My god, the best attack they can come up with is EMAIL???!!!!

He even has a catchy name for it, tying it to high energy costs:  The Emergency Energy Rebate.

It's $500 for individuals and $1000 for families.  And it's separate from his tax credit proposal.

He also has a way to pay for it:  Increasing windfall profit taxes on oil companies.

He made a passing reference to it in his THIS WEEK interview.  But didn't explain it, or name it.

Can anyone explain to me why he doesn't want to talk about this?

I just can't help but wonder if he's going to have his Hillary moment - you know, the one where when she's finally backed into the corner, she does a gut check, and completely figures out a new strategy... you know - one that works, and helped her win some primaries.

I mean isn't this the true nature of the candidate we need to see most - when the chips are down, and your back is against the corner - WHAT WILL YOU DO?... How will you resolve to succeed? - for yourself, for your nation??

Hillary found her way out of that corner (although she was still buried by the SD's)... and even McCain seemed backed in after the Dem Convention, and look how he pushed that away...

I'm just askin' if Obama has had that moment yet?... Was the Wright fiasco that moment? - and resolved with a speech? - I think not - limping past the finish line isn't exactly fighting your way out of a corner... but would love to hear others thoughts.  I think he's about to have that moment or is right in it - and I'm fascinated to see how he will get himself out of it - if he is capable of it.

These are well-heeled, middle-aged Republican ladies who have been disgusted and demoralized.  Yesterday, they were high-fiving each other; they are energized.  

Far from seeing Bush's 3rd term, I think they see their party regaining prestige, returning to its senses if you will, when just a few months ago all seemed lost.  And they are thrilled to see a woman in the VP slot.

The essence of it is that the US will treat any country that harbors, aids or supports terrorists as being terrorists themselves, and we reserve the right to pre-emptively attack to protect our interests, without a requirement that the threat be imminent or a requirement that our allies  agree with our justification or support our actions.

In catching up, I've read some comments about this being vague or just a liberal talking point, and it's not.  Bush clearly communicated this doctrine across various speeches in 2001-2003 and it has guided the country's actions since (allowing other countries to use it to defend their own actions).

Every presidency is associated with a primary doctrine of foreign policy, and it seems to me that for the past fifty or so years, each president's doctrine of FP has been more aggressive and militaristic than the doctrine that came before, with the possible exceptions of Nixon (in part, allies are expected to provide their own primary defense) and Clinton (vague, but including that we may intervene on humanitarian in addition to security basis).

My father in law is 73.
My father in law was a Hillary caucuser, but said, of course, I'll vote for whichever Democrat
My father in law doesn't use email either and is actually technophobic.
It's really not that uncommon for the older set to be non-computer users or even technophobic.
The older set don't usually DVR and fast forward through commercials so if this one runs every day, it'll piss many folks off.
The older set vote.
I know, let's piss off the older set.
And I won't even start on the elitism issue with this ad.  What about people who can't afford computers or don't have time to email because they're working two jobs -- bitter, low information voters in Penn, for instance.

Okapi photographed in the wild for the first time.

Unfortunately, I think there's no chance in hell that Obama will win NC.  So perhaps there will be opportunities to phonebank for swing states or do other things.  And voter registration isn't bad in and of itself.  

And remember Ford?  He was called clumsy and dumb even though he probably wasn't either.

Anyone who wants to understand Ohio should read it.

I do NOT agree with his idea to do a Sarah Palin attack ad or that such a thing is key.

"Doesn't McCain want our children to protect themselves from sex offenders?"

After the club vibe of the last album, this has a relaxed coffee house feel.

Unfortunately, this little scenario has been proven to be entirely possible...Again.  But, of course, no one would EVER deliberately tamper with an election.....right?

He also brought on campaign people who Hillary had fired because they were pulling Hillary's campaign down.  I never understood that move on Obama's part.  And, well, we need to face it - there just aren't any more of the kind of people that Obama easily and emotively appeals to - everyone else in America is feeling hardship, have age related backaches, and can barely operate their new remote controls let alone email their friends and family on a PC in the backroom collecting dust.  Heck, most of us over 50 can barely see the little bitty numbers on our cell phones. You think people over 50 even care what some young upstart thinks of them?  Who came up with this idea?  Put him in a time machine and push fast forward.  You know, all the "not-with-it people the Obama campaign are making fun of by denigrating McCain for being old and not-with-it might just find it easier to remain in their Lazy-boy loungers watching reruns than hobble down to the polling station and forget why they came there in the first place.  Oh, yeah, to vote for the guy that doesn't make fun of the matured.  Isn't his name McCain? What a  campaign winner...zzzzzz.

Fully 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience - an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about McCain running mate Sarah Palin, serving her second year as Alaska governor after being a small-town mayor.

from an AP poll yesterday