McCain's Facebook bump

The Seattle Time has endorsed Obama for President:

The Seattle Time has a fairly conservative editorial board and ownership so I was stunned that they would come out with an endorsement so early. The Seattle Times usually makes their endorsements a few days before an election and it normally leans toward GOP candidates. This isn't a good sign for the Palin / McCain ticket.

Oh, I've long thought McCain was toast. I think the post-convention Palin buzz gave him some higher (but soft) numbers. He now has no place but to come down. It might still be a close race at the end, but I'm confindent Obama will win.

I too think that Obama will squeak by with a win. But, wow, if this is the best available, the US definitely has a talent deficit. Obama, who took office in the senate in 2005, has not passed a single bill of his own is the best the democrats have? Biden who had to quit his run for president in the 90s because he copied speaches from a British politician.(How can you be that lazy?) McCain who isnt even popular in his own party picks a governor with only two years experience?

I use the current financial crisis as a good indicator of both candidates abilities. President Carter's Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to borrowers in poorer areas and inflate thier credit ratings. In 1992, President Clinton pushed to loosen up the rules even more requiring lenders to make even more questionable loans. Congress told Fannie and Freddie to finance the whole thing by buying loans from banks, then repackaging them for resale on the open market with good loans. So if you want to buy loans a percentage of the loans were problem loans. Over the years the percentage of bad loans continued to go up, until we are in the current situation. Banks went along with it because the regulators could hinder banks ability to expand, and the new money appealed to the banks greed.

What response to de have from both candidates? No talk of fixing the problem just more regulations. When it was bad regulations that caused the problem. Therefore I think there will be no fix.

I too think that Obama will squeak by with a win. But, wow, if this is the best available, the US definitely has a talent deficit. Obama, who took office in the senate in 2005, has not passed a single bill of his own is the best the democrats have? Biden who had to quit his run for president in the 90s because he copied speaches from a British politician.(How can you be that lazy?) McCain who isnt even popular in his own party picks a governor with only two years experience?

I appreciate this line of reasoning but I think there are some deceptive metrics in there. Sure Obama has only been in the United States senate for a few years and some would argue, with his presidential campaign taking up much of his time, months. But we have seen in the past that an extensive legislative record does not translate into executive ability. Lyndon Johnson was the most influential legislator in US history and he lost the plot completely as president because of his attempts to control everything. Bush had two terms as Texas governor, and has turned out to be the worst president in living memory.

I think you have to size up Obama overall, a consummate overachiever in his personal life. First black president of the Harvard Law Review. Has had a clear political ethos throughout his life from community organizer to politician. He has two terms as Senator in the Illinois legislator where he has a clear record for working with the middle-class. He is composed and considered, and those two attributes alone almost make him more qualified that McCain and Bush. He has an open mind, understands the world outside America.

I actually believe McCain is going to win. This way before the Palin tsunami. McCain is no brain surgeon, but Obama's policies (especially the economic ones) are suicide for the increasingly USSA (United Socialist States of America).

I actually believe McCain is going to win. This way before the Palin tsunami. McCain is no brain surgeon, but Obama's policies (especially the economic ones) are suicide for the increasingly USSA (United Socialist States of America).

In fairness, neither of them are economic heavyweights. McCain changed his economic policies by the day last week, and Greenspan said his tax cuts would cripple the economy. In other words, it's difficult to know who's economic policies would be most effective.

As for socialism, yeah America now has one of the most socialised banking systems in the world. Socialism for investment banks, and Rambo capitalism for workers. Really has shown up how this "free market" business has never been about ethos but promoting profit for the more powerful.

But I would disagree with socialism being a dirty word. Socialist democracies in Scandinavia consistently score as the best places to live in the world. Beats illiteracy, having no health care, not being able to afford education, having your house repossessed, having a higher chance of ending up in prison etc. like many deal with in the States.

I agree w/ Steve. There's something to be said for the social democracies. And the US "free market" system is anything but. In a free market there'd be no USDA labels on meat or FDA labels on medicines. There'd also be no bailouts for banks, car companies, or airlines. Sink or swim, sink or swim.

But if we're going to have some regulations ... and some hand in the economy ... it should at least favor an open playing field. I certainly don't want to pay for the mistakes of the people who just wiped out my tiny pension fund. If the government wants to bail out bad debt, it can start w/ my credit cards!

I gotta disagree here. Every time I hear "socialism" I feel a tingle up my leg (but not the way Matthews feels while listening to Obama)...quite the opposite.

Granted, "socialism" as well as "neoliberalism" are terms people use for many things and can mean anything, but for me, the essence of government intervention in the economy is suicide.