The feed labeled "LA NBC1" (KNBC) on LiveNewsChannels is currently streaming a Hillary event from WV.

I was just watching WTAP's newscast out of Parkersburg (via <A HREF="http://www.livenewschannels.com">LiveNewsChannels</A> and I'll probably add a "thing that makes you say hmmm" as a comment later, but I wanted to alert everyone that they're planning to stream Obama's Charleston appearance.

In reality, this <A HREF="http://www.wtap.com/news/headlines/18860874.html">link</A> will toss you to a pop-up from one of their sister stations, but it seems to easiest way to get to the netcast, if anyone else is interested.

(Right now, it's just the podium, but the event should be starting shortly)

I'm reluctant to make reference to what the candidate may have considered a private moment, but because it's been reported elsewhere and I haven't seen any posts in this space on the subject...

CNN's Political Ticker reported that on a five-hour flight from DC to Oregon, Senator Obama joined one of the regular games of "Taboo", which they say is often played among his traveling staff and the press.

It is from that blog entry, the following paragraph was taken;

An interesting moment came when an Obama staffer was looking at the word "gap." His clue: a place where gay people shop. Before the word was accurately guessed, other reporters said they heard one staffer shout the store "H&M" and heard Obama say "Abercrombie & Fitch."

Now, I realize that the candidate didn't give the clue and it was just a friendly game (and it'll probably never happen again), but how is defining people by where they shop not applying a label which divides us?

I'm currently living in New Mexico and as most people know, Pete Domenici is retiring from his Senate seat at the end of this term.

I was among those who publicly called for Bill Richardson to announce his candidacy because he's the closest thing to a lock, I may have ever seen. When he said that he wasn't interested in running for the Senate this time around, I added my voice to those trying to convince the reluctant Tom Udall. At first, Rep. Udall said that he also wasn't interested in changing chambers, he's in a really safe seat, but as the calls for his candidacy rose to a clamor, he relented and threw his hat into the ring.

The NM Democrats switched their Presidential Primary to what was called a caucus, but was really more like a primary to coincide with Super Tuesday. The Democratic down-ticket races and everything Republican will be voting on June 3rd.

The major Republican candidates for the Senate are Reps. Steve Pearce and Heather Wilson. Both have strengths and weaknesses and both are currently polling behind Rep. Udall, but I expect the race to tighten-up by the fall, more so if Rep. Pearce becomes the Republican nominee.

What has struck me though, is that both Republican candidates are referencing their support for the Iraq War in current advertising. Earlier, Rep. Pearce ran a negative ad calling Rep Wilson out for missed votes and she's responded with an ad saying that he voted against funding more border guards and was absent, when one of the Democratic bills calling for an end-date in Iraq came up for a vote.

While on the other hand, Rep. Pearce has been running ads where he touts his unflagging support for the war and in earlier radio ads, he highlighted his fight against "Islamoterrorists" as a plus.

I don't know how this will all play out and right now, we mostly have Republicans on the airwaves because more of them are in a contested primary, but I do find it interesting that both major Senate candidates are trumpeting their pro-War stance, when a lot of people are under the impression that it could be a losing position in the fall.

At about 5:30 (Eastern), Sen. Obama walked into a Raleigh bar which is across from the local paper and within easy reach of most North Carolina station's Raleigh bureau, where he purchased a Pabst Blue Ribbon on tap. He sipped the beer as he mingled with the growing crowd for about half an hour, then he worked the neighboring sidewalk for fifteen minutes and left the area about midway through the six o'clock news.

Now, I don't know where he's staying and the bar could only be a couple of blocks from his hotel, but his rally this evening is on the NC State campus and possibly two miles from the watering hole. Perhaps he didn't choose the bar because of its proximity to media outlets or because it's in an area with likely pedestrian traffic; Maybe he even enjoys drinking Pabst, but the whole thing strikes me as a photo-op for the evening news and where the photo would go immediately onto the web.

And, this is not to say that such a display is somehow bad; It's politics and that's how the game is played.

The News & Observer (Raleigh) is reporting that turnout is strong and that poll workers are giving out large numbers of provisional ballots. Perhaps not everyone is aware, but North Carolina contains some of the country's fastest-growing municipalities and it's altogether a fast-growing state.

