I was asked this question by a Republican during a Facebook exchange. He meant it to be a a gotcha question - How has president Obama generally brought the country together in the last 18 months?

 

Here's my response.

 

It sounds like the assumption here is that he has sole responsibility to do that, and of course that would not be accurate. The president has the responsibility to set the tone; the rest is up to the people. I guess I could say that his election and inauguration brought us together, but that would be too easy and a bit unfair on my part. But this is what I will say - his message during his campaign and throughout the first 18 months of his presidency has consistently been that all Americans must pull together; that they must be responsible for not only looking out for themselves, but for others in their community as well. This is something that he truly believes. Among other things his desire and his efforts, along with Mrs. Obama, to significantly advance the cause of service to the community and those in it have been significant, yet, as you would expect, it gets shorted in the news, except on significant days like Martin Luther King's birthday or on 9/11. That's a shame because more than anything else service to others can bring communities together, and often does.

 

But as I intimated, a horse can be led to water but it can't be forced to drink. One of my biggest concerns over the last two years has been the level of unreasonableness amongst large portions of the electorate. This goes for both the left and the right. It has been fed on the left by the incessant blaring impatience of those who seem dissatisfied regardless of progress made. It's been fed on the right by demagogue blowhards looking for ratings and elected officials who have shown a level of intransigence that I have never seen in my lifetime; and now those who would seek to exploit the primal fears of their constituents for cheap political gain (yes Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin). One could argue that in hard economic times people typically become fearful and the worst in them can come out. That's a reason; it can't be used as an excuse. In the end the American people themselves have the responsibility to look themselves in the mirror and decide to come together to find common ground. Like the president said at the end of his news conference on Friday as he spoke about Americans in uniform who are Muslims- "They are Americans. And we honor their service. And part of honoring their service is making sure that they understand that we don't differentiate between "them" and "us." It's just "us." And that is a principle that I think is going to be very important for us to sustain. And I think tomorrow (9/11) is an excellent time for us to reflect on that."    It's just us.

 

This financial reform bill passed today is a very good start for both financial reform and consumer protections. But yet too many progressives and liberals continue to view anything done by this administration as short of their perceived mark. There is something truly pathological about this approach. Huffpo and many blog sites like it, as well as cable commentators continue to report and create headlines that even at a moment of progress, like the passage of this bill, shriek with complaints. Keep doing that all the time and you'll have Republicans back in your lap much sooner than you think or would like.

According to a poll released on Tuesday by CNN most Americans wouldn't re-elect President Obama now. 52 percent said the President does not deserve to be re-elected, while 44 percent said that he does. Four percent had no opinion. Polls of course are just snap shots in time. My own opinion is that this is just as reflective of the electorate's shortcomings. As per usual American long term memory has been incapacitated and ADHD has set in, with its accompanying short attention span.

Perhaps it's many of the American people who ought to be looking in the mirror about why they think this way.  What they would see is their own short sightedness and a decided inability, and for the moment, a childlike resistance, to being able to reasonably view where we recently came from relative to where we are now. Instead they continue to feed on, without questioning,  the seemingly constant overly negative, overly critical, fear mongering point of view about this president being offered up to them by much of the media.  It's infuriating. Perhaps they'd like to go back to what they had just before November 2008? I think not.

 

In this past Saturday's Daily Beast John Avlon, former chief speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and proponent of the power of independents, made the case that President Obama should use the State of the Union address next week to declare an end to playing-to-the-base politics. He counsels that President Obama should not play to the base in favor of primarily courting independents. By using Massachusetts, with its 51% independent voter registration as an example, he tries to make the case that all independents want are problems solved, and that independents are the absolute key to Democrats winning in 2010. I do agree that independents are one of the keys to winning in 2010, but they're not the only key. While I agree that voters want problems solved, independents do not want them necessarily solved with solutions, that even though they're middle of the road, don't work; nor do they want left or right solutions that don't work. The key is to convince independents what will work. Not doing this well thus far has hurt the health care reform effort.

 

Having said all this, the president cannot abandon his base or his administration's platform. Massachusetts and my home state of New Jersey also taught us that if Democratic voters feel that they are being taken for granted, for any reason, they will stay home on election day. In New Jersey this past November there was only a 47% turnout in a very Democratic state. Too many Democrats stayed home and Christie convinced independents that he was their guy. I suspect a lot of the same happened in Massachusetts. In fact, the AFL-CIO election stats show that of those union members who voted the vast majority broke for Coakley. The problem was unions were asked to get involved much too late. They were taken for granted.

