I'm not at all sure that the winner next week really matters. There are times when leadership can determine events and times when events control the leaders. The next few years will be a period where it will matter not who is in power because the reactive options are so limited that Obama/McCain Red/Blue would end up doing the same things anyway. The differences will be at the (inconsequential) margins. Much like Rudd/Swan are doing pretty much what Howard/Costello would have done, so Obama will do what McCain would have done and vis a versa.

But I'm interested in the leadership qualities the author lists...
The mass appeal of JFK? Kennedy won in 1960 in one of the closest elections of all time and only with the help of the mafia. And the next election wasn't a done deal either, which is why he was in Texas campaigning. He only gained mass appeal after his assassination. I'm not sure this is the type of mass appeal the author advocates.

The author seems to have forgotten Obama and McCain were pretty well level in the polls up till the financial collapse.

McCain has run a remarkable campaign saddled with Bush, the financial crisis, being hugely outspent and facing a media championing Obama, which is constantly excusing and overlooking his and Biden's blunders, shifting policies and is completely lacking in any scrutiny of them.

Astonishing that McCain is still so close.

McCain’s campaign has indeed been remarkable for the rat-a-tat-tat of aspersion, character assassination and whipping up of base emotion among his supporters, many of whom now believe Obama is (i) Muslim (ii) a closet terrorist (iii) anti-American (iv) part of an African oligarchy (v) a friend of the PLO (vi) communist (vii) not an American citizen (viii) child killer ... plus anything else to engage the fearful minds of the republican base.

I’m assuming Obama’s got it in the bag. The fallout’s going to be fun to watch

Keith, why is McCain so short of money compared with Obama? This didn't happen by itself. His campaign has been most remarkable for the fact that he appears to have been given a makeover by the people who put Bush in office. Had he run as himself, I (and most non-core Republican supporters) would have found him a lot more appealing. It is particularly bizarre that he has done this when being different from Bush is a big plus this time around. If you actually look at the historical trend (towards the bottom of http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Oct30.html) you will see that McCain has only been ahead for very brief periods since Obama emerged as the most likely Democrat contender (particularly after the Republican convention; candidates almost always get a boost from their convention).

As for JFK's mass appeal, I didn't mean while campaigning. I was thinking more of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" moments. RFK's campaign is more similar in terms of excitement though I didn't want to raise that campaign because of the way it ended.

PhillipM,

Where ever did you get the idea McCain is short of money? I only said he's been outspent. Obama has raised and spent more than any other candidate in US history. McCain stuck by his pledge of running on public funding. Obama pledged the same but reneged on that written undertaking. Over to you to make a judgement and comment on Obama's deceipt on that issue rather than making a snide slur on the McCain Campaign's fundraising ability. It will be interesting after the election when analysis of donations takes place and Obama cannot identify the source of most of his small anonymous donations made via the internet. Anonymous donations are supposed to be returned.

I never said McCain was consistantly ahead of Obama ... read what I said again...sigh...

US voters seem to be much more decerning than you over trying to tie McCain to Bush.

There is absolutely no doubt McCain has always been his own man. You're being snide to try to paint him as a toady. Who's man is Obama is an intriguing question which few democrats or media freaks seem to want to ask.

Seen the latest mid week traditional polls? I'd tend to disregard those tracking and weekend polls.

Roll on Tuesday.

'leaders' are not the answer, not in america. leaders have brought them to their present situation. the structure of their society ensures periodic disaster, since each presidential election is an event in a russian roulette where 'winning' just means survival, but losing is the prelude to wars, financial disruption, and environmental degradation.

obama will be a pause on america's spiral into decay. he will be an aurelius after a commodus. but there will be more commoduses, more neros, more caligulas, and each will do damage that can't be repaired.

the only hope for america is democracy, and an end to tying a whole nation's welfare to the character of a person who probably should not be in charge of a dog. they're too ignorant for democracy, like most of the world. too bad their misfortune will likely ruin us all.

Charles Krauthammer in his latest article on The Washington Post hit the nail on its head on the issue of the November 4 election. Indeed, and I’m paraphrasing, the crucial issue for Americans on November 4 will be to identify the lion-hearted and the lamb-hearted. If lacking the will or cognitive ability to make this identification and vote-- out of irrational hate for Bush-Cheney and the Republicans as a result of their lack of understanding of the immeasurably intricate strategic situation that the Bush administration was placed in the aftermath of 9/11 and the ‘razor-edge’ difficult decisions it had to take to protect America from the deadliest of foes- for the “lamb” Obama, then America like sheep will be taken to the ‘slaughterhouse’. And there will be no shortage of intellectual shepherds to lead America to the abattoir. And ironically the arch enemy of Western civilization fanatical Islam will be licking its chops.

http://avant-gardestrategies.typepad.com

It’s a bit melodramatic to suggest Tuesday’s task is “to identify [between] the lion-hearted and the lamb-hearted”, Thermistocles. Does a wariness of four more years of failed republican policy really represent small minded irrational hate, or could there be other reasons? Name one major Bush policy which was successfully implemented and carried out.

McCain voted for around 90% of Bush’s economic proposals. A few years ago he did speak up once against it; today he’s endorsing them again.

Here’s a brief bio of Charles Krauthammer from RightWeb.org:

“Krauthammer penned a broadside in Foreign Affairs about the direction of U.S. foreign policy. The article came to serve as the basis for a new neocon agenda in the 1990s, one that ultimately culminated in the Iraq War and the George W. Bush administration's "war on terror." No surprise then his opinion piece promotes more of the same. McCain wants another 100 years in Iraq too.