According to the report, if a person's address is wrong (perhaps they moved), they are given a provisional ballot and if a registered Republican insists on voting in the Democratic Primary, then they get the same.

Perhaps they'll be able to quickly determine whether someone was eligible to vote or if their vote should count, but I have to say that if neither candidate's margin is wide enough to account for any eventual provisionals and because this situation could effect the accuracy of the exit polls: We could be in for a long night.

As I started down my occasional "where are they now" look at the candidates through the eyes of local media, I did as I've done for several months and started with TPM's "Calendar" page, so that I could more efficiently work my way through my database of links to the nation's newspapers and television stations.

As has been the case more often than not lately, John McCain was only listed as having a single appearance, so I started by trying to find out what he had to say in Charlotte. After not seeing a mention in the big paper, I opted to glance through local television, where I also didn't find him, but I did see the following AP wire story;

Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory is worried that excitement surrounding the Democratic primary will depress turnout among GOP voters, creating an opening for his rivals in the Republican race for the governor.

That was one of the messages McCrory delivered to about 40 supporters Monday while campaigning at Stanly Community College in Locust.

McCrory's campaign is concerned that independents will choose to vote in the Democratic primary so they can cast a ballot in the race for president. The could for his opponents, especially conservative state Sen. Fred Smith.

McCrory touted his record as mayor of North Carolina's largest city, including successful efforts to build a light rail system and redevelop the city's downtown. He cautioned the crowd that his opponents are trying to spin those accomplishments into negatives in their campaign ads.

I hadn't thought about it before, but in the states with open or semi-open primaries, where Independents have to choose in which primary they're going to vote, it means that the down-ticket Republican candidates are being chosen mostly by the party faithful, which could also mean that they'd be less palatable to Independents in November.

So in addition to any down-ticket benefits, real or imagined which might result from whomever is at the top of the Democratic ticket, the continuing primary race could also be setting the party up for additional wins in the fall.

On April 15th, John McCain proposed several planks toward reducing taxes; Among them, he advocated a simpler tax system with only two rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum, cutting the Corporate Income Tax rate from 35% to 25%, a higher tax deduction for children and a summertime "holiday" from the federal gas tax.

In the ABC Pennsylvania debate, Hillary Clinton offered the following in her response to a question posed by Charlie Gibson;

SENATOR CLINTON: -- And thirdly, if there is any kind of gas tax moratorium, as some people are now proposing --

MR. GIBSON: Like John McCain.

SENATOR CLINTON: -- like John McCain, and some Democrats, frankly -- I think Senator Menendez and others have said that we may have to do something, because when you get to $4-a-gallon gas, people are not going to be able to afford to drive to work. And what I would like to see us do is to say if we have that, then we should have a windfall profits tax on these outrageous profits of the oil companies, and put that money back into the highway trust fund, so that we don't lose out on repair and construction and rebuilding.

In his response to the same question, Barack Obama agreed with Sen. Clinton's earlier point about investigating price gouging and market manipulation, plus he voiced support for the concept of a windfall profits tax, then he went into his standard stump about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars. He did not mention a "gas tax holiday", neither pro, nor con because quite frankly, he probably hadn't thought about it and had nothing prepared on the subject.

After the debate, the "gas tax holiday" concept seemed to take on a life of its own and because it is a distinction between Hillary and Sen. Obama, she ran with the idea. Though, throughout and at every mention which I can find, she always ties it to an offsetting "profits tax" to keep money flowing into highway fund. It also appears that if it's at all possible, she'd like to make the "profits tax" permanent, while the "gas tax holiday" would sunset after a few months.

Now, we can all debate the merits or environmental costs of a temporary halt in the gas tax and this is not to say that I support the idea or that one could even pass through Congress, but throughout the debate, she's always tied the "tax holiday" to the offsetting "profits tax" and this all started because she said, if Sen. McCain introduces legislation, she'd attach "pay-as-you-go" language to the bill. Things like this are done all the time in Congress, often someone will attach something that may not win approval on its own to a bill that has to pass or that the President would not be able to veto.