 

"There's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America."...Barack Obama. I think the man gets that point. He made it well before John Avlon. He also knows that you can't take any voter for granted. He knew that before Massachusetts. Remember the 50 state strategy? I think he needs to have a message that addresses liberals, independents and even conservatives. That's how he won the election. People feel backed into a corner when they think you're not paying attention or listening to them. And when people feel cornered they lash out; witness Massachusetts.

 

The Democrats are correct in saying that Obama must continue to stick to his administration's agenda, but centrists and conservatives are also correct in saying "I count too." So how do you address all of that? For starters you find common ground issues that are important to as many groups as possible. The Supreme Court created one on Friday, and jobs and banking regulation fit the bill exactly. The tone of the message within which these issues are worked on should be populist; and that's begun to happen. The anger out there needs to be harnessed constructively. I believe that the majority of people think that banks need more regulation; that job creation is critical; and are they upset that corporations will be able to spend unfettered dollars directly on elections. And yes health care will need to be passed. The problem there is not that people don't like what's in it; they don't really understand what's in it for them. The "let the dust settle approach" that has been talked about is just fine for a short period of time. The bill can be repackaged and passed later with public support garnered by much clearer explanations of why it's important to the country and what in fact is in it for them.

 

In today's Daily Beast John Avlon, former chief speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and proponent of the power of independents, made the case that President Obama should use the State of the Union address next week to declare an end to playing-to-the-base politics. He counsels that President Obama should not play to the base in favor of primarily courting independents. By using Massachusetts, with its 51% independent voter registration as an example, he tries to make the case that all independents want are problems solved, and that independents are the absolute key to Democrats winning in 2010. I do agree that independents are a key to winning in 2010, but they're not the only key. While I agree that voters want problems solved, independents do not want them necessarily solved with solutions, that even though they're middle of the road, don't work; nor do they want left or right solutions that don't work. The key is to convince independents what will work. Not doing this well thus far has hurt the health care reform effort.

 

Having said all this, the president cannot abandon his base or his administration's platform. Massachusetts and my home state of New Jersey also taught us that if Democratic voters feel that they are being taken for granted, for any reason, they will stay home on election day. In New Jersey this past November there was only a 47% turnout in a very Democratic state. Too many Democrats stayed home and Christie convinced independents that he was their guy. I suspect a lot of the same happened in Massachusetts. In fact, the AFL-CIO election stats show that of those union members who voted the vast majority broke for Coakley. The problem was unions were asked to get involved much too late. They were taken for granted.

 

Here's my take on what should happen next.

 

There's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America."...Barack Obama. I think the man gets that point. He made it well before John Avlon. He also knows that you can't take any voter for granted. He knew that before Massachusetts. Remember the 50 state strategy? I think he needs to have a message that addresses liberals, independents and even conservatives. That's how he won the election.

People feel backed into a corner when they think you're not paying attention or listening to them. And when people feel cornered they lash out; witness Massachusetts.

 

The Democrats are correct in saying that Obama must continue to stick to his administration's agenda, but centrists and conservatives are also correct in saying "I count too." So how do you address all of that? For starters you find common ground issues that are important to as many groups as possible. The Supreme Court created one on Friday, and jobs and banking regulation fit the bill exactly. The tone of the message within which these issues are worked on should be populist; and that's begun to happen. The anger out there needs to be harnessed constructively. I believe that the majority of people think that banks need more regulation; that job creation is critical; and are they upset that corporations will be able to spend unfettered dollars directly on elections. And yes health care will need to be passed. The problem there is not that people don't like what's in it; they don't really understand what's in it for them. The "let the dust settle approach" that has been talked about is just fine for a short period of time. The bill can be repackaged and passed later with public support garnered by much clearer explanations of why it's important to the country and what in fact is in it for them.

In a  New York Times article on Friday the writer, Jeff Zeleny, paints a very narrow and sometimes inaccurate picture of OFA's and the progressive grass roots' efforts with regard to health care reform. Selectively skewed reporting has been the case throughout the process. For example, I'm certain most folks don't know that on June 25th that there were about 10,000 pro health care reform demonstrators and advocates in Washington promoting their cause. Why? Because that was the day that Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett died.