Your posts are usually more accommodating. Since voting for Obama demonstrates a “lack in the will or cognitive ability” to distinguish between the situation the poor republicans find themselves in, through no fault of their own no doubt, and the opportunism of a group of anti-american commie-loving ovine “intellectual shepherds”, you’re parroting the narrative the GOP machine has used for years. Until now it’s worked well but you can see now where it’s taken the country.

I’ve been doing a little more research on who “lacks the will or cognitive ability” to tell who best represents their interests and who would vote “out of irrational hate” for someone else. George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/06/09/about-george-monbiot/) points out:

“In the most powerful nation on Earth, 1 adult in 5 believes the sun revolves around the Earth; only 26 percent accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map.”

“A student can now progress from kindergarten to a higher degree without any exposure to secular teaching. Southern Baptist beliefs pass intact through the public school system as well. A survey by researchers at the University of Texas in 1998 found that 1 in 4 of the state's public school biology teachers believed that humans and dinosaurs lived on Earth at the same time.”

These are precisely the people Sarah Palin was selected to represent and very likely lead as president. Personally I’m in favour of someone with their feet on the ground. Obama won’t be introducing community love-ins where everyone sings kumbayah, but he might pull away from “bomb bomb bombing Iran” in time for diplomacy to have a chance. McCain, like bush, seems to believe hearts and minds are there for the, er, taking by force.

The hard part is convincing the electorate it’s good for them but according to 80% of Americans and the rest of the planet they’ve stopped taking the republicans at face value. Bush has totally trashed the republican party and McCain cannot escape the connection no matter how often he says he claims to be a maverick. Incidentally it’s a mystery to me how strafing Vietnamese and getting caught doing it qualifies someone for leadership. We all know about it because he mentions it relentlessly.

Palin is already planning her 2012 campaign. Back in the real world, if she teamed up with the overblown and virtually fictional Joe the Plumber she could cut a record deal or even a line of lipstick before the media tires of her and moves on.

Could agree with the editorial page of our only WA newspaper, a long spread headed, America has now moved away from the Bush doctrine, with the Age of US Triumphalism now over.

Also notice Bush is doing very little to help McCain and his Repub's with the coming election.

Of course, one of the most foolish things the US ever did, was to shut its mind to little Israel going Nuko', yet with news in our same West' that Israel is still ready to dive-bomb Iran.

As a mature-age historian, one wonders what to think about it, especially when much of this ME trouble was predicted by our looney left academics, when I got my Post-Grad back in the early 1980's.

Just Wondering but not Wandering,
Regards, BB, Buntine, WA.

bennie,

Starting from you last para, only the poverty of thought can make the”poor republicans...through no fault of their own.” There is no virtue in human beings not making mistakes. No one is infallible, especially in the multi-variable dimensions of war. The virtue lies in swiftly correcting these mistakes. And this is exactly what Bush did when he adopted and implemented the Surge turning a losing war into a victorious one. This was the “major” and crucial policy that “was successfully implemented and carried out” with all the potential geopolitical developments that could flow into the region with the establishment of democracy in Iraq, and hence justifying fully the Bush Doctrine of democratizing the Middle East as a preventive cure for terrorism.

The liberal intelligentsia with their tongue stuck in the bitterness of being totally wrong with their gloomy prognostications about the outcome of the war, cannot and will not concede this ‘reversal of fortune’ for the Bush administration. But history, which has no taste either for bitterness or sweetness, will give the final verdict on Bush. And dare I say it will be a favourable one.

What the “lamb” Obama proposes to do is to deprive America of this tremendous strategic victory over the extremists of Islam by his pledge to pull out US forces from Iraq before the conditions for such a withdrawal are strategically ripe.

http://civcontraislam.typepad.com

Themo,

"turning a losing war into a victorious one". Think you might be a trifle premature there. Let's see the war has been going badly for about 5 years. In the last 6-9 months the situation had calmed somewhat but I don't recall seeing anything about a wholesale withdrawal of US troops due to the overwhelming calm in Iraq. Perhaps you could explain you criteria for victory? I do recall recent difficult negotiations between the Bush administration and a reluctant Iraqi government over a timetable for said complete withdrawal. Perhaps the fact that an agreement was reached counts as a victory for you?
Oh and quoting Krauthammer on why we still need the neocons is always going to fail. His currency is worth as much as Zimbabwe's.
cheers

Patrick.

Thermo, what is needed in the present ME situation, is a detection sense, which you appear to have little of when you mention the Surge as an American victory.

The Surge in fact, was a desperate move by the US to have its Generals seek a parley with Saddam's Sunni Shaiks, which they naturally jumped at telling their so-called Sunni insurgents they'd been offered foregiveness, as well as positions on the US military payroll.

Could suggest you contact the Washington Post when 18 months back they gave the report about a US gunship diving in and arresting a group of Malachi's government Shia's who had been doing their duty arresting a group of proven Sunni insurgents.

Naturally the US-backed Murdoch media would never have reported it, but just a case of journo's like Bob Woodward proving how every picture tells a story, certainly more so a movie camera story.

So much hidden, Thermo, which only us trained historians learn about.

Keep on having Fun,
Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

The world would welcome an Obama win with a sigh of relief.