Right now, because so many are still focused on the Democratic primaries, a considerable amount of the discussion has been about the comparisons between the two candidates. I guess that's natural, but like the "tax holiday" or not, it can be argued that Obama dropped the ball because he wouldn't give the idea conditional or non-committal support. I don't say this only because the issue has been hurting him in some of the primary polling data, but if he's the nominee, he's walked right into a Republicans web and we're all going to have to work overtime this fall to help keep his campaign above water.

I've mentioned in several comments about the "tax holiday", John Kerry was hammered with two ads and in several speeches during the '04 cycle because of the false impression, he had favored a fifty-cent increase in the gas tax and that he had "supported" raising it eleven times. Nine of those "times" were all about a single 4.3 cent increase, there was the time that he had misremember about a fifty-cents, a decade before running for President and a vote against a "tax holiday" in 2000.

I've also mentioned on a couple of occasions, the Republicans have already started floating the tagline "Obama-Spend-O-Rama" and now, if you add rolling back the Bush tax cuts, a reinstatement and an increase in the Capital Gains, along with his steadfast refusal to consider a "gas tax holiday", it appears that it may have become easier for them to label him "tax & spend". This could actually be the reason that McCain proposed the "holiday" in the first place. It's easy to understand and all but the most urban residents would be affected.

Once again, as I always say, it's not that I'm saying one Democratic candidate should get the nomination over the other, nor am I saying that there is any wisdom in the concept of a "gas tax holiday", but by remembering the past and by sticking to her conditional approval: I have to say that Sen. Clinton may have won this round and Sen. Obama might have painted himself into a corner. If he is to be the nominee, the most likely scenario, we're all going to need to be prepared to devote large chunks of the next several months defending his spending programs and explaining why his ideas about tax policy are better, all without calling those who disagree, a bunch of hay-sucking morons.

After all, being right may be one thing, but winning election can often be something else.

Last May, Greg Sargent linked to a New York Post article which reported that President and Chief Operating Officer of News Corp. threw a fundraiser to benefit Hillary Clinton's campaign and now we're learning that he donated $4600 to her Presidential bid in June and $12,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) at the end of March, 2008.

I don't know how he feels about Sen. Clinton at this time because he maxed-out almost a year ago, but obviously, he's either been recently supportive of a Democratic majority in Congress, or he's hedging his bets.

Everyone should have ready access to all necessary medical, hospital and related services."
""
"I recommend solving the basic problem by distributing the costs through expansion of our existing compulsory social insurance system. This is not socialized medicine."

"Everyone who carries fire insurance knows how the law of averages is made to work so as to spread the risk, and to benefit the insured who actually suffers the loss. If instead of the costs of sickness being paid only by those who get sick, all the people--sick and well--were required to pay premiums into an insurance fund, the pool of funds thus created would enable all who do fall sick to be adequately served without overburdening anyone. That is the principle upon which all forms of insurance are based."

"During the past fifteen years, hospital insurance plans have taught many Americans this magic of averages. Voluntary health insurance plans have been expanding during recent years; but their rate of growth does not justify the belief that they will meet more than a fraction of our people's needs. Only about 3% or 4% of our population now have insurance providing comprehensive medical care."

"A system of required prepayment would not only spread the costs of medical care, it would also prevent much serious disease. Since medical bills would be paid by the insurance fund, doctors would more often be consulted when the first signs of disease occur instead of when the disease has become serious. Modern hospital, specialist and laboratory services, as needed, would also become available to all, and would improve the quality and adequacy of care. Prepayment of medical care would go a long way toward furnishing insurance against disease itself, as well as against medical bills."

"Such a system of prepayment should cover medical, hospital, nursing and laboratory services. It should also cover dental care--as fully and for as many of the population as the available professional personnel and the financial resources of the system permit."

"The ability of our people to pay for adequate medical care will be increased if, while they are well, they pay regularly into a common health fund, instead of paying sporadically and unevenly when they are sick. This health fund should be built up nationally, in order to establish the broadest and most stable basis for spreading the costs of illness, and to assure adequate financial support for doctors and hospitals everywhere. If we were to rely on state-by-state action only, many years would elapse before we had any general coverage. Meanwhile health service would continue to be grossly uneven, and disease would continue to cross state boundary lines."

