I agree with you that Obama's travels this week will hurt him. People don't vote for kings and that is what Obama is portraying himself as.

I think you are right about Ohio. But I don't think McCain holds everything Bush had in 2004. I think it will be tough for McCain to hold Iowa, a state which he has snubbed quite a bit in the past (and one that backed Dukakis back in 1988). New Mexico and Colorado will be tough as well (and alas the Senate campaigns are not helping-and I like Schafer a lot and I just keep on thinking this will be the end of him).

An interview on CBS with McCain has been cut to take out the gaffe he did (he said that Iraq was the first conflict since 9/11, instead of Afghanistan). Wow. Pravda would be proud.

I think you're about to see the Bradley Effect writ large, personally.

Just sayin', I think that his campaign has gotten things to the point where people are feeling the only way they can complain about Obama is in the voting booth.

We'll see, but I think that this is going to get really ugly before it's all said and done.

Gaffe? Obama makes them so fast it's hard to keep up. That's why I think he's doomed.

Bryan, it's only a gaffe if you believe McCain really didn't know Afghanistan came before Iraq. Otherwise, it's clear he just misspoke.

Bryan,

McCain has two sons serving in the military and sits on the Armed Services Committee. He (unlike Obama) was actually in the Senate and had to make the decision to vote for both wars so I'm pretty sure he knows what order they came in. Somehow I think this was an honest mistake--but then again I expect leaders to be human, not demigods.

Much like comparing Bush to Hitler, comparing a simple "gentleman's edit" to Pravda's outright whitewashing is a disservice to polite discourse and actual political fact. If you're going to be in the tank for someone, at least be able to make a point intelligently.

For example, rather than making the quip about Pravda (demonstrably false), you could've pointed out that maybe Grandpa McCain was having a senior moment (plausible). Or, hey, you could've pointed out that at least Reagan waited until his second term to start showing the signs of mental disintegration. See, both of these are not only reasonable but would be likely to cause a verbal uprising.

I don't know James. While I'm a fan of Reagan, I do think he was showing some signs in the later half of the first term. I suppose this has to do with reading Hebert Parmet's rather odd "George Bush: Life of a Lone Star Yankee" a few years back. Parmet comes from the odd persepctive of showing no respect for Reagan and insisting that Bush 41 was one of the best presidents in American history. He argues that Reagan's first debate with Mondale showed some signs of the Gipper's decline. He also brings up a story which I have never come across anywhere else. The story goes that Reagan had a number of people over for dinner back in 1983. He said he enjoyed watching the "Winds of War" miniseries the night before and how history would have changed if the Second World War actually happened. I've never come across that before or since but yeah the story has haunted me since I read it back in the day.

James, there are gaffes a-plenty on both sides, but this is the second one in a week that a TV network has corrested for McCain. Bias much?

corrected (where are those CBS guys when we need them?)

Pravda would be proud.

I'm sure you miss it.

Redneck, have you ever noticed how totalitarian regimes always justify the persecution of people they don't like by saying they are acting against their country (rather than the regime)? The leader(or leaders) equate themselves with the state (see Mugabe, Robert). It's funny how the phrase "un-american" has been bandied about by your government in the last few years to describe those who agree with them. Some might say this is a sign of slipping into totalitarianism.
My reply to you is this: if I was to miss Pravda, do you miss your constitution?

And another thing. If McCain is getting too old, shouldn't his lapses be shown? Is this the 'liberal media' (the same guys let his own kin interview him (I call it getting a pass))? I ask because they seem to be helping the guy out a lot. IMO it's not 'news' if it is interpreted for public consumption.

Bryan,

While I somewhat agree with your sentiments Re: the Constitution, I think you're somewhat wrong on why the TV stations cover for McCain. It's not so much bias as a guarantee of access. Look how quickly Vanity Fair and other magazines got into line when the Clinton campaign started throwing heat high and inside about negative articles on Bill. Sure, their revenge during the campaign and after Obama had clinched was well-deserved and thorough, but the fact remains that they played nice as long as they needed to have access.

That being said, I agree with you on the mental lapses. Sorry, but while Robert Byrd still sitting on a key Senate committee is bad, having the Chief Executive suffer mental detoriation is infinitely worse. If McCain is suffering _severe_ mental problems, this needs to be shown. However, one, two, or even a handful of mental "hiccups" are unsurprising given the stress of campaigning.

The problem is that _both_ men are gaffe machines at the moment. Never has the nation's nominating process been so demonstrably broken (and I don't mean the parties, I mean the whole shebang) that we have an election where these two are our "brightest lights."

But then again, I might just be a tad bit cynical.

James, now that I have wound my neck in (it means 'calmed down'), I think your post is very reasonable. The brokeness you mention seems universal in politics at the moment.