The 'if you're not with us you're against us' ideology would be purged. The use of this to denigrate oppostion to the Iraq war as some kind of sympathy for Saddam alienated some of the USA's best allies. Ironically though, by applying the same moronic logic to itself renders the current administration culpable of actively supporting such regimes as Zimbabe and Sudan as well the remaining 'axis of evil' incumbents of Iran and North Korea by not invading them.

The neocons have failed spectacularly. Their only hope is to find an intellect amongst themselves that can compete with the 'liberal intellegentsia'. The 'liberal intellegentsia' might agree and perhaps would recommend the neocons to hold their breath during the search.

Well it seems from all the reports the god-like cloud riding Obama is already Pres elect. according to all the media ... I prefer to wait to see what happens late Wednesday but by all indications there is a move towards McCain and Obama semms stuck on 47% to 49%. Others are not so sure either. The numbers from the latest Zogby Poll has McCain in front by 1%. Now that hasn't happened since the economic meltdown and if proves accurate it is going to cause quite a bit of consternation, choking and spluttering around the latte dispensers of this universe.

But Hey Bush was behind to Kerry by 6% on election eve in 2004 and Gore was behind by 10% within a week of the 2000 election ... and he nearly won.

This has been an astonishing campaign right from the start ... with Hillary's loss because primaries in Florida and Michigan were excluded. She'd have been the Demiocrat candidate were they included.

I tend to agree with Themi's comments.

Obama might be riding a landslide ... but it could be one that is burying him.

It's going to be interesting to see
who's the next American President.

Personally, I'm for Obama. Simply because
the McCain and Palin partnership scares
the living daylights out of me.

I see an old man who's pro
military, wants the Americans to continue
with Iraq, is pro Big Business - and believes
in privatisation - especially of health-care.
While his "hockey mum" gun-toting, partner
prides herself on her lack of experience.

Between the two of them - they could be a
global disaster.

She's gung-ho on war and her "blow them out of
the water," attitude, which would further increase
the Muslim world's intolerance of the Americans.
At the present time - the Muslim world is waiting to see
the outcome of the election.

Already there are questions of possible military
involvement with Iran, Syria, even Pakistan.

America needs someone of rationality, diplomacy,
good education, and cross-racial understanding,
to bring reason and stability to this gradually
disintegrating world. Barack Obama meets all
of this criteria.

Fingers crossed that sanity prevails on Election
Day!

bennie,

If you were an editor even in the most provincial newspaper and spelled out the obvious as news, you would not have held your position as editor for very long. Bigotry, irrational religious beliefs, and ignorance—like poverty—up to the present inflict even the best and most affluent societies. If educated prosperous America has this bane in its midst you can imagine other less educated and prosperous countries in what state they are in this area. To say however, that either McCain or Palin would select to govern for the irrational beliefs and ignorance of such minorities, is to show that one is completely politically naive and no one can take such person seriously.

And do you really believe that Obama has his “feet on the ground,” when he says that once America starts implementing its own values it will turn the present hate of the world for America into love, into a global loving circle of holding hands, including perhaps the fanatical jihadists?

Always bear in mind the great adage of Friedrich Nietzsche that the character of a person is revealed in critical circumstances, followed by my minuscule one that in hard times only the hard men/women prevail. Obama lacks the character to lead a great nation in our most dangerous times. In the vocation of Statecraft according to his populist policies and faith in changing America he remains an infant and is the ultimate ‘mummy’s boy’. As the worst mummy’s boy is the one who had no mother. (His mother abandoned him when he was an infant to be brought up by his grandparents.) That is why he chose Biden for his vice instead, the most savvy politically, of Hillary Clinton, because his wife Michelle didn’t want the latter. It’s Michelle that wears the pants, and if he wins it will be the first ‘matriarchic’ presidency of the United States.

Keith,

Indeed, your last words might turn out to be prophetic.

http://civcontraislam.typepad.com

Great post Foxy, I agree with you. Not only me, but most of the
rest of the world. The Economist (not really left wing) ran a poll
and it was a landslide for Obama. Even their editors agree and
are supporting him.

Keith you are correct, anything could happen. Electronic voting
without a paper trail is IMHO very risky and I don't trust the Republicans
one little bit. They will play every dirty trick in
the book or outside the book, so nothing will surprise me.

After all, every gun swinging extremist or religious nut is in the
the republican party and I certainly don't expect honesty from that
lot.

America needs to return to voting with a paper trail, or its an
open invitation for somebody with great software skills, to rig
elections.

Oh dear Yabby,

You point to the extremes of the Republican just as easily as I could point to the plethora of 'wealth sharin'(only others not their own) socialists, terrorist loving and friendly (Obama Biden), hate America nuts and ravers (Rev Wright, Michael Moore), liars (Gore and Pelosi), economic wreckers (Clinton, Raines, Franks), freedom loathers and anacharists (Bill Ayers), and billionaires (Buffet and Soros) that litter the formerly great liberal democratic party.

But wait there is a difference. I can name names. Why don't you do the same ... instead of hiding behind generalities?

Oh by the way. Joe Biden owns guns, hunts and supports gun ownership and he is the democratic vp candidate. Something doesn't quite add up with your generalised claim.

Awwww heck Yabby... Obama is the only candidate on record as saying he will attack over Pakistani soverign territory. And you should check Obamas stances on Iraq and his stance on Afghanistan ... You should take off the blinkers before you start assigning judgement.