The media has focused almost exclusively on the outlandish behavior by the right at a number of town hall meetings but has covered virtually none of the great number of constructive meetings. They have given credibility to behavior that in years gone by would have been described as extremist. By doing this and by bringing that point of view into their papers and on to their programs in a number disproportionate to the more moderate points of view, they've done us a disservice by distorting the conversation. But as the President says, the media loves a ruckus. 

In his article Zeleny uses only Iowa as the basis for his analysis. He also inaccurately described OFA as conducting "town hall meetings" about health care. OFA hasn't organized around the concept of its own town hall meetings in any formal sense. Its events are, by design, organizing and informational events constructed to get people actively involved on an ongoing basis; although it's certainly not unusual for discussions to break during them. More accurately,  OFA is currently organizing people to attend congressional town hall meetings to show support for the cause in a reasonable and constructive manner.  In events I've attended and helped organize in New Jersey we've had anywhere from 20 to 60 people at a time at organizing meetings and events for health care reform. That's different than the picture painted in Iowa, where they may be at another stage in their organizing efforts.

This national discussion is really just getting rolling. It looks like we may be moving out of the shouting phase (over amplified by the 24 hr MSM anyway), and into the listening and discussing phase. Remember it's the summer too, typically a time for less political focus except by the very involved. As we move into the fall (the anticipated time of final passage of the legislation all along), like in political campaigns, people will focus in, and many more will become actively involved.  Let's hope that the media reports on this accurately; and if they don't let's hold them accountable.

I'm a Democrat who believes in a strong two party system. I feel that way because I know that nothing ever gets accomplished by talking to only those who think the way you do. It's because of that point of view that I suggest that the Republican Party begin to get about the job of replacing its base.

 

In the recent past the working Republican Party was an amalgam of conservative evangelicals and fiscal conservatives. That coalition was destroyed by the Bush administration. Promises to the religious right were hardly ever kept and conservative fiscal policy went out the door with the unjustified spending tax cuts and unjustified spending spree that the Republicans, with some unthinking Democratic support, went on. The evangelicals, particularly the younger ones, are peeling away from the politics of division. They are rightly looking forward to what can be accomplished rather than what can be destroyed. If the fiscal conservatives have any good ideas they seem afraid to espouse them for fear that would not be nominated to run. And once in office they feel obliged to "protect" the crazies in the base in order to protect themselves. What's left of the Republican Party is an unruly, spiteful, overly angry, and destructive base. They have no real leader, save for the likes of Limbaugh and Gingrich, because no one wants to lead or be associated to these nuts. So let me suggest to the reasonable Republicans that they bite the bullet and work at the tedious task of creating a new base that, without abandoning its conservative principles, is more mainstream and reasonable to deal with. They changed their base 40 years ago and they can do it again. Our democracy will be better off for it.

 

Our economic problems have given rise to many in the blogosphere and elsewhere who appear to fancy themselves as economic experts. Certainly the economic conversation and discussion is welcome, needed and healthy. I confess though that I'm not one of those "experts." What I  do know, I've learned by following our economic trials and tribulations as the new administration tries to extricate us from this mess we've been left. While anger over AIG's arrogant and insensitive behavior is more than warranted (I'm angry too), there comes a point when that anger has to be channeled constructively to help fix the problem. There comes a point when outrage for outrage's sake occurs, and that is not productive. I believe that we are quickly reaching that point. Blaming the President, the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is certainly something we can do. Frankly these people know more about the intricacies of the problems than we do; and even they admit that they are traveling in unchartered waters where mistakes have and will be made in the process. To evaluate then every action taken as a potential deal breaker, to demand perfect performance in dealing with problems, that for most of us are incomprehensively complicated, smacks of an impatience that I can only describe as either overanxious or immature. So I say to those old enough to know better, get a grip. And for those who think they know it all, grow up. Let the man and his people do their job, or better yet help in some fashion other than just complaining. We have that responsibility as a citizens.

