The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[Ellienor]

Hal, why do you condemn Obama on such a personal level? He is billed as a "new kind of politician" but you'll note that there's still "politician" in there. He's not trying to campaign as a complete non-pol as say, Perot did.

One could really go after McCain for how his once "maverick" reputation (deserved, it seems) has vanished as he has started to toe the Republican line on issues that he formerly disagreed with. Now there's a politician for you. And yet he's still coasting on "maverick." So why is that ok?

[Frelga]

The second part of the paper's response is... It's along the lines of "I never borrowed it, and I gave it back, and it already was cracked." Besides, the issue, to me, is not Obama's privacy. The Wall is a hallowed place, and is to be treated as such.

[sauronsfinger]

When will the supporters of Senator McCain -and I include his own campaign staff - begin to tell us what great plans and programs he has for America?

I tire of the constant whine of complaint about Obama, what he did not do, what he might have done, what he should have done, and what nobody yet knows that he may have done.

Where is the debate about Social Security? Obama made some bold statements recently about income levels and SS taxes. Where is the discussion about that? What is the McCain plan for the same program?

Instead its day after day about carping about Obama.

When are we going to get a debate on public policy?

[yovargas]

Of course he is that self-serving. Going to the wall at all amounts to the same thing.

I'm pretty sick of these sorts of posts from hal. Can we please get those sorts of posts removed?

[sauronsfinger]

Can we agree that pretty much both candidates do from now until Election Day is self serving to the extent that it is done to further their goal of winning the election?

This is hardly a contest of morality purity between a hooker and a celibate nun.

[halplm]

hal, everyone who goes to Jerusalem goes to the Wall. I certainly did.

The why wasn't it "planned." If he was planning to go, he should have just gone, but it was this whole big "spur of the moment" thing, or whatever.

It's all very calculated. If he puts it in his plan, everyone would either say, "of course he's going" or "it's just a campaign stunt." Ho hum. But doing it the way he did, it's suddenly this "Oh, Obama is so great, he didn't really have time to visit, but he's SO awesome, he managed to do it anyway."

It's the same thing with not visiting the wounded troops, but in the opposite way. He DID plan it, but as soon as it seemed it would be called "just a campaign stunt" he dropped it, and blamed the military.

If you believe Obama is the "good man" that he seems to be (which I have no evidence against), then I would think the idea to visit the wounded troops was both his idea, and he would do it.

So why did he let someone tell him it would be a bad idea for his campaign?

If he's the kind of guy that wanted to visit the Wall, and was going to anyway, why did it become this "big deal?" Why didn't he just go like anyone else?

Obama's claim to be "a different kind of politician" is always what I have had a problem with. It's things like this that really bug me, because his actions are so clearly calculated for the "best political gain" by someone on his staff.

All that means to me is that he's a figurehead for this massive machine, with no real belief or direction of his own. He's just saying and doing what his people think will help him the most at any given moment. This is not only not a "different kind of politician" it's the worst kind... IMHO.

[River]

I didn't realize his visit to the Wall wasn't planned. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be, really - think about it. He'd have to get himself and his security and the whole media circus in there. That takes some choreography. I did read it was pre-dawn, but that's a sensible enough move if your schedule is tight and you're bringing crowds to a place that draws crowds (as I'm sure the Western Wall does). He may not have announced it much in advance, but I doubt this was a spontaneous move. When you're a public figure like Obama, you can't just go anywhere to do anything just like everyone else, especially on the campaign trail. If McCain had gone, he would have been under the same constraints. I doubt that, given the security situation in the Near and Middle East, there's much space for any spontaneous moves. Spontaneous-looking, maybe, but that's not the same.

It only became a big deal because the Wall was desecrated. Not by Obama, but by the seminary student who removed his prayer and by the newspaper that printed it.

[halplm]

but I doubt this was a spontaneous move.
<snip>
Spontaneous-looking, maybe, but that's not the same.

Exactly my point. It wasn't spontaneous, but it was meant to look like it was... for greater effect... which is the part I find distastful.

[Impenitent]

Hal, the impression I'm getting is that any positive sentence with the word "Obama" in it is distasteful to you.

[River]

but I doubt this was a spontaneous move.
<snip>
Spontaneous-looking, maybe, but that's not the same.

Exactly my point. It wasn't spontaneous, but it was meant to look like it was... for greater effect... which is the part I find distastful.

Was it though?

You're the expert on how Obama schedules things and really thinks, even though. AFAIK, you've never met the man, worked on his campaign, arranged his security, or read his books. I honestly had no idea his visit to the Wall was even supposed to look spontaneous. It may have been kept under wraps purely for the sake of security. It may have been some sort of trick. I have no idea. I would have had no idea he'd even gone but for the stolen prayer; I really don't care that he went either. The prayer-theft has more to do a couple dip-sticks in Jerusalem than it does with Obama.