That's the thing about the few uncommitted US voters ... they tend to do that.

Yeah I agree something needs to be done about the voting especially in regards to Acorn and it's fradulent vote registrations.

Every poll up until Friday (US time) had Obama ahead. I prefer the Zogby poll. It's the latest (Friday evening US), is conducted for Reuters (Who don't have an interest in the outcome and who are not barracking for either candidate), it polled over 1,000 people and is conducted along the traditional lines. ie not one of those weighted 'tracking polls' which deliberately poll twice as many Registered Democrats as Registered Republicans.(They do that simply because there are twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans. Perfectly logical but I think it flawed ... for a number of reasons). It astonishes me that in those 'tracking polls' Obama continually struggles to reach 50%

Hummmmm Wednesday is going to be quite a day and the Melbourne cup will have been run and won by ... Bauer.

Keith, there is this little thing called wisdom. Its about realising
that you know what you don't know.

So unlike you, I don't predict the winner of the US elections or
the winner of the Melbourne Cup, for there are so many variables
that could change things in either race.

So as I am clearly wiser then you, I have my hopes and opinions
based on the balance of probabilities, but don't claim to be able
to predict the future as you do.

Obama has had all sorts of associations in his life, so have I.
So what? If I think back to my teens in Paris, there was a
pimp and a white collar criminal amongst the associates who used to
go out to dinner in a large group. They were interesting people
who taught me much about the real world out there, but I certainly
did not share their convictions. Trying to label me with their
convictions is no different to what you are tyring to do to Obama.
Fact is, we associate with all sorts of people, that does not mean
that we agree with them.

What Obama has shown so far is very good judgement and great organisational skills.
Unlike your mate McCain, he does not have
a bad temper and is able to change his mind if circumstances change,
showing intellectual flexibility, for which it seems, McCain is simply
too old.

So far, his election campaign has be shown to be slick and well
organised, unlike McCain.

mccain is not nearly as bad as he pretends to be, and obama is not as good as i wish.

but mccain has run a pointless, nasty and shockingly dishonest campaign. and, he represents a party which has behaved like a gang of murderous psychopaths. he deserves to be trounced.

Thanks for all the comments. Sorry I can't replay to all: authors don't have special rights to post more comments than everyone else. Very democratic. If you would like a more direct dialogue, post comments you would like followed up on my blog (http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-landslide.html). Also, for light relief, see my YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOovv0O5LkQ) responding to the "Obama is a socialist" tactic.

I realise I am sticking my neck out by making predictions like this but we will soon see who's right on the election outcome. My view is that polls are more likely to underestimate the appeal of a candidate who brings out voters who don't usually bother and therefore are hard for pollsters to model. This gives Obama a reverse-Bradley effect, i.e., polls underestimate his vote. This happened a few times in the primaries.

As to how good a president he would be, time will tell. But the ability to inspire is an important factor, as is the ability to stay cool under fire and to exercise judgement in complex situations.

McCain has disappointed me in abandoning his true persona to fit in with the Bush Republican Party (Palin cannot possibly be his personal choice: he hardly knew her before). He has also been erratic and disorganized in his campaign, with blunders like welcoming "Joe the Plumber" to a rally when he wasn't there and (more seriously) offering up an economic rescue package that in effect rewarded mistakes. But I don't think this is in itself the deciding factor: the "it's time" effect and Obama's ability to inspire are the critical factors.

Obama had better beef up his security.I just don't trust the Bush administration or particularly the forces that are backing them.

If Obama is assassinated,we could see the constitution suspended and the military take control.The patriot act has already weakened people's rights.Things just don't smell right.

Yabby,

I don't think you are at all wise.

Can you please quote where I have predicted the winner of the US election?

Can you please quote where I have labelled Obama with the convictions of his fellow Democrats?

Sigh ... I know you cannot. And all that shows is that you are either lacking in comprehension skills, or setting up 'straw man' arguments or haven't read my response.

None of those are attributes of wisdom.

Don't you share that great Aussie tradition of having a punt on the Melbourne Cup? But the point of my using that reference ... oh why do I bother.

Yabby while you might have had all sorts of associations in your life you'll readily concede, even if you don't share all views, all have influenced your life choices and ... well frankly you are not trying to hide them by not discussing them and you are not running to be US president.

You're right I haven't caught Obama fever, don't form opinions on the basis of Australian media or other biased media campaigns and I'm not so sure McCain would want me as a mate.

Jeez you make some whopper assumptions ... and that definitely shows a lack of wisdom.

Phillip M

what did you think of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary?

Re Joe the Plumber. I don't know why Democrats harp on about him when they should be looking at what Obama said to him ... like all the Republicans and uncommitted voters are doing.

And what mistakes are McCain's economic policy rewarding?

Palin was selected to galvanise the conservative republican base, something McCain couldn’t do. Anti- abortion, pro-guns, god-fearing etc. Palin thinks the rapture is imminent and the world will end in her lifetime so to me her head’s in the clouds. She’s a caricature. A figurehead. A purdy cheerleader taken off the sidelines and promoted to centre-forward.

Personally I’m tired about hearing about “dangerous times”. Howard and Bush dined out on this for years but it's wearing thin. What America’s experiencing is something they themselved coined - blowback.