How can we influence the media to stop destructively over "reporting", misconstruing and otherwise boring us to tears about the Obama team's involvement in the Blago affair? Investigate Blago - fine - but stop trying to create a story and an ominous link when there is none. Maybe we should turn off any so called news outlet when they report anything but the facts in this matter. That includes Politico. com which seems to have made a hobby of this story. They actually have it as their top of the page lead right now. Absolutely outrageous! Enough!!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16851.html  

Outside of parenthood, working on the campaign just ended has been the proudest accomplishment of my adult life. I started working in late December of 2007, worked through the primaries and into the summer. Just after the convention I attended a mini Camp Obama to learn some basic organizing skills. With my wife and another active community member I helped organize and coordinate a 170 volunteer member grassroots campaign group that we called Cherry Hill for Obama.  Along the way I met many terrific people, some famous (Rahm Emanuel, James Carville & Howard Dean), and have made new friends. We helped to elect a new Congressman in New Jersey's 3^rd Congressional District (the first Democrat to win the seat since 1882), and, a new President. We're all very proud of our work. It was a great victory, but now it's time, after a little bit of a rest, for us to effect the change that we helped to begin.

 

This was the first time in forty years that I became directly involved in a political campaign. I became involved because of the critical nature of the issues facing the country and because the country was so clearly in need of competent leadership. I decided to support President Elect Obama because I wanted my country back and because he has such a clear strategy for how to move the country forward - that is, that change is created from the bottom up by asking for participation through shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, while at the same time providing accountable and inspired leadership from top.

 

But he can't do this alone. We have to continue to be involved in one way or another.

 

To that end my watchword moving forward is purple. Why purple? Because to me purple signifies unity, not just the obvious mixing of red and blue, but the unity of purpose of America. The result of all of our hard work on this campaign has provided us a chance to improve our community and our country. But we can only do that if we stay involved. Sometimes our involvement will be symbolic. For instance, following the lead of one of our terrific group members, on November 5^th I took down all of my campaign signs and in their place put up American flags. Just a symbol yes, but also a reminder to me of our common purpose and our obligation to find common ground. And sometimes our involvement must be active participation. This is a time for each of us to start considering how we can actively stay involved. In the months ahead our new President will call on us to participate, but we need not wait until he asks; we can start thinking about and organizing that process right now.

 

We must continue the job. I'm looking forward to the work ahead.

 

This is chilling and needs to be headline news! Make sure you vote!   Bush Orders DOJ to Probe Ohio Voter Registrations

Published in : Nation/World

President George W. Bush late Friday asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate whether hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters in the battleground state of Ohio would have to verify the information on their voter registration forms or be given provisional ballots, an issue the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on last week.

The unprecedented intervention by the White House less than two weeks before the presidential election may result in at least 200,000 voters in Ohio not being able to vote on Election Day if they are forced to provide additional identification when they head to the polls.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent a letter to Bush Friday asking that he order the Department of Justice to probe the matter.

"I strongly urge you to direct Attorney General Mukasey and the Department of Justice to act." Boehner said in his letter "Unless action is taken by the Department immediately, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of names whose information has not been verified through the [Help America Vote Act] procedures mandated by Congress will remain on the voter rolls during the November 4 election; and there is a significant risk if not a certainty, that unlawful votes will be cast and counted. Given the Election Day is less than two weeks away, immediate action by the Department is not only warranted, but also crucial."

Independent studies have shown that phony registrations rarely result in illegally cast ballots because there are so many other safeguards built into the system.

For instance, from October 2002 to September 2005, a total of 70 people were convicted for federal election related crimes, according to figures compiled by the New York Times last year. Only 18 of those were for ineligible voting.

In recent years, federal prosecutors reached similar conclusions despite pressure from the Bush administration to lodge "election fraud" charges against voter registration groups seen as bringing more Democratic voters into the democratic process.

Some of the Bush administration prosecutors who refused to seek these indictments were then fired in 2006 as part of a purge of nine U.S. Attorneys deemed not "loyal Bushies."

This "prosecutor-gate" scandal led to the resignations of several senior White House and Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. President Bush then asserted broad executive privilege to block testimony by Karl Rove and other top White House officials.

In a statement on his website, Boehner said starting today, "Ohio elections officials will begin removing ballots cast during the state's early voting period from their identifying envelopes, eliminating any possibility of catching fraudulently cast ballots."