"Medical services are personal. Therefore the nation-wide system must be highly decentralized in administration. The local administrative unit must be the keystone of the system so as to provide for local services and adaptation to local needs and conditions. Locally as well as nationally, policy and administration should be guided by advisory committees in which the public and the medical professions are represented."

"Subject to national standards, methods and rates of paying doctors and hospitals should be adjusted locally. All such rates for doctors should be adequate, and should be appropriately adjusted upward for those who are qualified specialists."

"People should remain free to choose their own physicians and hospitals. The removal of financial barriers between patient and doctor would enlarge the present freedom of choice. The legal requirement on the population to contribute involves no compulsion over the doctor's freedom to decide what services his patient needs. People will remain free to obtain and pay for medical service outside of the health insurance system if they desire, even though they are members of the system; just as they are free to send their children to private instead of to public schools, although they must pay taxes for public schools."

"Likewise physicians should remain free to accept or reject patients. They must be allowed to decide for themselves whether they wish to participate in the health insurance system full time, part time, or not at all. A physician may have some patients who are in the system and some who are not. Physicians must be permitted to be represented through organizations of their own choosing, and to decide whether to carry on in individual practice or to join with other doctors in group practice in hospitals or in clinics."

"Our voluntary hospitals and our city, county and state general hospitals, in the same way, must be free to participate in the system to whatever extent they wish. In any case they must continue to retain their administrative independence."

"Voluntary organizations which provide health services that meet reasonable standards of quality should be entitled to furnish services under the insurance system and to be reimbursed for them. Voluntary cooperative organizations concerned with paying doctors, hospitals or others for health services, but not providing services directly, should be entitled to participate if they can contribute to the efficiency and economy of the system."

"None of this is really new. The American people are the most insurance-minded people in the world. They will not be frightened off from health insurance because some people have misnamed it 'socialized medicine'."

"I repeat--what I am recommending is not socialized medicine."

"Socialized medicine means that all doctors work as employees of government. The American people want no such system. No such system is here proposed."

"Under the plan I suggest, our people would continue to get medical and hospital services just as they do now--on the basis of their own voluntary decisions and choices. Our doctors and hospitals would continue to deal with disease with the same professional freedom as now. There would, however, be this all-important difference: whether or not patients get the services they need would not depend on how much they can afford to pay at the time."

"I am in favor of the broadest possible coverage for this insurance system. I believe that all persons who work for a living and their dependents should be covered under such an insurance plan. This would include wage and salary earners, those in business for themselves, professional persons, farmers, agricultural labor, domestic employees, government employees and employees of non-profit institutions and their families."

"In addition, needy persons and other groups should be covered through appropriate premiums paid for them by public agencies. Increased Federal funds should also be made available by the Congress under the public assistance programs to reimburse the States for part of such premiums, as well as for direct expenditures made by the States in paying for medical services provided by doctors, hospitals and other agencies to needy persons."

"Premiums for present social insurance benefits are calculated on the first $3,000 of earnings in a year. It might be well to have all such premiums, including those for health, calculated on a somewhat higher amount such as $3,600."

"A broad program of prepayment for medical care would need total amounts approximately equal to 4% of such earnings. The people of the United States have been spending, on the average, nearly this percentage of their incomes for sickness care. How much of the total fund should come from the insurance premiums and how much from general revenues is a matter for the Congress to decide."

"The plan which I have suggested would be sufficient to pay most doctors more than the best they have received in peacetime years. The payments of the doctors' bills would be guaranteed, and the doctors would be spared the annoyance and uncertainty of collecting fees from individual patients. The same assurance would apply to hospitals, dentists and nurses for the services they render."

"Federal aid in the construction of hospitals will be futile unless there is current purchasing power so that people can use these hospitals. Doctors cannot be drawn to sections which need them without some assurance that they can make a living. Only a nation-wide spreading of sickness costs can supply such sections with sure and sufficient purchasing power to maintain enough physicians and hospitals."