The hare-tortoise race between Obama-McCain is almost entirely irrelevant: both flunkies backed the US Federal Reserve's bail-out idiocy from the start. They have no grasp, no idea of just what is happening i.e., the disintegration of the entire globalist financial system, along with the neo-lib religion that spawned it.

It is astounding that Philip cites FDR and JFK. Both presidents were protectionists, open about keeping government controls on critical sectors of the US market, especially infrastructure and trade links, and of the Fed itself. Both presidents would have scoffed at any notion of state bail outs for unproductive usury, speculation, and underwriting of toxic debt. Indeed, they would have been using warrants and much cold, federal steel to pursue the perpetrators of these massive, ongoing heists of public treasure.

On several occasions Hilary Clinton expressed her tendency towards more protectionist government roles. For that reason, Obama's sugar-daddy Soros absolutely despises Hilary and has gone on record to make his influence explicit. In one of his tomes about speculator hocus-pocus ('Alchemy of Finance', 1987) Soros too all but prescribed the bail outs as a mandatory "no choice" response.

Media fluff about Obama-McCain proves yet again a victory for style, publicity, and corruption over the substance of policy and ideology. The persistent insinuation of "race" (and sometimes even religion) represents the dirtiest and nastiest vanard against American democracy: the greatest insult to US political heroes Dr King and Malcolm X.

Yep, Yabby, I go for what Foxy says also.

To me the Repubs, though still good talkers, have lowered themselves like used car salesmen, being typical of the ending of the neo-free-market get big or get out historical phase.

For me as a born agrarian activist I still think of the old days during the Great Depression when unlike my grandkids we had the guts to become bush unionists to fight similar blackguards to the above, and supported by a Labor government, so hard to believe.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Today's paper says McCain's finding hope in the polls. A late comeback?

Yep, it'll be the closest landslide in history.

*I don't think you are at all wise.*

I am sure you don't Keith, but then clearly you show bad
judgement, so your opinion frankly does not matter :)

Ok, so far you have the Melbourne Cup wrong, lets hope
that you have the US elections wrong too, as predicted by
the poll which you seem to swear by.

The reason I've backed Obama for a long time now, is that
I think he does in fact show good judgement, compared to
some fairly idiotic types who have been US prez. That's not
just me. I watch Bloomberg a fair bit, hardly radically
left wing and people who have had dealings with Obama, share
my opinions.

McCain is an old man, set in his ways, who should be out
tending the roses, he has passed his use by date. He admits
to having little interest in economics and with a nutty
potential vice prez, it would be a disaster, another disaster
for the US, after George and Dick leaving America a mess, with
the cupboards stripped bare. I certainly would not want that
job!

McCain is known for his bad temper, in other words, he is letting
emotion dominate reason, hardly a great attribute. Wars get started
by people like that, when they cannot control their anger.

What Obama shows is an open mind, ready to listen to varied opinions,
and an ability to change his mind, if required. Thats shows great
reasoning skills. He stays calm in moments of crisis and does not
lose his temper like McCain, which shows emotional intelligence.
He shows great communication skills, not only when he writes his
own speeches, but when he agrees to talk to people, even his enemies.
Communication is critical in international affairs, for it can disarm
your biggest enemy. Hillary got that so wrong.

Lastly Obama has run a great and well organised campaign, to even
defeat the Clintons, so clearly he has great delegating skills and
organisational skills.

Yabby

Once again:

'Can you please quote where I have predicted the winner of the US election?'

'Can you please quote where I have labelled Obama with the convictions of his fellow Democrats?'

You last posting shows you cannot. All you did was criticise McCain, glorify Obama, say you pick Obama as winner (Cos you can't vote in the election your support for him is pointless) and tell me again I was still unwise.

Now add to that you 'don't claim to be able to predict the future as you do.'

It seems we can add contradictory to those attributes that show your lack of wisdom.

I picked the second horse (by a nose) in the 22 horse race in Melbourne. Sadly I was wrong, Bauer didn't win but happily I made a little on my investment as it paid $6.60 to place.

Today I think because of McCain's momentum in the last week, especially in the battleground states, with all polls starting to tighten or fall in his favour, with fewer new voters than predicted, and the unusually high numbers of undecideds starting to break his way, McCain might sneak in by a nose... or more.

Oh and this is the first time I have predicted a win for McCain. My interest has only been in the US electrol process as was the same in 2004, 2000, 1996 and 1992. I predicted wins to Clinton twice and Bush twice ... as the campaigns closed. I just so much admire the openess of their system, the flexibility of voters and the fun involved as opposed to the stilted nature of ours and the regimented thinking and displays by the of voters in Australia.

What websites have you been reading Keith?

"all polls [are] starting to tighten or fall in his favour, with fewer new voters than predicted..." does not describe the state of affairs in the US. Not even close.

I didn't ride a horse yesterday but did take an interest in the outcome, which would be pointless if I had no vested interest in who won. With this election, more so than with yesterday's race, we all have a stake.

Oops keith, its clearly not your week this week.

First you were wrong on the horse race, now its all going against
you in the US elections. Clearly you can't help your own
bad judgement :)

Poooor keith...

Yippeeeee, looks like Obama has it in the bag!

Well, I'm watching Obama's victory speech. A real class act. I can say the same about McCain's concession. What a pity McCain didn't campaign as himself.

The story of the change a 106-year old black woman, Ann Nixon Cooper, has seen touched me a tad more deeply than the story of Joe the Plumber.

The next few years will see if he is up to it, but I hope we all agree that I called it right on the election.

