Let's understand one thing: Obama is only facing McCain because of two people.

And neither happens to be John McCain. They're Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. They are the only reason Obama is facing John McCain in the general and not them. McCain only won the nomination because those two campaigns imploded and weren't as badly run as McCain's, but his was run pretty poorly too. Remember, he essentially had no strategy throughout the primaries and only lucked into the nomination when Huckabee managed to get more supporters out in the Iowa Caucuses in January than Romney did. Had Romney held on and won the caucuses, he would've easily won New Hampshire and it would be an Obama-Romney race. But he didn't because he ran a very poor campaign that failed to really have the ground game needed to win in a caucus like that.

McCain is not a good campaigner and this is probably his biggest weakness. This is why I feel better today than I did in 2004, because I've always believed George Bush did a good enough job connecting with his supporters where he became an effective campaigner. It really does sicken me to say that, but I do believe Bush out-campaigned Gore in 2000 and didn't do too bad of a job in 2004. McCain, on the other hand, is more like Bob Dole, just more prone to saying idiotic things. So while McCain might have an image tough to go against, he often struggles at selling that image during the stretch of a campaign, whereas Obama does not. McCain had no business winning the Republican nomination and only did because the candidates in front of him poorly planned their strategies worse than McCain and that says a lot. The base did not want McCain and he only lucked into the nomination because of the inevitable tag and once that stuck to him, he wasn't going to lose it.

He actually ran a fairly decent campaign in my view, but the rabid conservatives built their hopes around Guiliani (because he was the most authoritarian candidate) and spent a good deal of their time trashing Romney while laughing at Huckabee. Meanwhile, McCain was limping along because he appealed more to independent voters. Romney is a bit lacking in Charisma and it was obvious that he didn't have any real base within the party. McCain at least had his senate experience to sell to independents, as well as good name recognition, which Romeny lacked.

When Guiliani self-destructed in Florida the conservatives staged a last-ditch rally around Romney because they knew Huckabee was too goofy to succeed but they were appalled at the idea of nominating McCain. This failed to gain any real traction in time so McCain got the nomination by default. Unfortunately for him, nobody likes him - not the business crowd, not the evangelicals, and not even the xenophobes because of his stance on immigration. They do like what he is saying about Iraq but deep down they know he's making it up as he goes along.

The good part is that they won't really campaign for McCain. The bad part is that they will put their energies into trying to stop Obama, who scares the shit out of them because it's possible he could win in a landslide. However, it's clear that the only strategy they have in mind with which to do this involves even more extreme wingnuttery than usual, so there's a real possibility they'll self-destruct in the process. If their attacks reach a high enough fever pitch, Obama (and we) can start characterizing them publicly as the extremists they are.

I suggest we take a lead from Schopenhauer: when your opponent says something which you suspect (or know) to be a lie, pretend at first that you believe him and encourage him to continue. In his eagerness, he will lie even more and destroy his own credibility. So if you hear someone saying Obama is, say, a Marxist in public, don't try to him or her down; encourage the person rather to tell you more, much more, and let them make a complete fool of themselves.

That's my favorite tactic when arguing with freeper types. Just ask them a single follow-up question, and then sit back and enjoy the stammering.

Works every fucking time.

Nationally, I think Republicans were luke warm to him, however, many in Iowa were not. For so long he had the lead there and eventually lost it in the final month of the campaign. For all the money he threw at that state, he had no business losing to Huckabee. Yes the fundies helped Huckabee in Iowa, but it was the total lack of ground game there that did Romney in. He didn't have it and it showed. Romney's Iowa problem isn't much different from Clinton's, as I do not believe they understood the state and the way the caucuses worked.

He was the management candidate that made everyone feel like they would be viewed in the same way as employees.

That's really when his campaign began to sink, because it was a shitty speech that really didn't address anything outside of his belief America should be a Christian nation. Except many don't believe Mormonism is a Christian religion, so he basically just backed his way into a corner with that and his failure to explain how Mormonism is, in fact, Christian. That left many fundies believing he wanted a Christian nation, but wasn't a Christian himself.

A head spinner, no doubt!

It really is that simple.

Giuliani probably had the best shot, especially if the Democratic primaries went down as they did. He could have probably stolen some pro-choice Hillary supporters from Obama. But even he wouldn't be too hard to beat, especially with his past.

Unbelievable.

with gas prices skyrocketing, a bad economy, unemployment increasing and consumer confidence down, then the far left Democrats must acknowledge that only a centrist Democrat can win the WH. No excuses will be accepted.