"We are a rich nation and can afford many things. But ill-health which can be prevented or cured is one thing we cannot afford."
---

Excerpted from President Truman's November 19, 1945 address to Congress proposing universal health insurance. For the full text, history and results, see this page in the virtual Truman Library.

Though I haven't done an exhaustive analysis of all available polls, those that I have seen can be generalized as: Democrats think the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do and prefer immediate withdrawal; Republicans think it was right and they're willing to keep going for as long as necessary; Both of these groups cancel each other out for the purposes of the polls and it's the Independents, who decide the finding. Almost always, these voters favor a timetable by a very significant margin.

Of course this is an oversimplification because no group is 100%, but in the fall, it'll most likely be the Independents who will also decide the election.

Now, if you look at a report generated from the "March Tracking Poll" by the Gallup organization, without worrying about which Democrat does better with which subgroup because though that could be helpful when considering electability, it isn't my purpose here; But, if you look at the age brackets in general, you'll see that those 18-29 favor the Democrats by the same approximate margin as those over 65 prefer McCain.

Those in between are pretty much evenly split, so once again, it'll be them who'll probably decide the election.

The 1970s were some of the most tumultuous times in our nation's history. Racial and sexual barriers were being broken down on a regular basis. Young people, who had seized some degree of power during the Civil Rights Era and from the Anti-War movement were trying to reshape the country with radical new ideas and older Americans sometimes felt marginalized and would occasionally push back.

And, while there was a general state of unrest here at home, we also developed something Republicans from Henry Kissinger to George H.W. Bush called "Vietnam Syndrome".

To a V.F.W Hall during the campaign of 1980, Ronald Reagan famously said;

"For too long, we have lived with the 'Vietnam Syndrome'.  Much of that syndrome has been created by the North Vietnamese aggressors who now threaten the peaceful people of Thailand.  Over and over they told us for nearly 10 years that we were the aggressors bent on imperialistic conquests.  They had a plan.  It was to win in the field of propaganda here in America what they could not win on the field of battle in Vietnam.  As the years dragged on, we were told that peace would come if we would simply stop interfering and go home."

"It is time we recognized that ours was, in truth, a noble cause.  A small country newly free from colonial rule sought our help in establishing self-rule and the means of self-defense against a totalitarian neighbor bent on conquest.  We dishonor the memory of 50,000 young Americans who died in that cause when we give way to feelings of guilt as if we were doing something shameful, and we have been shabby in our treatment of those who returned.  They fought as well and as bravely as any Americans have ever fought in any war.  They deserve our gratitude, our respect, and our continuing concern."

And though I haven't bought access to the whole article, a quick Google produced the following opening paragraph from a piece in Winter 91/92 edition of Foreign Affairs;

By God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all!" So said President George Bush in a euphoric victory statement at the end of the Gulf War, suggesting the extent to which Vietnam continued to prey on the American psyche more than fifteen years after the fall of Saigon. Indeed the Vietnam War was by far the most convulsive and traumatic of America's three wars in Asia in the 50 years since Pearl Harbor. It set the U.S. economy on a downward spiral. It left America's foreign policy at least temporarily in disarray, discrediting the postwar policy of containment and undermining the consensus that supported it. It divided the American people as no other event since their own Civil War a century earlier. It battered their collective soul.

Though those born in '78 were still toddlers when Reagan took office and they were only thirteen at the end of the first Gulf War, as you go up the age spectrum, people only get older and they're more apt to remember the times that Jimmy Carter addressed in his famous "Malaise Speech";

"The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation."

"The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America."

"The confidence that we have always had as a people is not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we read just on the Fourth of July. It is the idea which founded our Nation and has guided our development as a people. Confidence in the future has supported everything else -- public institutions and private enterprise, our own families, and the very Constitution of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We've always believed in something called progress. We've always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own."

In addition to the older Americans, it is those who remember the post-Vietnam era that Sen. McCain appears to be targeting with his "Never Surrender" theme. The commercials that he's been testing in New Mexico, both show him as a POW, lying on his cot, one highlights him struggling to speak and they both declare that America will never give up.

