(1) Graf on Torricelli, which has nothing to do with Obama except they're both Dems. Some Dems are bad, of course.

(2) Obama's from Chicago and so were the Daleys, but no actual allegation of anything vs. Obama.

(3) Attack based on Obama's alleged plan to replace Biden w/ Hillary, which appears to be the author's imagination -- but then Obama's attacked for supposedly preparing to do what the author imagines.

(4) McCain's "suspension" stunt has proved to be just that, a stunt. Obama "paused"? Maybe he needed to ACTUALLY THINK about what was best in this crisis? For a day? With $700B on the line?

(5) Rest of article: invective & a swipe vs. Biden's plagiarism, but no facts vs. Obama.

Denise, if you're relying on "evidence" like that, then I think you need to consider that your anxiety about Obama is coming from somewhere else. I dunno where (hey, I don't even know you!), but you might want to think about it.

There is a theme to the political campaign of Barack Obama. It follows the teachings of Saul Alinksy, and it can be summed up easily: I will do anything to win. That was the theory of Alinsky, whose radicalism was simply radicalism for power, not for the powerless. Obama, like Alinsky, is not so much an ideologue as a power fanatic.

Men who will do anything to win will end up doing nothing good at all. In college, it seems, Obama heard and spoke the word "power" as normal people would speak or hear the words "soul" or "honor" or "God." Power, alone, counts to him. He will do anything to win power, and men who will do anything to win power will do anything at all.

I hear this about Obama, but for the life of me, I don't understand what particular examples anyone has in mind, or how the same criticism does not apply a thousandfold to McCain, who has no consistent principles that I can discern.

Why can't we get a decent candidate?

Well, Obama could nationalize the nation's largest insurer and propose spending $700B on handouts to Wall Street ... oh wait ...

It looks pretty gloomy for our country

Gloomy? If Obama wins?

Good god, after Iraq, September 11th, tortured prisoners, Katrina, Wall Street meltdowns, "pre-emptive" wars, 19% approval ratings, the prosecutor scandals, $5.00/gallon gas and every other disaster we've lived through in the past eight years, FFS, what could anyone do to make things any worse?

True. Maybe McCain will cry over breakfast the day before the election.

It looks pretty gloomy for our country

I am always curious what, exactly, people think is going to happen to the U.S. under Obama, particularly by contrast with what's happened to the U.S. in the past 8 years of Republican rule in the White House.

(1) apocalyptically negative GOP ads;

(2) a national-security crisis (al-Qaeda attacks, we bomb Iran, maybe even another Osama video);

(3) a bullet.

Steve Schmidt is doubtless working on (1); Osama is likely working on (2), and I wouldn't assume Bush has no October Surprise re: Iran; and who knows who's working on (3) right now.

Obama does appear to be pulling away where it counts-the electoral vote which means he is performing well in states where he had to perform well.

Also, let's face it the economy only helps the democrats-the worse the economy is and stays up until election day the more the democrats are going to win, because public perception is that the democrats are better on the economy-even if the perception is incorrect.

This is now and IMO always has been Obama's race to lose. There is still a lot of time-the time when most people are paying attention for Obama to blow it, but I really think if McCain wins come November is it going to be something Obama did to sabotage his own race, not because McCain managed some spectacular last minute feat to bring home the victory.

My concern is just how badly the GOP is going to get slammed in the house and senate races. The last thing I want is Obama in the white house and the democrats with large majorities in the house and senate.

Polls are based upon samplings. Answering a question of who you intend to vote for is not the same as voting for that individual.

But when the polls show your guy winning, then they're accurate as all hell and you're more than happy to cite them as evidence, right? (Don't even try to deny it, Zelsdorf.)

It is difficult to believe Obama can win unless the truth can remain hidden from the general public.

Yeah, really difficult. If he wins, why, the only answer must be that the American people were duped, not that *all the polls* show more Americans favor him than the alternative. Nope, couldn't be that. It has to be the Area 51 aliens are in cahoots with Sasquatch and bankrolled by the Rothschild family.

Zelsdorf, it's amazing the conspiracy theories you won't entertain to sustain your political delusions.

By the way. Did Dewey win in 48? He surely lead in all the polls.

Please. You're pinning your hopes on something that happened 60 years ago when polling was in its infancy and demonstrably poorly polled (the polls were conducted by phone, when something like less than 40 percent of the population had phones, i.e., only the rich had phones)?

Man alive, I know that ostriches supposedly burying their heads in the sand is a myth, but Zelsdorf burying his isn't.

It is difficult to believe Obama can win unless the truth can remain hidden from the general public. I wonder if the editors and station chiefs of TV stations are ready for the results when Obama imposes in Change on us.

Yes, the truth must remain hidden. Hard to imagine it can given good work being done by Hannity and Limbaugh and the like. I guess those millions and millions of listeners just are keeping a bit too quiet.

they should have a rally or a march to get the truth out. Or better yet get Sarah Palin out there to set the record straight. I mean if it wasn't for the MSM completely ignoring her she could be giving news conference after news conference and telling people the truth about Obama.

I haven’t the slightest idea why the national race remains so close while the Electoral College race seems to be breaking so strong for Obama.

Will this work for you? The national and daily tracking polls have to pick representative states. Thus the Big Blues (California, New York) are competing against Small Reds (Alabama, Oklahoma, etc). In the Big Swing (Ohio, Florida, Indiana), the GOP vs Democratic vote tend to cancel each other out…

We could, conceivably, have a race where Obama barely wins the national popular vote — indeed, falls short of a majority even without major third party candidates — yet wins by an Electoral College landslide.

My nightmare is the opposite, Obama wins the national popular vote, McCain squeezes an Electoral College victory. I do not think that will happen, but if does, the country will explode.

Try this one: When Obama kept agreeing with McCain during the debates, it drove my craven liberal soul up a tree, we need a fighter I muttered. Next morning I applied this yard stick to the debates:

Obama is smarter than I am.

At a time that the right and left are at each others throats, one candidate (McCain) is combative. The other (Obama) agrees on some points, disagrees on others. Obama came across as the conciliator, McCain as the bull dog fighter who is not going to change his opinion. Who do you think won those think the country cannot function in the great partisan divide?

Others, above, have commented that the polls are shifting in Obama’s favor. A late debate effect? A Sarah Palin reality check? Who knows...