"Franklin County officials yesterday tossed out a dozen fraudulently cast absentee ballots, and the Hamilton County prosecutor has appointed an independent counsel to investigate more than 200 ballots on which the name or address does not match to state records," Boehner said. "Prosecutor Joe Deters has asked that at least the questionable ballots remain in their identifying envelopes until voter registration information can be confirmed."

President Bush contacted Mukasey late Friday and told him to investigate Boehner's complaints. A report released earlier this month by the Justice Department's inspector general said Bush "spoke with Attorney General Gonzales in October 2006 about their concerns over voter fraud."

Federal investigative guidelines strongly discourage election-related probes before ballots are cast because of the likelihood that the inquiries will become politicized and might influence the election outcomes.

"In most cases, voters should not be interviewed, or other voter-related investigation done, until after the election is over," according to the Justice Department's guidelines for election offenses as revised in May 2007 during Gonzales's tenure as Attorney General.

Even though those May 2007 guidelines watered down even stricter language in previous editions, the Gonzales-era rules still cautioned:

"Overt investigative steps may chill legitimate voting activities. They are also likely to be perceived by voters and candidates as an intrusion into the election. Indeed, the fact of a federal criminal investigation may itself become an issue in the election."

In 2004, Ohio was the state where tens of thousands of votes cast on electronic voting machines intended for Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, were handed to Bush. Additionally, tens of thousands of voters were purged from voter registration rolls. Exit polls on election night 2004 showed Kerry leading Bush in many Ohio counties. Bush carried Ohio by 119,000 votes.

The Nov. 4 presidential election may very well boil down to Ohio if Mukasey's DOJ gets involved.

At issue is a federal law that requires states to verify the eligibility of voters.

A federal appeals court recently upheld a lower court ruling and ordered Ohio election officials to help counties set up a computer system to ensure the veracity of voter registrations.  

That would have required a total overhaul of the computer system just weeks before election and would have jeopardized as many as 200,000 voters, forcing them to cast provisional ballots that may go uncounted, Brunner said.

She said it was impossible to set up a new system or reprogram the existing one before the Nov. 4 election.

The appeals court ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed last month against Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Bruner, a Democrat, by the Ohio Republican Party. The lawsuit claimed voter registration information for hundreds of thousands of new voters did not match up with official government data, such as social security records and driver's licenses, and was evidence of voter registration fraud. More than 600,000 people registered to vote in the state in this election cycle.

But in court filings, GOP officials did not provide documentary evidence to back up their claims.

The Ohio Republican Party argued that the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), a law that grew out of the disastrous 2000 election between Bush and Al Gore, required Brunner to share any voter registration discrepancies with county election boards so they can identify voter fraud prior to vote counts.

Republicans faulted Brunner for her "steadfast refusal to provide the HAVA "mismatch" data to the county boards of elections in a meaningful way."

The Ohio GOP wanted Brunner to provide the lists of the newly registered voters whose voter registration information on did not match government records with 88 Ohio counties in an attempt to weed out voter registration fraud.

Republicans accused Brunner of violating federal election laws and that she was "actively working to conceal fraudulent activity."

Brunner said the lawsuit was "politically motivated." She said "misstated technical information or glitches in databases" was the explanation for some mismatched information on voter registration forms.

"Many of those discrepancies bear no relationship whatsoever to a voter's eligibility to vote a regular, as opposed to a provisional, ballot,'' Brunner said last week in a court filing. The mismatches "may well be used at the county level unnecessarily to challenge fully qualified voters and severely disrupt the voting process."

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case and, in a two-page unanimous opinion, dismissed the lower court's ruling on a technicality. The justices said lawsuits "brought by a private litigant" could not be used to enforce states to abide by federal laws.
"We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented," the unsigned opinion said.  

In a statement, Boehner said he wants Mukasey to intervene and enforce Brunner to comply with HAVA and verify votes.  

"The Court ruled that the a private entity did not have the legal standing to enforce federal laws, leading Boehner to ask Attorney General Mukasey to compel Brunner to comply, which would mean providing access to a computerized statewide database, as required under HAVA," Boehner's statement says.   

Rick Davis, Sen. John McCain's campaign manager, said Brunner is seeking to ``minimize the level of fairness and transparency in this election.''