Now for some speculation over what really matters.

What input will he make to the G20, if any? Will he just follow Soros' orders like he did with Paulson's watershed legislation for the bail-out heists?

All the rest is the stuff of publicist spin and media apparatchiks' continued efforts at dumbing-down the punters: populism, symbolism and paparazzi shots of black grandmothers weeping. Well may they weep if this guy stays to form while the Brown/Greenspan/Malloch-Brown team go in for the kill on the US with their latest packages of global corporatism (with in-principle support from Rudd-Turnbull).

Well done President elect Obama.

I was clearly on the losing side today. I have been in the past. I won't be slitting my wrists.

I look forward for President elect Obama to handling the looming depression and saving the jobs of millions around the world...including many of yours.

I am however financially better off than last week with my gambling account swelling. My retirement and my future are secure and I am
looking forward to sailing around the world in my yacht.

Of course Yabby you've picked a winner but you've not voted for him.
I'd never ever display the poverty of spirit you embrace show irrelevant gusto.

He is a little exercise for you. Write down the two most significant changes Obama's presidency is likely to make and their impacts on you. Make one positive and one negative. You might gain some perspective and become a little sapient.

Cheers

Well done psychopath-junkie and crypto-Nazi Soros! And to the many toadies in his feudal retinue of course.

Of all America's talented black leaders, including senators, the oligarchs who own Dem rubbish like Pelosi and Frank (Soros and Rohatyn mainly) had to back a megalomaniacal newbie. You should be asking yourselves why.

*I am
looking forward to sailing around the world in my yacht.*

Well keith, I wish you good luck in your sailing ventures and
I also hope that you show better judgement onboard your yacht,
then you have on OLO. Remember, if you get it wrong on your
yacht, it might just be glug glug and you might not just be
able to shrug it off.

As to my effect on the US elections, you are quite correct, I
did not vote. As I have yet to see where any single vote swung
the elections, I guess my effect is no more or less then most
Americans. I've certainly spent the last two years or so, encouraging
my American friends to vote for Obama, as I felt that he had talent.

How Obama will affect me personally, I have not even considered and
don't intend to. What he can do for global peace, stability etc, is
far more important. People skills can stop wars and they matter
greatly. Intellect helps, two qualities that George and Dick
clearly lacked and its cost America and the world bigtime.

Quite frankly keith, I have long ago accepted that if/when Yabby
falls off the proverbial perch, the world will keep spinning and not
much will change. Don't kid yourself about your own self importance,
apart from what it means for you personally. But that is the little
picture, not the big picture.

Oh dear Yabby.

Fall from your perch... haha from your sad sack tone I always sensed you were a galah.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Courage, experience, planning and thorough preparation are far more important in this world than mere verbage and empty self-assurance. The former qualities are absense in Obama and the latter short-comings abundant.

How's you job security and retirement plans? cos he's going to affect them.

I beg to differ Kieth. Verbiage and self-assurance are powerful tools in the right hands, and Obama is a fine orator if ever I've seen one. It is this which can enthuse the audience, make an impact, create a lasting memory - and make others willing to listen.

For example our Kev's fine with plain public speaking but he hardly captures the imagination.

As for the courage and planning bit, he's president-elect ain't he?

bennie: "Kev" and "plain public speaking"? Surely you jest: whatever qualities we may identify in the milky bar kid, a gift for plain English is not one of them. Like most in his circle, Kev speaks in neo-lib bureaucratic buzzwords, cliched phrases, and lots of them.

keith: spot on about Obama's "verbiage and self-assurance". I find it shocking to keep hearing these contrived notions about Obama's supposed oratory skill when he is clearly such a mediocre and dull-witted public speaker (check the astonishing, flatulent TV debates, for example). He is even so lacklustre on the basics of body language and prosody/intonation, but he does seem to enjoy the limelight and attention so much, if not also the very sound of his own voice. Not leadership material, but good dictator stock. And please, no more pointless comparisons with the white mediocrities Bush, McCain, etc. Hilary was and remains the most important comparison here: she won the popular democrat vote, has far more leadership ability (talent, brains and, most importantly, guts) but was white-anted by the briberies and threats against party delegates - including an actual assassination of one democrat delegate.

In a very real sense, Obama and his colleagues have already affected "job security and retirement plans" for so many of us by promising some excursion into hyperinflation and vaporized public and superannuation purses. From the very start, Obama backed Paulson's. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Obama was so quick on that because his main sponsor is Soros, and Soros all but prescribed the bail outs as governments' "no choice" response in his 1987 book "Alchemy of Finance'.

The gush over Obama all reminds me of the silly tribalist euphoria among feminists when Thatcher became PM. The difference is the ever-present, creepy sub-text of racism, so evident by its over-compensation in the muffling of dissent and critical thinking. It's disgusting that the media, party and NGO lemmings keep invoking this dangerously superficial and divisive issue, implying that serious critics of Obama must have some problem with his ethnicity/skin color, etc.

*Courage, experience, planning and thorough preparation are far more important in this world*

Err, we've just had a half white man, with no traditional
establishment family etc, run what is being described as the
best, most well organised political campaign in US history.

Clearly the qualities that you list, are exactly what is required
to pull that one off. He simply ran rings around your McCain :)

But I guess the truth has been revealed. You are concerned that
Obama could cost you money. Nobody, but nobody has been able to
run the US economy into a ditch and leave the country broke, as
your friends George and Dick! Its costing trillions, including
you.

