I listened to Harold Ford, Chris Mathews, and a couple of other guys talk about how McCain had somehow nailed the issues  and cast Obama as the agent of sameness (huh?) while he, McCain, was going to protect the little old ladies, small businesses, and independent-minded Murricans from Obama's rapacious tax plan.  Left me scratching my head, because before they cut into McCain's speech to tell of Obama's having clinched the nomination I was listening to the speech, and it was full of mispronunciations and start-overs, read as if he'd been picked for his middle school's welcome of the new superintendent.  It WAS awful, but you never would have known that to listen to the chattering classes.  Ford, in particular, leaves me completely perplexed with his "analyses", often finding substance in Republican talking points which sound like they were lifted from Newt's 1992 playbook.  I mean, it's just OLD.  

n/t

Last night was the first time in over a week that I watched TV.  Instead I have been enjoying a number of National Parks (Mesa Verde, Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce, Grand Tetons and Yellowstone).  After two days, I got stir crazy, and at a visitors center in CO, took a look at RK.  And a bit of MSNBC.com.  I caught one Olberman while on the road.  Otherwise, too busy hiking, undoing the hiking by glorious eating, rafting down the Snake River, and generally being in natural scenic wonder heaven.  Last night, we returned to horrendous rain, hail, and even a funnel cloud I saw in the near distance as we landed in Roanoke.  As we arrived home and quickly turned on the TV to see Barack seal the nomination, we saw something quite different.  It was McShame's night.  No, it was Hillary's.  And she spoke as if she is the supposed front-runner.  And we can't blame her if she wants to tick it to Barack.  She passed-the-buck-to-supporters, who are supposed to tell her what to do.  Honestly, she thinks she should be president?

Even Hillary or John McShame cannot undo the magic of our National Parks.  But its not that they didn't try mightily to ruin our night.

PS Town Halls with McShame?  I don't think so.  The man can't seem to handle the truth if it hits him in the eye.  The man deserves to talk to himself and his many "my friends."

You have to look at these things objectively. For some of us, that prism simply does not exist, its our way or guy/gal or nothing. McCain is a below average orator and the his speeches always read better than delivery. Obama by nature always delivers the same kind of message you would get ta any southern baptist church in Richmond on Sunday morning. Who would not want to to be uplifted--is not that the reason we go on Sunday anyway?
I rate these speeches in terms of message not delivery. I think the message getting missed was the 18 million across the bow shot Hillary Clinton gave to Obama's campaign. Clinton's speech message and delivery was aweful. McCain's delivery was bad but his content stuck me as an indication or roadmap to come. He seem posied to return to his 2000 form. As an independent and fiscal conservative I can tell you I felt it was speaking right at my camp (for the first time this whole primary season). Obama also delivered a tremondous speech but in large part due to the momment it was a celebrtation-like speech and not the kind-of speech McCain delivered which was more rooted in a framework for the next five months.
I give bot Obama and Mccain A's and frankly give Clinton a D. I will let the experts here determine the curve.

He brought that on himself.  In 2000 he could have had our sympathy for the way he was treated by Bush's primary team in South Carolina...  but no - he ended up endorsing Bush in 2000 at the Republican convention.

Then he continued to support 95% of Bush's initiatives while in the Senate, only differing slightly on the surge and torture, but not enough to make a difference.  He has come down against veterans every time his vote might of helped or he could have spoken out for veterans as one himself.

He can claim he wants to change all he wants, but the truth is, he has earned the title "John McSame" - because he has been in lock step with the Bush administration and Rove tactics all along.  Completely unacceptable.

John McCain deserves and in fact earned my respect (though maybe not my vote) when during teh 2000 Presidential race against Bush in our home state of Virginia down in Robertson country outside Va Beach in the middle of Primary season had the guts to call it like it is and state that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were "divisive conservatives" for the very reasons you express on your blog you support. He lost Virginia because of it. He had won New Hampshire by like 20% and the Bush folks went nasty in SC (we should have known then) through the effective push polling ways back by evangelical groups to be sure.
The 95% number is reflective of the last Congress only Scott and not the eight years Bush has been in office. For the first two years they hardly spoke. Remember Campaign Reform Act 2002. McCain-Feingold, HMO reforms McCain in line with Dems, against tax cut of 2001 (only one other Republican voted nay) then again 2003 against Bush tax cut, Aviation and Transportation Security, Climate Stewardship Act (people here on RK are praising John Warner today but he is 5 years behind McCain/Libermann on this stance--where is the credit? Oh and lets not forget the McCain Detainnee Amendment that Bush sought to remove from his legislation agenda.
Don't forget Jim Jeffords either. McCain supported his right to become an Independent while the WH scolded the Republican.

There are countless issues that McCain and Bush are not even in the same zip code on. Its easy to fall into the trap of the media on things like this if you really do not become a student of the issues.