[sauronsfinger]

News hot off the press

The Bush administration is now projecting a budget gap of $482 billion for 2009, a jump of more than $70 billion from its forecast in February. The number represents a record nominal dollar figure for the deficit, although it falls well short of the all-time high when measured as a percentage of the total economy.

The estimate came as part of a sobering economic report by the administration in which officials forecast a slower rate of economic growth — 1.6% — and higher unemployment than they had predicted earlier this year.

This makes it a bit difficult for the Republican Party in convention next month to thump its chest as the party of fiscal conservatism.

Oh - and housing prices from May 2007 to May 2008 dropped over 15% - the largest measured drop since they have been keeping such figures.

US house prices plummeted at their fastest pace on record in the year to May, with each of the 20 regions monitored showing annual declines for a second month, according to a report out today.

Standard & Poor's/Case Shiller home price index, which tracks changes in the value of the residential market in 20 metropolitan areas, fell 0.9% in May from April and 15.8% since the same period a year ago. This is the biggest annual decline since the series began in 2000.

The sharpest decline in the index was in Las Vegas, where prices fell 28.4% in the year to May. Miami was just behind, with prices down 28.3% over the year.

S&P's composite index of 10 metropolitan areas fell 1% in May, for a 16.9% annual drop.

And I see that BP - yet another oil company, announced record profits yesterday.

LONDON - BP PLC reported a 28 percent rise in second quarter net profit Tuesday on surging energy prices and vowed to fight for its troubled Russian joint venture, TNK-BP.

BP, Europe's second biggest oil producer behind, posted net profit of $9.47 billion for the three months ending June 30, up from $7.38 billion in the same period a year ago.

Revenues jumped 49 percent to $110.98 billion as the price for a barrel of oil rose by around 35 percent over the quarter.

[Faramond]

Most people think BP stands for British Petroleum, but in fact it stands for Bush Petroleum. I swear!

In other news, there is yet more reason to be skeptical of polling. Last time the Gallup/USA Today poll came out, it showed a big lead for Obama, while the separate Gallup daily tracking poll had a tie. But this time, the Gallup/USA Today poll has McCain up (!) by 4 among likely voters, while the Gallup tracking poll has Obama up by a lot.

In reality Obama is probably up by 4 or 5 nationally.

[sauronsfinger]

Faramond
Gallup says that is because they are measuring two different things.
Registered voters are different than likely voters according to them. Most polls of likely voters usually are more favorable to Republicans since it assumes that lower voter turn out is to their advantage.

[yovargas]

Unrelated Question - am I the only US voter on this board who is still undecided?

[solicitr]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics: yes, housing prices are falling. That's because not long ago they were rising into ridiculous overpricing. It's called a 'bubble." Jeez.

When the housing market was in its overheated stage a couple of years ago, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth because people couldn't afford to buy. Now as prices fall, there's more wailing and gnashing of teeth. Either way you slice it, it's Terrible News- and it's all Bush's fault.

Bah.

And of course the Evil Oil Companies are gouging us at the pump- except they aren't. The industry is barely breaking even or losing money on gasoline. That's not where the profit is coming from. The profit is in the crude market- which is an open commodities market and completely beyond the power of government to control.

[halplm]

Unrelated Question - am I the only US voter on this board who is still undecided?

technically, I'm undecided, I am fairly certain I won't vote for Obama, though. I have no intention of votin for McCain.

[sauronsfinger]

Of course they are related.
Thank you for the honest answer.

My point to begin today was a simple one. Three major pieces of economic news broke in the last 24 hours.

BP reported record profits.
Housing prices in the US went down 15% in one year.
The Federal govt deficit is now projected at a record number for next year.

All are bad for US consumers/citizens.

[Faramond]

I don't consider house prices going down bad news at all.

The bad news was when they rose so fast in the first place.

[sauronsfinger]

Faramond - do you realize that for many millions of Americans, the most wealth they have in terms of assets is the value of their home? When that value goes down over 15% in one year, they see the value of their wealth and assets go down.

And what else do they see?

They see prices going up at the grocery store, the gas station, and many other areas of their lives.

They see companies terminating jobs in large numbers. They see companies relocating to other nations where they can make more money.

They see a lose/lose situation.

And that is not a good thing.

[Griffon64]

House prices rising was a bubble. Them returning to sane levels is not a bad thing. Those housing values shooting up was unsustainable value accrual. It is only people who borrowed against that bubble, or who got in at top, or who looked to make a quick buck off of what is traditionally more of a slow, steady accrual market who are now upside down. Those who thought for a minute could see the shape of things to come and stood clear. ( How many bubbles have the economy had these past decades? )

Yes, the US economy is flashing some red lights right now. For one thing, if you spend what you don't have, you eventually run into trouble, and it is probably time for everybody, from Joe and Jill Consumer on the micro level right up to Mr Big Corporate and Mr Government, to remember that.