It is that sense of pride, Reagan is often credited for restoring that McCain will be trying to harness and not only will he be speaking to those who thought that if we had just kept fighting, we could've eventually "won" Vietnam, but he's also going to be going after those in the middle, who just remember the general funk which hovered over the nation like a dark cloud, as we recovered from some of our most trying times and one of our greatest military defeats.

The other day, LisB offered a post which distinguished between "occupation" and "war". During his time for questions at the Senate hearings, Barack Obama inquired about what would make us happy or what is the minimum that we'd be willing to accept, before we can get out of Iraq. I've long held and actually posted to my now-dormant blog years ago, we should've declared victory and pulled back to the Murtha line.

George Bush has continually moved the goalposts; In the beginning, the stated goal was regime change, then we decided to get them a government and elections, now we're looking for stability: At every station along the path, we could've said that our job was done, but Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" became the rule and there's no doubt that unless something dramatically changes or unless we find another solution, some degree of genocide could easily follow.

If the Democrats are going to want to successfully defeat McCain on the battlefield of Iraq, we aren't going to be able to keep pointing toward a speech from '02, repeat the phrase "100 years" and say that we were wrong. We're going to have to frame withdrawal, not as a defeat, but that our soldiers did what they were asked and now it's time to bring them home with honor. But, perhaps most of all, if the country implodes after we're gone, it's going to take a lot more than a throwing up of hands to assuage our nation's guilt. It's memories of that emotion which McCain is likely to also raise, therefore we're going to need an easily understood and clearly articulated answer before our political victory can be assured.

It seems Sen. McCain told Don Imus that he's narrowing down a list of potential running mates and right now, he's considering about twenty people.

Over the weekend, some folks tossed Condaleeza Rice's name around the media as someone who was campaigning for the position, but it appears that Mr. McCain doesn't have any interest.

The evangelicals keep coming back to Mike Huckabee and he would help McCain with that bloc, but naming him to the number two spot would certainly be political suicide in the general election and I've never actually heard anything from McCain that would make me think he'd be a choice.

Mitt Romney's name is being pushed by folks like Rove and Hannity, he is well liked among the economic wing of the party and he'd really help with money, but there's a group of twenty, prominent social conservatives who are running an open letter ad saying that if McCain picks him, their constituency will either stay home or only vote down-ticket.

There are other names being floated; Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota and former Rep. and past Director of Bush II's OMB, an Ohioian named Rob Portman, but both of these are lesser lights and it seems Sen. McCain's choices could be becoming limited.

Personally, I'm not sure which way McCain would go. There could be an argument that he'll have to shore-up his conservative credentials and as a Democrat, I have to say that this wouldn't worry me. But, if you take into consideration the points raised by my recent post about McCain's race to the middle, then you can't really discount that he may make a choice from the Republican's more moderate ranks.

This could be particularly problematic for the Democrats in the fall because one of the first names which comes to my mind is Colin Powell, who would instantly give the Republicans a boost in the polls and would instll a sense of gravitas to the ticket. And, if he wanted to go unorthodox, I'd have to worry about the possibility of Sen. Olympia Snowe because she'd certainly move Maine to the McCain column, plus she'd help throughout New England, with women and independent voters. Christie Todd Whitman would be another name that might give me pause because she'd help in the Mid Atlantic, she has some economic conservative credentials, plus she quit the Bush Administration over an environmental issue, making her something of a "maverick", who's also known as a fighter.

If you're a Republican, who do you like and if you're a Democrat (like myself), who frightens you?

In an earlier post, I made mention of the fact that no matter who the Democratic nominee, John McCain is drawing 45% among Florida Independents in the latest Quinnipiac University poll. In Ohio he gets 39% with both match-ups and in Pennsylvania, he's polling at 42% or 35%, depending on the opponent.

Now, if you look at what he said Saturday in Prescott, Arizona, you can see that he's obviously trying to capitalize on his appeal to the middle of the road.

His speech was delivered from the steps of the Yavapai County Courthouse, where Barry Goldwater launched every Senate run and where McCain has ended all of his, as an homage to his predecessor. It's also the site, where both men launched their presidential runs.

