). Sarah Palin and the people like her don't respect that. You believe that abortion is wrong? I believe that's a personal choice, one that affects the pregnant woman and, at most, her immediate family. Sarah Palin and her supporters don't believe that, and seek to control the choices that a pregnant woman has."
Allow me to answer. First, I don't know what Sarah Palin's "ilk" is? Successful? Strong-willed? Again, I hope you're not playing the christian/small town idiot card. That's my problem that I was describing...
How does Palin not respect other beliefs? Where can you possibly back that up? There is no record of her disparaging anyone's beliefs.
As for freedom of choice and abortion. Yes, I believe abortion is wrong. Palin does too. But, she's not trying to 'control' anyone's choices. She's trying to defend the life of an unborn child. You believe in choice for abortion...ok. But, you also have the advantage that it is currently law. It hasn't always been that way. This is a two-way debate - you can't say "I support freedom of choice, live and let live!" and at the same time say "your opinion isn't important enough to be law because mine is already law." That doesn't work.
"BUT, and this is what galls me more than any of it, they ALSO don't believe in birth control and sex education. (Unless, of course, it's the patently useless "abstinence only" brand of birth control, and we all can see how effective that is. Of course, there's a study from Health and Human Services that shows that abstinence only education doesn't work, but that got buried years ago, so we'll ignore that one, shall we?) They want to inflict their moral (and religious) convictions on everyone in this country."
There you go with the 'they' thing again. It really bugs me. Not all christians are created equal.
That said, I agree with you on this point. BUT, it's also a two-way street. The Dems (PARTICULARLY Obama) don't want ANY abstinence talk - just condoms in school. This intractibility on both sides has given US (you know...the voters) no reasonable choice. We are forced to pick a side. WHY?? Why can't we have both?
"You talk about personal rights like it's something Democrats only want for themselves. I just want everyone to have the freedom to make their own choices. Sarah Palin and her ilk disagree."
Do I need to mention the "her ilk" thing again? It's condescending and sounds anti-christian. It's certainly anti-something. It's a statement dripping with contempt. And, why? Because she and "her ilk" don't agree with your enlightened opinions. See what I'm saying?...
What I'm trying to communicate is that when one argues/debates from a point of view that is "me vs. you" or "us vs. them" and there is a level of contempt held for 'them' or 'their ilk', then there is no debate. That IS arguing for personal rights...as long as their the rights I believe in and 'their ilk' aren't smart enough to realize are good for them. It's a bad way of doing things. And, I read the Daily Kos, the Huff Post, and the Atlantic every day. I see it ALL OVER those pages.
"This is, perhaps the one thing I most object to about current Republican politics… they're constantly harping on "less government" when what they really mean is just fewer taxes and less business regulation. (Which is working out really well on Wall Street these days, right?) But they're perfectly comfortable regulating people's personal lives, and dictating what sex is appropriate for your life partner, and whether a woman should have ultimate control over her own body. So when you bitch about how Democrats don't believe in personal liberties, it makes me want to laugh. Or scream, I'm never sure which."
I'm particularly keen and equipped to discuss/debate this. First of all, don't buy into the hype about business regulation. The fact is, NO administration has done their job with accountability. And, frankly, it is NOT the governments job to interfere in businesses. Businesses are allowed to make risky investments. It's called capitalism. What has failed today is that the SEC and the AICPA and the Fed have not been totally upfront and open. But, that is not Bush's fault or the Republican party. Clinton and other presidents are just as guilty. And, McCain has been harping on more transparency in Freddie and Fannie for years. Part of the problem IS that politicians have gotten involved where they shouldn't. So, Republicans are NOT about less oversight or regulations. Bush created Sarbanes-Oxley for God's sake.
However, they are supposed to be about spending less money and Bush has screwed the pooch on that.
As for abortion and gay marriage...well, I already made my case over the two way debate. Needless to say, it's not about regulating or dictating personal rights. There is an equal side to the arguments.
I'm anxious to hear you attempt to defend Obama's qualifications to be President. Prepare to spin, sir!
So, Experience. Let me first point out that my original observation was that it seems a bit disingenuous to harp on Obama's lack of experience and then nominate a VP that seems to have less experience than the man you've been attacking for months. I understand we differ on the opinion of who's got the most experience here, but I think we're both mocking the same hypocrisy… just from opposite ends of the question.
As for experience/qualifications, I admit I find Obama's legislative experience more compelling than Palin's small town mayor and mom experience. (I am NOT being condescending. Yet.) Speaking strictly for myself, since I know many others find this compelling, I couldn't care less about her family life (previous pregnant daughter comments notwithstanding). I don't find "he's a great dad", "she's a loving mother" to be compelling arguments for me to vote for someone. Public personas for politicians are such carefully crafted creations that they're only going to differ in the details anyway. Obama and Palin may have the most drastically different personal history from any candidate that's previously run for President/VP, but those personal histories are hardly 'radically different' in any sense of the term.