Various polling data show McCain's opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, leading in Ohio by five to seven percentage points.

But Republicans, perhaps fearing a Democratic victory, have called into question the integrity of hundreds of thousands new voter registrations.

One of the most notable targets is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a grassroots group that has registered hundreds of thousands of new voters this year. ACORN is reportedly under federal investigation for engaging in what Republicans believe is a nationwide voter registration fraud scheme.

Trying to salvage his campaign, John McCain has jumped into the ACORN case, too, citing it at the third presidential debate. He declared ACORN "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."

However, the investigations launched against ACORN - now including the reported involvement of the FBI - have raised other concerns, especially that Republicans are flogging this issue in an effort to stir up anger, to revive McCain's campaign, and to intimidate new voters.

For its part, ACORN has insisted that its own quality control flagged many of the suspicious registration forms before they were submitted to state officials and that state laws often require outside registration groups to submit all forms regardless of obvious problems.

Boehner also wrote Bush on Wednesday asking him to block federal funding to ACORN.

 

CNN's reporting on the "ACORN" story continues to frustrate and now anger me. It is at best partial reporting and at worst selective reporting, which makes it biased. This evening on This Week in Politics the Truth Squad told half truths. It, as well as many other recent CNN segments, neglects pertinent points. For instance not once has there been a recognition that ACORN is obligated by law to turn in all voter registration forms. They can't police the bogus forms turned in by part time workers essentially ripping ACORN off. If anything ACORN may be guilty of poor hiring practices. Linking Barack Obama to ACORN by saying that years ago he trained them and that he represented them in a lawsuit without mentioning that, oh by the way the DOJ was a co plaintiff skews the reporting to purposely make Obama look bad. And while his campaign did pay a group subcontracted by ACORN to do voter registration during the primaries, so what? There are no reported voter fraud related incidents related to that legal business transaction. Again selective and biased reporting meant to leave "doubt." Further there was not, nor to my knowledge has there been any mention in CNN's reporting of a possible politically motivated tie in of the FBI investigation of ACORN to the election. An ex-DOJ veteran Gerry Hebert called the news of the FBI's probe of ACORN "a continuation of injecting DOJ into what has clearly become a political issue."  David Iglesias the former US Attorney fired by the Bush administration has called the investigation a scare tactic reminiscent of the issues he refused to prosecute and that ultimately resulted in his dismissal. One wonders if CNN will ever begin to get the picture? Tie that together with the usual attempts of voter suppression that occurs every four years and the picture becomes even clearer. When will CNN try and pull these threads together and do some real investigative reporting instead of looking for higher ratings and shortchanging the public out of important information - when? Right now, between Lou Dobbs and this type of reportage, if CNN were a newspaper it wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on. For goodness sake a freshman journalism major could do better reporting. CNN needs to grow a set and get after this story,

Well she can deliver a speech and slice and dice. But does she have enough knowledge to handle the job she's running for? I don't think so! No mention of issues, save for a pander to coal and oil. She's a planned distraction by the Republicans, and the Democrats should not buy into that distraction. Challenge her on the issues and her record as needed. But the Dems need to keep asking the question - "Do you really want four more years of Bush-Cheyney policies?"

Well, Sarah Palin can deliver a speech, and she can slice and dice. Typical Republican divisive rhetoric. But what does she know? I think, not much!  Question her knowledge and her record - but she's a distraction that the Democrats shouldn't buy into much. "Do you want four more years of failed Bush-Cheyney policies?",  is the question that they need to continue to ask and flesh out.

While it's true that John McCain has ceded the experience issue with his pick of Palin as his VP choice, care needs to be taken by the Obama campaign in addressing this. When the Obama campaign brings up Palin's obvious inexperience there's a potential trap; that trap being that the McCain campaign can still counter with their version of the same argument aginst Obama, thus neutralizing the discussion. To continue to take advantage of the "experience" discussion the Obama campaign should be coupling experience with Palin's knowledge level, which, except for, arguably, energy, is paltry and in no way compares to Obama's. By using this approach the Obama campaign can frame their argument in a way that punctuate's the overarching issue - John McCain's very questionable judgement and temperament to be President. McCain's decision is more indicative of a bygone era of politics when the Vice President's job was viewed with less importance than a "warm bucket of spit."  John McCain just "doesn't get it!"