From the Prescott Daily Courier;

McCain noted how the friendship between the Goldwater and Udall families began with Barry's and Mo's grandfathers Michael and David, the patriarchs of Arizona's most famous Republican and Democratic families. Barry Goldwater served in the Senate for decades while Mo Udall served in the House, and both ran for president.

"The grandsons of Michael and David, despite differences in political parties and philosophies, were very, very close friends," McCain said. "The friendship of Barry Goldwater and Mo Udall was based in their mutual respect for each other's character, devoted service to the state they loved, and patriotism."

From the Arizona Republic;

Despite the increasing harshness of our debates, and the lack of respect it often occasions for each side's good will," McCain said, "I still believe we can and must come together on issues that cannot be addressed without our cooperation. Mo Udall and Barry Goldwater taught me to believe that we are Americans first and partisans second, and I want to be a President that honors their faith in us."

McCain said he expects spirited debates on issues such as health care or national defense, but it must be conducted with honor.

"Let us argue with each other then," McCain said. "But let us remember, we are not enemies. We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy. We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, promote the general welfare and defend our ideals."

And the talking points were reiterated by his colleagues, also from the Prescott paper;

"He does not put politics above principle," Kyl said of McCain.

...

McCain's speech "spoke to bipartisanship, which John McCain has always been known for and which is why he gets things done," said Arizona Rep. Lucy Mason, R-Prescott.

Sen. McCain starts with an advantage among independents and some people say that they could be the ones determining this election. There is some anecdotal evidence that Sen. Obama might cut into his share from this well, but out of the three battleground states above, McCain is rock steady in two and in the third, he ties Sen. Clinton and loses a couple to Obama, with four other points moving to "don't know".

Candidate McCain is supposed to deliver a major speech today, where he will accuse the Democrats of making promises about Iraq that they can't keep and not quitting is a theme of his current ad campaign. Among the voters polled by Quinnipiac in the three battleground states, the overwhelming majority of all voters and those identifying themselves as independent favor setting a timetable for withdrawal over doing it immediately or keeping them there long as needed, but Iraq is the "single most important issue" to only 19-24% of these same groups.

Thus far, McCain appears to be playing to the middle because that's his strong suit. On Iraq everybody has staked their position, but it's not the most important issue to any group and staying there an indeterminate amount of time is statistically tied with immediate withdrawal in the three battleground states among all voters and independents, with the partisans cancelling each other out.

In previous posts and comments, I've said talking heads and op-ed columnists are extensions of the blogosphere and I'm saying it again, so that everyone shares the blame. I've also cautioned that among the greatest threats to a Democratic victory in November, if Obama becomes the nominee will be his vocal supporters and now we may be seeing some of the first signs of this trouble.

Numerous posts and comments from opinion makers have focused on or have mentioned the situation with Florida and Michigan. The Obama people say that the rules must be followed and everyone agreed to abide, while Hillary's supporters often argue that they're both too large and important of a state to risk. In response to an earlier post, I halfway blamed Howard Dean for either keeping the issue alive to be used against Clinton, or because he has no backbone.

A St. Petersburg Times poll dated March 18th revealed that 24% of Florida Democrats say they are less likely to vote for the nominee, if no Florida delegates are seated. Of course how we get them seated is a different matter because though 77% of respondents feel it's a very important matter, only 56% of Hillary's Florida supporters and 27% of those in Obama's camp favored using the previous results. Though perhaps surprisingly, a slight majority of those who support Obama would rather the old results count, when they were also presented with the alternatives of holding a new election or a 50/50 split, but that's obviously a function of a three-way split.

Now you may be tempted to say that's all well and good; It's a three week-old poll and naturally they'd want to count. But, the potential danger for the Democratic party is in another trend.

When the St. Petersburg Times, one of country's most respected newspapers asked in mid-March, 69% of Florida Democrats said they'd be satisfied if Sen. Obama became the nominee and 73% said the same about Sen. Clinton. Yet in a poll from Quinnipiac University released a few days ago and mentioned in the Palm Beach Post, only 61% of this same group said they'd vote for Obama over John McCain and Hillary's share of the party's vote increased to 78%.

