McCain's in trouble...

Well, following the last debate I had the distinct impression Obama won (yes, you read the correctly).
McCain just seemed very... off, and little whiny (part of that is just how he talks as it is, but still...).
Obama on the other hand seemed Presidential and ready to tackle these issues.

While I still disagree with him on a lot of issues, and i still don't think he has the experience, and I still don't believe he truly is ready to handle all these issues as President, I have to hand this performance to him.
So I see the debates to have gone a tie for the first, a tie for the second (Palin/Biden) and a clear Obama victory for the second.

Now, McCain claims he is going to "whip" Obama's "you-know-what" at this next and last debate.
He sure needs to to even have a chance at this point.


Following the polls from rasmussen they seems remakably stable - Obama has had 50-52% support for weeks, and McCain has had 44-45% in the same period.
The closest they have been in that period were following the VEEP debate and today, with Obama at 50% and McCain at 45% support.
That is really bad news for McCain.

Another unsettling trend in the polls - in most of the swing states that were close before, Obama has opened large leads.
In only two has McCain gained any ground since Obama's surge - Indiana and Virginia.
Virginia he is still down but competitively inside the margin of error now, and in Indiana he has extended his lead to make it pretty solidly in his favor.

So that's about it for the polls, now for other interesting occurances since my last post...


McCain tried to tone down the attacks on Obama a bit, instead pointing out a few of his good features. Obama responded by thanking McCain and pointing out some things good about McCain, and thanking him for his service to the country.
Both comments were met with boos (and a few cheers too, but not as many).
I guess people on both sides would prefer the divisiveness we have now instead of getting to the meat of some of these issues.

Which is something that bothers me tremendously. On the campaign trail candidates really don't have a lot of time to go into great detail on what they plan to do. Neither do they get the chance in these 90 second response debates.
A lot of the time we have to wait for them to get elected to Congress (or the Presidency) before you really know what they plan to do, and by that point it is really hard to figure out exactly what people proposed or what all was in a bill the voted for and how it will effect you.
Just think how Bush said a lot of good things, but then his idea of implementing them has been really stupid.
I think we need a plain old debate that is set to run for longer (a lot longer) than the current ones. And then give the candidates some actual time to debate the issues - only moving on once they are finished.

I don't know if that is possible, but it sure would be interesting I think.


Another thing that happened last week - Palin wore a white dress (again, oh no!) - which, to some, meant she was being racist.
I guess that means Michelle Obama is a white suppremacist too, as she wears white often...
And Palin must be a black suppremacist the days she wears black.
Really quite stupid...


And now, to the really interesting occurance - the Palin investigation report.

It claims that it was perfectly legal and within her power to dismiss the state commisioner - like she has been saying all along.

It then goes onto say that she abused her power as a state official in her (and her husbands) attempt to get a state trooper fired.
It claims that the commisioners failure to discharge the state trooper was a contributing factor to him being dismissed (or reassigned actually I think...) - but not the sole reason.
In this she apparently broke a state ethics law that states that one may not use official action for personal reasons.

Now, I can understand this if the only reason she had given for attempting to get the state trooper fired because of his divorce from her sister.
But this is not the case.
This state trooper had tasered one of his step children, illegally killed several moose, driven drunk in a patrol car, and other issues.
The document states that these (and not the personal "he was involved in a bitter divorce with Palin's sister") were the primary complaints raised against him.
Now, I do not see where complaining about a state trooper not being fired due to conduct (and illegal actions) falls under that state ethics bill.

Either way, though, the report does not think anything "illegal" was done, nor does it push for any criminal investigations or any sanctions.
So, how can she have violated a state ethics law if she had done absolutely nothing illegal?