As a matter of interest, I am in the fortunate position of being
able to do the things I want to do in life, rather then the things I have to do. Not many are as fortunate.

Yabby

Obama only improved marginally on both Gore's and Kerry's efforts. And 'dumb' George ran rings around them.

Obama pledged, like McCain, to accept Public Funding, a Democrat initiative and position. He found he could gain more money and an electrol advantage in another vehicle. He didn't have the courage to stick to his original conviction.

Clearly he has little courage when it really counts.

His lack of Experience is already on display with the appointment of the most partisan member of the US congress as his chief of staff. That will bring the congress together. His first appointment shows he has little experience and is probably being manipulated by Pelosi and the other lefties in Congress already.

Why did you need to raise race in this discussion?

He has had the whole left movement of the US support him and his puerile pantomine.

If the crash is any indication, I'll continue to make heaps while the AUS dollar falls and precious metals improve. My only worry is if the Congress's and Obama's policies causes the US doller to dive. But if that looks as likely as it now seems then there will be plenty of time for me to be able to cash in on that also.

Of course I think obout money. Doesn't everyone. But if you'd had said 'Keith you don't sit around watching your future disappear down the gurggler and you watch what is happening in the world and react.' you'd be right. You do the same don't you?

Read my recent article on the origins of the meltdown. I think you'll decry where I found most responsibility to lie, and without any evidence to support your position...as usual....
Here's the link

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8053

'I am in the fortunate position of being
able to do the things I want to do in life, rather then the things I have to do.'

Fine but so mundane, and we all have things we have to do. But do you have the courage to truely have and follow a dream?

Keith, your bias is clearly showing through here.

I remind you that Obama won by a far greater margin then George
ever did, credit where credit is due. Of course I mentioned
race, for doing that as a half white man in America, reflects
twice the achievement. He achieved his result despite racism,
which is common as chips in the US, especially in the South.

Argue as much as you like about the blame game of the US financial
calamity, but the facts are plain as day. Bush/Cheney ran the
show for years and had control of both houses for years, they could
have done as they pleased. But Cheney made Govt policiy clear
when he stated that "The US $ is not America's problem but the
rest of the world's problem." As we see, he was correct, so
the world will pay a huge price and America will simply inflate
away its debts by printing notes, as being the default currency,
their debt is in US $. Australia won't get it that easy, we'll
simply have the Australian peso, unless we start to deal with
our current account.

If the US $ dives, you will be able to thank Cheney, for he agrees,
it is your problem, not his problem. That is why the Chinese are
in some ways, over a barrel.

Nope, I don't worry about money and I don't tie my future to
speculation about precious metals. I have spread my risks over
many industries and many companies. I value invest, ie buy things
when they are cheap and seldom sell. Recently I've bought banks
and BHP, as I believe that both will still be around in 10years time,
paying dividends, a bit more or a bit less, whatever.

You might not agree with Obamas judgement of who he is hiring right
now, comments from informed commentators on CNN etc, strongly
disagree with you. Perhaps its you with the flawed judgement, that
is why he is US prez, despite the many odds against him.

Yab: "Odds against him"? Underdog? You are just kidding for the sake of provoking keith right?

The vote on Paulson's heists was the first big chance for Obama to demonstrate some leadership. Instead he just showed how "dictatorship" has been functioning through the western treasuries: he meekly obeyed Soros et al, then even hustled further compliance with the bail outs via other congressmen, with some recourse to that race card along the way!

Obama's hardly hiring anyone in any significant sense. The most important point there is that it's Obama who's hired - by Soros. The difference with that face-stretched Pelosi is that she's on Rohatyn's payroll.

Look Yabby,

Your outlook for the future is much brighter than mine.

I think were are into a depression and Obama's policies as he indicated today will ensure it is deep and protracted.

The stock market is yet to bottom and thinking ten years will see an improvement is an overly optimistic view. Just look at the economic indicators (US), especially in the construction industry and in land development, and the impact from the corruption in the unregulated derivatives market hasn't even hit yet.

I don't understand why you think a falling US $ is a bad thing. It will result in profit for me.

Emanuel his Chief of Staff is the most partisan member of the US senate. His record shows that and that is fact not opinion. CNN are hugely biased toward Obama. Are you blind?

You proved my point again in regard to my article;

'I think you'll decry where I found most responsibility to lie, and without any evidence to support your position...as usual....'

and you did exactly that.

You again put words in my mouth. Where did I use the word 'worry' in my comments about money? I used the word 'think'. You know the more you do that type of thing the more you reveal of yourself.

You know you keep pointing fingers at me for you things you see as 'crimes'. I can point to some that are quite at odds with your stated situation:

'But I guess the truth has been revealed. You are concerned that
Obama could cost you money.' So what? Is it wrong make judgemens so as to protegt my future?

'Keith, your bias is clearly showing through here.' So what? Everyone is entitled to a view even your 'unbiased' one.

'Perhaps its you with the flawed judgement, that
is why he is US prez, despite the many odds against him.' What's this mean? He's president because my judgement is flawed?

This is becoming really really boring.

Yabby

Just in case you hadn't heard on CNN. Obama gave his first news conference today. It was really weird. He was backed by his economic advisers who included the Governor of Michigan. He showed he intended to bail out the US car industry in Michigan. It is the worst run industry in the US and the state that owns it is the leftie and Union dominated bankrupt Michigan. You might note that the US auto industry is wide spread in the US but it is only Michigan where real problems lie.