Yes McCain did support the last round of tax cuts, but frankly the economy warranted those in my opinion and so much had changed (in large part due to failed policy) than 2001 and 2003 that the cuts were neccessary as were the rebates to try and stimulate things.

Yes. McCain as what became known as "McCains plan" if I recall and the surge in Iraq was supported and it was McCain who forced publically the critcisms of Rumsfield onto the front pages. Though he supported the war effort, he never supported the way in which the war was being managed. Clinton and McCain were very similar in this area reagarding how it was being overly pressed in Iraq at the detrement of Afghanistan.

But alas, yesterdays maverick on climate change, immigration, campaign finance reform, elimiantor tax loopholes, excessive farm subsidies, pork barrel spending critic is yesterdays "maverick" but todays "McSame".

Fact is if John McCain is George Bush 3 than Barack Obama on the same line is simply just another Jimmy Carter I guess. Do you find that fair? I dont. These men are there own men  and we should respect them as such.

Fact is the only difference today is that John McCain is the Republican nominee so of course he is a target. I wonder if folks here could align themselves with someone who in 2000 had his wife called an anareczic drug addict, that his child because she is dark skinned was a black child conceived by McCain out of wedlock and that he was a spreader of agent orange in Vietnam ---could actually forgive the perpetraitor of such evil in Bush during the 2000 Primary.

I think not. Obama can and should stick to the issues of the future and not the past to beat McCain. There is enough real record there if anyone takes the time to review it to see McCain is not Bush, which is why even in this 2008 campaign the evangelicals that elected Bush to the ticket in 2000 will not support McCain.

Fair enough... but my aversion to McCain is not simply because he still calls himself Republican (though that is one small reason to avoid him, in my opinion).  In fact I dislike both McCain and Clinton for many of the same reasons, to whit:

they are both too cosy with big business interests and not interested in backing people against large corporations

they both voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq when the evidence was clearly visible to all who were interested that deposing Saddam would not help us stop terrorism, would destabilize the Middle East, and remove an important (if annoying) check on Iranian power in the region.  They both, as US Senators with integrity (which I now doubt) should have asked for more details and at least voted present until more information came in.  They chose to endorse Bush's foreign adventurism instead, and for that - no respect.

As for the campaign finance reform:
1) it was too little too late to really stop corporate buying of our government
2) McCain is violating the very law he co-sponsored with his current campaign!!!!!!!

Yes, in 2000 I was glad he came out against Robertson and Falwell, and I lost some of my father-in-law's respect when I was pointing that out (he is more rabidly anti-Republican than I am), but since then McCain has tried to get Hagee and Parsley to endorse him and then been forced to distance himself from Hagee because of Hagee's statements; so I see little difference between Hagee and Robertson - so why is McCain flip-flopping on this?

The Hagee thing disturbs me about as much as when I learned Obama was leaving his church. I like people who make their bed to actually sleep in it if you know what I mean. Its disturbing and shows the transparency of too much politics in it all when we have people (the real scary ones are behind the scenes you know) that guide these men to make descisions to me that seem merely as politically expedient and nothing else.
The flip flopping I think on this began once it became a reality that Obama was going to be the nominee and sense the Wirght thing had hit full throttle his people probably figured it was safer to back away with little fall out.
It will be interesting to see if Obama accepts the invitation for the town hall meetings. I know alot of my feeling will hinge on that I think. I do not really think Obama enagaged Clinton much on real issues and spent too much time focusing on answering Wright and all the nonsens about white/black voting patterns etc. Though I have supported Obama in the process, honestly we really have not discerned much about how we are going to pay for all these things and as a fiscal conservative thats important to me. The premise is enough to get engaged but we still need to pay for it.
To me, I am more interested in the following; social security (saving or ditching it), healthcare reform, tax subsidies/loopholes supporting big business at expense of us, and lastly a real education debate because our schools are broken.
Notice no Iraq in there. I am a veteran and know all to well regardless of whose in office based on what has gone on on the ground (base construction, both air and ground) we will be there well into the second term of any President. I was there in 1990. Most people have not a clue about exactly how long it takes to get that many troops in and out (no way all can be out in 180 days), though in fairness the number is alot less than what was withdrawn after the first Gulf War.

That speech was one of the most embarassing and pitiful exhibits I've ever seen; just pitiful.

Besides bending himself backwards to address his lack of leadership on the "Change" issue, McCain completely threw under the bus the president, along with the 27% of the country who remain in the tank for the worst president in history.

Bush supporters would supposedly comprise McCain's base (his real base is the media).  Apparently in his old-fashioned, and somewhat addled mind, McCain doesn't think he needs an actual political base.  This is ridiculous.  After watching the two speeches last night, you can rest assured that Obama will find overwhelming support from independents.

McCain is an unprincipled, dolt, who is capable of taking any political position for the sake of expediency.  He's gotten away with this for so long that he thinks people will continue to buy his horse-hockey.  Not this year, not gonna happen.

McSame is now McLame.