Considering that most people didn't even know that he had the border line incorrect, being even more unknowledgable than McCain about foreign borders (as most are) until the news pointed it out, I'd say that this didn't do a thing against him, as the only ones who seem to care are the ones already looking to slam McCain anyway. Obama, however, gets the number of states in his OWN COUNTRY incorrect, claiming that there's 57, and then believing that a presidential term lasts for FIVE years...now THAT has to hurt. Getting the number of states wrong and the length of a presidential term trumps McCain not knowing foreign border lines any day of the week. If it's to be a comparison, if that's how we judge the candidates, then I'd say Obama really, really blew it already. He doesn't know borders within his OWN country versus McCain screwing up a comment on a foreign country, he doesn't know presidential terms, he doesn't understand long term consequences of Robin Hood economics, he completely forgot his past stance on Tibet and several other countries...and yet people say that McCain has the bad memory, yeesh.

Childish and counterproductive. Considering the closeness of the latest polls, if McCain has 3 votes then that would mean Obama has a whopping 3.18 votes, not even 4 for himself. McCain has millions of votes already, as does Obama. The differences lie in the changes in the number of votes each has. McCain has been seeing a steady rise, while Obama has been putting his foot in his mounth and over the past few weeks has seen nothing but a steady drop, meaning that if the current trend were to continue at even half speed, Obama would lose in a landslide with the popular vote. Even with being ahead, the curve of votes itself shows Obama in serious trouble. Double digit leads to practically touching each other in so short a time demonstrates that Obama's recent strategies have backfired.

Shouldn't be much of a problem for him at all. Now that Obama's own economists have shot down his economic proposals as being entirely counterproductive, the GOP already appears more constructive. His statements about drilling offshore being worthless because it would take, gask, a few years to bring any changes really put him out of step with many, and cost him severely. It's an obvious statement, pure common sense, but if we had started five years ago on a plan which would help within five years, that time would be now. We can either focus on long term solutions, or wait until a magic non-existant solution comes about which can be implemented in a single day and create change instantly. Five years down the road the help offered can already exist, or we can continue looking for the quick fix. Personally, I'm going to side with the long term solutions that, like any decent solution, takes a while to implement and affect us. Having the plan running five years from now is a whole lot better than still having nothing. Obama came off as only wanting a solution if it creates immediate change so that the credit would be given to him while he was still President, assuming he actually was given the job of course.

most people I know simply do not think Obama has the experience necessary to lead this nation.

So that's what? Three votes for McCain?

Beldar's point about high energy costs could not only help McCain but if the Republicans get busy they could use it to regain losses in the congress.

Good luck with that. The Bush family blocked drilling for almost 20 years while the Saudis waxed fat...

This may be correct -- certainly Rasmussen's latest polls indicate that the American people have suddenly become less concerned about any environmental consequences of drilling the moment the price of gas rose. But there's one little catch: everybody, including the Dept. of Energy, agrees that even if we start drilling immediately and massively it will be 7 to 20 years before the price of gas drops more than a few cents per gallon as a consequence. So what will happen when McCain and the GOP, this year, advocate major drilling and it does absolutely nothing to actually lower gas prices by November? (Or, for that matter -- if McCain is elected -- by 2012?) Given this, why won't Obama be able to trump him as the campaign continues by suggesting that we will be able to lower gas prices just as fast by instead developing more energy-efficient cars and means of transit -- and with environmental advantages thrown in?

if he can persuade the public that he and the GOP are more likely than Obama and the Dems to do something constructive about that.

I am waiting for him to explain why his friends the Bush family blocked drilling for almost 2 decades...

The empty rhetoric is not winning over anyone undecided and those who are just voting antiwar have obviously chosen sides already.

Well, McCain ain't doing himself any favors re his natsec cred by doing things like referring to the Iraq-Afghanistan border and claiming the surge was responsible for the Anbar Awakening when, if fact, the Awakening predated the surge by about six months.

It's the domestic issue on which the Dems are most vulnerable because they're so obviously blocking normal market forces through big government regulation;

I don't think it's nearly obvious enough to people who aren't interested in politics for it to be useful to McCain.

Um, yeah, considering that gas was like $1.50 a gallon when Bush became president.

I'm not sure how much influence the President can have on gas prices either way, but I don't see how the GOP points fingers. At least, not without some demagoguery that will make even the SCLM wrinkle its nose in distaste.