He also showed he intends to put up taxes but refused to answer questions on the tropic.

He also intends to bailout municipal and state bodies across the US. It astonished me the press didn't ask where the money was coming from ... especially since revenues are falling and the Government debt is in already in the trrrillions. Although apparently he would not take questions from Fox News on that issue.

Oh and there was not one question on what he intended to do about the announced Russian intention of moving its missiles into Eastern European reaches in response to US initiates in Poland?

Mate CNN is ok but they are fawning over OBama, he was their pick, and when you watch them you should take that into account. Just as when you watch Fox you should take into account they are not so inclined. Look for balance mate and don't entirely believe either. Be discerning mate.

Sheeeeesh! And you think my judgement flawed and that things are going to improve under Obama?

Obama won't be doing anything at all for 7 weeks yet the criticism is being piled on. I can't imagine how it will look once he actually passes a law.

Actually I lie. It will look much as it does now. Those who find the election result hard to accept will ignore all indications of good governance and maintain GWB was the bestest ever prez while the new guy remains a pretender.

btw 50-odd million people voted for Sarah and the vet. 50 bloody million! That's the number of Americans who thought it's OK to think Africa's a country, that the economy's doin' fine, are prepared to risk overturning Roe Vs Wade, and happy to see the possibility of creationism taught in science class. Obama's sure got his work cut out staying ahead of the pack.

Keith, I certainly don't rely just on CNN for my opinions, it
is one of many sources. Bloomberg, The Economist etc, hardly left
wing organisations. CNN are at times enthusiastic, but they still
take the trouble to let both sides explain their opinions. The only
really biased network that I have come across is Fox, but then old
Rupert knows how to push emotional buttons, to make money. That
is why he has done so well in America.

One thing is clear, when Clinton left office the US economy was
relatively healthy, the main question being about how to spend
the surplus. In 8 years Bush/Chaney have driven it into a rather
large ditch, borrowed trillions so left the cupboards bare, with
companies like GM and Ford, both on the verge of bankrupcy.

What a disaster! McCain admitted to having little interest in
economics and Sarah is battling to walk and chew gum at the same
time, so luckily that team never won office, or the disaster could
have turned into a calamity.

Obama is young, highly intelligent and can clearly think outside
the square. His economic team involves people like Volcker, Buffett,
Rubin etc, ie people with talent. These people are going to have
to combine their talents and figure out ways for America to get
out of the ditch, for its a fair old mess they are in.

So what if people earning over a quarter million a year pay a
bit more tax? Its still a relatively low rate of tax. Somebody
has to pay a bit more.

Bennie

Before you get carried away. Things won't look as bad as they did under Bush.

Now here is a little secret. George was critisised in every way after his election. There is one striking difference today.

Obama was given a gracious consession speech and the nation urged to unite behind Obama as President.

Can you please direct me to a copy of the consession speech by Al Gore. I don't think you'll find something in one of his court applications disputing the election result.

More's the pity Keith that Gore didn't challenge the election result. Since the supreme court wasn't in his pocket he didn't get the recount required by law. Things woulda been majorly different today huh?

And therein lies the nastiness of the last 8 years. The inability of the democrats to accept they were rejected in the polls ... twice. History will show that was the cause of the dysfunction within the US Congress.

and the sdaddest thing of all is that lefties like yourself have no grasp of decency nor graciousness. You display simply poor form and an inability to accept defeat and that you are in the wrong.

Al Gore lost ... get over it... hohoho

*Al Gore lost ... get over it... hohoho*

Ah Keith, but of course revenge is sweet. Obama won
clearly, fairly and squarely, with a great margin.

Now it's time for you to get over it :)

Actually Kieth the records show that for 2000 Bush didn't win legitimately. I'm sure you remember what happened.

Heard of Diebold? 2004 was a parody of an election. Possession is 90% of the law it turns out.

Gore's still around and seems likely to be involved in the new administration. in contrast the misunderestimated buffoon W will live out his life in the non-reality-based bubble he's created for himself.

Bennie

you've just exemplafied why the Democrats have been such a disgraceful disruption in the US system over the past 8 years.

I'm looking forward to hearing from all you whiners unloading on Obama when he doesn't meet your expectations.

Actually Bennie the records show George Bush was US President from 2000 to 2008. Get over it Bennie ... hohoho.

Bad loser Al Gore's gone into hiding now that his 'Global Warming' campaign has seen it's wheels fall off.

What revenge Yabby? George Bush served his maximum 8 years. How's those shares Yabby?

I hope Obama does well and manages to unite the US ... but sadly with supporters like you two it will be a very very difficult task.

*the records show George Bush was US President from 2000 to 2008. Get over it Bennie ... hohoho*

They certainly do keith. They also show the huge price that
America has paid, for electing a dummy to run their country.
Some clearly need pain to learn.

Clinton left the budget and America in a healthy state. 8 years
of George and Dick, has frankly been a disaster for America,
as they are learning the hard way.

So what do we have after 8 years of your hero? The country is
nearly bankrupt, with trillions of $ of debt. Banks are collapsing,
industries are collapsing, the whole world is now affected, because
your hero proved to be a dummie.

As I said a long time ago keith, your judgement is pretty rotten,
as we all can see.

Bush had a 'system'?