jpapagan's Blog

So, the Bailout passed.

Is this good?  Based on the instability of the markets this week, possibly.

But it seems like the general consensus among Americans who have a loose grasp on what's going on with this is...  the $700B Bailout is not really a good thing, but it had to be done.

Huh?  so, basically it's a lose-lose?  Well, kind of. 

It's like this - we'll help you out this time because we have no choice, the economy will fall apart otherwise.  But we're going to have to make some big changes so you won't be able to take us to this point again.

Well that all sounds peachy, doesn't it?  (huh?)

What do you think?

So, John McCain announced that he would be suspending his campaign and asked Barack Obama to follow suit.  He also asked for a postponement of Friday's debate.

So what is this all about?  Is it really about heading back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis?

Here are some thoughts:

New polls this week show Obama surging and lengthening his lead. 

The financial crisis has been helping Obama since polls have shown that his economic plan is better to fix the country than McCain's and McCain has supported the deregulation over the years that has allowed the current implosion on Wall Street.

Obama still has way more fundraising money that McCain, something that will surely be a factor as they race to the finish line.

By coming out with this move, he puts Obama between a rock and a hard place.  If he keeps campaigning, it looks awkward and can make McCain look like he's taking the high road and Obama doesn't care about the crisis.  And if Obama follows suit and stops campaigning, he looks like he's just a follower and McCain is the leader who came up with the idea.

So, what do you think?

Here's something to think about:  In 2004, the election was about national security.  The economy hadn't yet tanked to the point it is now and 9/11 was still fresh enough in our minds that people were most concerned with having a president that could handle the conflicts in the Middle East, deal properly with Islamic terrorism and keep us safe.  And voters viewed that person to be Bush.  

It was likely a no-win situation for Kerry because the majority of the country probably felt that Bush was the one who was in office when 9/11 happened, he's gotten us into the wars that followed, so we'd better not mix things up at the top if we want to keep this country safe.

It was an election about national security.  So what did Kerry decide to do?  He tried to shift his message and image by playing up his status as a war veteran (something Bush could not claim) and try to make a case for his candidacy in the military affairs/national security battleground.  Obviously, it did not work.

Jump ahead now to 2008 - this election is about CHANGE.  The economy is in the toilet, the middle class has dissolved away, the war in Iraq is unfounded and unpopular and overall the country is hungry for a CHANGE at the top.  So logically, the Democrats should be considered favorites and Obama has presented himself pretty well as the candidate of change.

And just as the republicans start to feel things slipping away, what do they do?  They completely change their strategy and message and out of the blue, at their convention, all of a sudden THEY declare that they are the ticket for change.  

Huh??  Seriously?  Well, shockingly, it seems to have helped in the short term, partly due to the interest in Sarah Palin.  But seriously, are voters really going to get brainwashed into the crazy notion that John McCain is the candidate for CHANGE in this election?  That's absurd.  There are no facts to back it up and it just doesn't make any sense.  Hopefully, like in 2004, it won't work and Americans will be smart enough to see through the dust and re-assess the issues, facts and truths about what they want in this election, and which candidate (Obama) actually brings them what they want (CHANGE).

People who say they would not vote for the other Democrat if their Democrat doesn't get the nomination are just insane.

This is a very scary potential problem that shows the uneducated, idiotic nature of so many people in this country.

The fact remains, that Obama and Clinton are so similar on about 95% of the issues and both are miles away from John McCain. If you support one but wouldn't support the other vs. McCain, you are either a hypocrite, a phony or ignorant.

So I ask you, why are you supporting your candidate in the first place? Because she is a woman? Because he is African-American? Because you like their perceived charisma or personality? Or you "trust" one more than the other? All of these things are tiny factors but not the ones that should be shaping your vote.

Do you LIKE paying $4/gallon for gas? Do you LIKE this ongoing war in Iraq? Do you LIKE not being able to afford a house because of the abolition of the middle class over the past 8 years?? Because these are the things that you'll continue to get if you vote for John McCain or abstain from voting because YOUR Democrat didn't get the nomination.

Wake up, Democrats. Wake up, Americans. You're smarter than this!

Fear mongering!  That's what Hillary is resorting to with her recent tactics.  It is cheap, dirty and insulting to the intelligence of voters.  Her ad about "who do you want answering the phone at 3am" is just disgusting.  She's trying to play to Americans' fears of safety, terrorism and national security.  It's the same B.S. tactics that the Republicans have always used, and WILL use in the general election. 

The strategy she is using - "I am battle tested and I will keep you safe, and Obama is not experienced enough to do so" - makes no sense and will hurt her in the general election.  It's like she's resorting to whatever she can to win this battle (against Obama), even if it means losing the war (against McCain).

Here's the real truth: If there's anyone we should be afraid of answering the 3am phone call in the White House, it's Hillary Clinton and John McCain!

McCain has a long history of being a loose cannon and flying off the handle, and Hillary's shown to make the opportunistic decision, often in spite of what's "right."

The fact is, Obama is clearly the best one to "answer that phone" because he is the only one of the 3 who actually has his head screwed on right, and will make smart, educated, well-informed decisions because he continues to show that he won't get caught up in the mud-slinging campaign games that Hillary is trying to drag him into.

Did you Vote today on Super Tuesday??

Post your story here.  We're not so much interested in who you voted for, but rather what type of experience did you have voting. 
Was it smooth?
Was it crowded or empty?
Was there any confusion or mistakes?
Have you ever voted in a primary before?
Why did you vote?
Any advice you want to give to people who still have yet to vote?

Go ahead and post your comments below and we'll read them throughout the afternoon on our Live Coverage webcasts.

You might be asking, "Who is Bill Richardson?"

Is anyone on this bandwagon yet? At this point, all you're really hearing about, at least on the democratic side, is Hillary, Obama and perhaps John Edwards.

 

But to that, I give you Bill Richardson. He is a dark horse sleeper at this point but looks very strong if you break it down. He could make a slow and steady climb, a la Bill Clinton in 1992 who was also well under the radar at this point in 1991.

Check out the site: www.richardsonforpresident.com

Read up on the Experience, the Issues, the Plans and the Personality. He may just be the best candidate out there (and there are a lot)... that is, unless Al Gore enters the race.