What I care about are leadership qualities (and no, "Mom" is not a leadership qualification — NOT to denigrate mothers or fathers, he said, quick to cover his PC-ness). So I find Obama's Senate terms (State and Federal), his Constitutional Law experience, his stint as President of the Harvard Law Review and yes, his oft-reviled Community Organizer work more compelling statements of his qualifications to lead this country than Sarah Palin's Mayor of a small town/Governor of Alaska/Mom qualifications. The mere notion of a President that understands and respects the Constitution, after 8 year's of Bush's "let's shred the Constitution" approach to governing, is enough to sell me at this point. He "had me at hello," if you get my drift. (And yes, I think "compelling" MUST be my word for the day.)
As for the success of nominating Palin, need I say anything? As you point out, she's captured the country's imagination — at least those that don't actively hate her. Falling into the latter group, I find this inexplicable. I detest what I've seen of her politics, find her "I can see Russia from my house" jokes glib and facile, and find her repeated "community organizer" digs to be cheap shots at the expense of people doing a difficult job.
But there's a significant portion of the electorate that eat up this "down home, aw shucks" shtick that Bush has worked for years. Now Palin's filling that same niche. I don't pretend to understand it, and I certainly can't relate to it. But there you have it. Blaming it all on the Christian Right is less naïve, I think, then merely wishful thinking.
Equally, whatever check is written for Paulson (asshat) this week also writes off ANY domestic plans EITHER candidate has. Reform health care? Fuck off, we wrote a big check in '08. Social Security changes? Bite it...spent the money already. Let's face it...next year's President is screwed.
That said, your experience argument is disappointing. Yeah, I could do the same thing and give you an inflated version of Palin's resume and a deflated version of Obama's and we'd have two sides of a weak argument. But, the bottom line is this: neither is eminently qualified for the job. And, frankly, I don't care because I don't think Presidential qualifications are always able to be quantified.
But, here's the real problem (from a strategic point of view) with your argument: you're comparing Obama to Palin! It's one of the reasons why McCain picked her! If you're Obama, you do NOT want to be comparing your resume to the resume of the upstart VP candidate. You're supposed to be running for President!! Every time someone compares them, it hurts him.
Somehow I feel I've gotten suckered into a debate I never meant to have here. I've already explained what my original intent was. Debating Obama's qualifications vs. Palin's was due to your calling me on that original comment.
I'll have to be more careful not to get sidetracked next time. ; )
BTW - class move by McCain to meet his economic advisors and then head to Washington and request a debate delay. His campaign slogan is "country first". Glad to see him back it up.
McCain'll get bigger kudos from me if he tells everyone he thinks giving Treasury the keys to the kingdom (along with a huge blank check) has to be the worst idea this century. I'm no economist, but I can't believe this is the only solution to this clusterfuck.
And, giving Paulson a blank check is by far the lamest idea I have ever seen put forth. EVER.
In fact, I can almost picture Paulson wringing his hands and cackling, waiting for us to pay him to bail himself out (he holds thousands of Goldman-Sachs shares).
There are lots of alternative ideas: immediately suspend FASB 157 and put an end to mark-to-market accounting.
Suspend capital gains taxes.
Increase the money supply, slightly.
Suspend Sarbanes-Oxley (which obviously has not worked).
Immediately pass a comprehensive energy bill that creates jobs (yes, that would mean nuclear plants and drilling).
Pull the SEC licenses from the companies in trouble and freeze their shares. Then, investigate them and their CEO's. Then, pass a bill that allows the government to factor SOME of their debt when and if approved by a committee.
Sell discounted bonds.
Combined, these solutions would keep the country liquid, help to shore up consumer confidence, and prop up the banks enough that some weaker ones may fall but the overall picture would remain solid.
And, this is just me with a day to think about it. I've gotta believe the big brains working on this problem can come up with something!
McCain has, indeed, suspended his campaign. Even pulled his ads.
But, Obama (whether he thinks the move by McCain is political or sees a political opportunity is unclear) has announced that he will not do the same and he plans to carry out the debate.
So, what does McCain do? If he gets something passed soon it may be a moot point. But, if not, does he show up for the campaign and risk looking like he got called out by Obama? Or, does he stiff Obama and not show up (and would such a move appear as political or sacrificial to the public? would it be too risky?)? A move that could pay dividends as easily as it could backfire.
There is a third option...he could send Palin. First, it conjures up the VP vs. President image that works to McCain's advantage. Second, if she 'beat' Obama or even held her own I would think that would be it for Obama. If McCain did this, could Obama then call it off? I think it would be too late. He'd have to go through with it.
Watching with intense interest...
Should be interesting.