In an imaginary match-up among all Florida voters, Clinton and McCain are in a statistical tie, 44% to 42% with Hillary polling on top and in that same survey, McCain beats Obama, 46% to 37%. (For the record: Obama and Hillary are tied among Independents in these imaginary match-ups, 35% to 36% respectively, with McCain getting 45% both times.)

By no means could you say with any certainty that Obama's slippage among Florida Democrats is entirely attributable to the primary question; If you look at the underlying data, you'd see that there are other factors at play. But, I do have to think that all of the noise about keeping Florida out and insisting on punishing them for their legislature's act has to be part of his problem. No matter how you feel about the rules or how a compromise is formed, you have to recognize that being used as a stick by one side to hit another, surely wouldn't endear you to the one administering the beating and considering that the Republicans in Michigan are also starting to feel optimistic for this and other reasons, the Obama supporters might want to tone it down.

I'm still fairly new to this space. I did maintain a general interest blog which included quite a bit of politics for a couple of years, but then circumstances caused me to take a short break and when I was ready to return, I feared that it'd become too loaded with the primary election and I'd risk alienating some of my readers. Therefore after some heavy commenting, here and there, I decided to join this community as an outlet for some of my political thought.

In my few weeks here, I have to say that I have been somewhat surprised by the repetitious posts and comments revolving around ridiculous charges against the Democratic candidates; general meanspiritedness; misinterpretations of campaign statements and candidate histories; a disconnect between what originated in the media or with a campaign; and folks completely ignoring that their candidate is doing something similar to what they deem repugnant from the other side. Perhaps more of than not, whenever I'm here, I have engaged in some of these discussions through scattered comments, but more importantly as a political animal and a lifelong Democrat: I'm glad there seems to be so many people involved in the process and passionate about the upcoming election.

Unfortunately, some of us have really started falling into doomsday scenarios, with both sides talking about a perceived viciousness coming from the other campaign and how this could make one bloc or another sit home in November. People seem to completely ignore the fact that the Democratic candidates themselves are being very civil, they generally only (indirectly) refer to each other once in a rally and both of their sights appear to be set squarely on Sen. McCain or the Republican Party.

I'll admit that if you only read the political blogs, you'd think the Democrats are on the verge of a total collapse and whole segments of the population are soon going to be filled with hate. Thankfully, if you read the person-on-the-street interviews in mainstream media, look at the polls or have a casual conversation with someone not so heavily involved, you'll find that nothing could be further from the truth. Though, of course because talking heads are just a slightly higher-rated extension of the blogosphere, there may still be enough time for us to bully the party into a civil war, but we're not there yet and maybe it's time for a little perspective.

A recent poll from Harris Interactive offers the following statistics in its introduction;

...over half of Americans (56%) say they never read blogs that discuss politics. Just under one-quarter (23%) say that they read them several times a year and just 22 percent of Americans read blogs regularly (several times a month or more).

...Just nineteen percent of Echo Boomers (those aged 18-31) regularly read a political blog and only 17 percent of Gen Xers (those aged 32-43) say the same. Matures (those aged 63 and older) are actually the generation most likely to be political blog readers as just over one-quarter (26%) say they regularly do so followed by 23 percent of Baby Boomers (those aged 44-62).

Of course, I'm here, right along with everyone else and I'm sure our ranks are growing as the lines between mainstream media and the blogosphere are being blurred, but all this doom, gloom and obsessions with navel-gazing perceptions have to be taken with a grain of salt. Most of the world, or even most Democratic voters aren't filled with vitriol and outside of a fraction among the 6% (of Dems) who post comments in a given week or the ranks of our associated bodies (talking heads, op-ed columnists), I'm not really hearing anyone talk about stolen elections, underhanded tactics, untransversable chasms, irredeemable characters or threatening to sit this one out.

The primaries will soon be over and no matter which candidate wins, we'll be headed toward the fall. Perhaps we each have an opinion about what candidate should be victorious and maybe we don't all agree, much like the electorate, but it's really time for us to lay down arms, quit tearing each other or our histories apart and focus on the future.

In Politics 101, you learn about "Peer Group Leaders"; We are those people.