I think the main scandal facing Obama is not Rev.Wright or Bill Ayers,but his lack of a track record of any significance except as a community organizer.Imagine how many people would vote for the head of DARE or Jobs with Justice for President?Maybe the staff at RI's Future,but few others.Obama's main accomplishment seems to be the fact that he promoted himself to the position he's in vis a vis the Presidency and that's no mean feat,but where is the substance?I believe the major democrats are supporting him precisely because he is more or less of an empty slate for them to write their programs on in their cynical view of the world.Hillary comes with Bill-and Billary has a full package of programs all their own,with no input wanted from outside their personal cabal.

Mc Cain has a lot more experience than Obama as media darling. McCain's refered to as a "straight shooter" or as a "maverick" by the enamored press. Those wonderfully evocative western sounding descriptions that may as well as come from McCain's campaign are thrown around by the press. Those reporting then may have to take a little time out of fulltime adoration of McCain to revisit the scandal that McCain apologized for but escaped paying any serious consequences.
By the way why the hell isn't Laffey running for U.S. Senate? It seems when he ran against Linc Chaffee your boy would've been the best thing since satelite radio and now he's sitting on the sidelines. I don't get it. He could'nt wait to get to the Senate and start tackling the great challenges of our time enough so that he choose to run against a fellow republican. And here he is now twiddling his thumbs as Democrat Jack Reed is unopposed for the U.S. Senate in November.

Get over it! Obama is the Tiger Woods of politics. He's not exactly white or black, was born in Hawaii. His constituents are all colors and creeds. He is rewriting politics as we speak. The Republicans will try to drag in any divide that they can find, but the divisions (diversions)won't have legs. They are going to get slammed in November and they'll never know what hit them. They won't be able to look away from the past because most Republicans worship it, and fear the future. You can cite any canard you'd like, but it's adios to the old, and it's ring in the new. P.S. Laffey is indeed old news, a poor player who strutted and fretted his hour upon the stage and is disappearing into well deserved mediocrity.
OldTimeLefty

OTL-Tiger Woods is at the top of his field because he's proven beyond doubt that over the recent history of the sport he's done the best of anybody competing-that is a record of solid accomplishment.Obama hasn't even won a tough election.He got whipped by Bobby Rush and he walked into office over Alan Keyes who had no chance whatsoever.Hillary hasn't had a tough go of it either in her two senatorial election campaigns.Consequently,this primary campaign was between two unproven competitors in the sense that neither has won a hard fight.
I think McCain is ready for a difficult campaign and very well could prevail based on his ability to deal with daunting odds.Just think of how poorly his chances of being nominated were thought of not too long ago.And McCain faced some people with very successful political histories.

I don't care about any of it. The Republicans have forced me to be an Obama supporter by failing to run a serious candidate. This 72 year old, old-guard, military industrial complex-supporting, free-speech infringing, illegal alien pandering fossil is a laughable candidate. He's our John Kerry. The 'war hero' without a shot in Hell of getting elected.

Might as well get used to President Obama, kids. You asked for it.

Phil,

"By the way why the hell isn't Laffey running for U.S. Senate?"

Answer #1: He's already gearing up for 2010. You don't change the destination after the train has left the station. This would be a distraction from the ultimate goal.

Answer #2: It will not be necessary. Just be patient. :)

OTL,

It's obvious that you don't attend many GOP events. Laffey never really left. Given the state's dire fiscal circumstances, he's now more relevant than ever. I don't see much changing in Rhode Island, except from bad to worse, between now and 2010.

Greg,

One of the benefits of being a conservative Republican this year, is that the Presidential race is largely a non-factor. If McCain is going to win this race -- which I believe to be more probable than not -- it will be largely with the support of independents and open-minded Democrats. I suspect that by the time that the 527 orgs are done, you may think that McCain is running against Malcolm X. I don't even think that a win by McCain of traditionally democratic states like Rhode Island is out of the realm of possibility. Then of course, there's always the famous October Surprise to gleefully anticipate. One of my favorite sayings is: "never underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to lose presidential elections."

That being said, I'm convinced that whomever wins the presidency in 2008, will be be a one-termer, a la Jimmy Carter. Although I think that McCain would be a relatively better president than Obama, I really haven't actually come to the conclusion at this point in time as to whether that win in the short term is actually a good thing for us (the GOP). I will vote for him, but so far, that's about all he can count on from me. I'm focusing my efforts locally.

Joe,
Re: The Tiger Woods analogy; Tiger Woods is viewed as a great golfer. His race or racial mixture is irrelevant to his status. This is what I was primarily referring to when I called Barack a political Tiger Woods. Barack's skills as a politician are becoming more and more evident as he navigates attacks from Republicans and Clintonistas alike. You denigrate his climb to the top of the Democratic ladder, but such denigration is very,very arguable.

You also said, "Consequently,this primary campaign was between two unproven competitors in the sense that neither has won a hard fight.
I would argue that Barack came from nowhere to top gun in a primary fight that made McCain's campaign seem like a Sunday school picnic. Moreover, winning as Republican in Arizona has been a fairly easy task. Since 1953 only one Senator from AZ has been a Democrat, Dennis Di Concini, while Barry Goldwater, Paul Fanin, John Kyl and John McCain (the slayer of McAbel) have been elected as Republicans - What tough competition? Arizona has been solidly Republican for many years.
You also said, I think McCain is ready for a difficult campaign and very well could prevail based on his ability to deal with daunting odds." To which I reply, Obama started out being viewed as a "black man" and has just about sewn up the nomination by sailing past the race issue. That's dealing with daunting odds.

You also said,"Just think of how poorly his chances of being nominated were thought of not too long ago. Just think of how poorly Obama's chances of being nominated were thought of not too long ago.

OldTimeLefty

OTL-I will acknowledge that Obama got to where he is against the odds,and that is an accomplishment in itself,but now that he's there-what?He hasn't elucidated the specifics of the policies he wants to pursue aside from saying he wants to end the war in Iraq,and raise taxes on the "wealthy"-what does he think is "wealthy"?I stick by my assertion that if he gets into the White House he will be under pressure from the big name democrats who signed on with him and he doesn't have the network around him to fend them off.
Remember the 2000 campaign?McCain has had a gutful of dirty tactics used against him and still came back 8 years later-it shows determination and grit,which is probably what got him through his captivity.Let's face it-people who fly planes off carriers have balls to spare.I have a cousin a year younger than McCain who was a carrier pilot during the same period and I respect the hell out of him-he's 70 and still a tough guy(he was also a boxer)and he thinks a great deal of McCain.I have been waiting to vote for McCain since 2000,so for me it's not a "lesser of three evils" situation.Hillary is the only really bad character among the three.

It's only May and the narrative of this campaign is basically already drawn. To most conservatives Obama is McGovern redux and a 40 plus state romp for McCain will occur once the general electorate figures that out, with the helpful guidance of course of the RNC and the 527's. To me Obama is more reminiscient of Reagan than McGovern. I supported Carter in 1980. I had been to his 1976 inaugural festivities. But I well remember telling most of my friends who were dismissive of "Dutch"not to count out Reagan. That like it or not, he had an ability to connect with voters that was going to surprise people in November. I think I see it again with Obama, and I'm sorry if that drives conservatives crazy, but that's my take on it.

I don't think a 40+ state romp for McCain is beyond the realm, if Obama keep doing what he's doing.

I can see where one might see Reaganesque qualities in Obama's speaking style and manner -- even I can see that, if I'm not paying attention to what he's actually saying. However, it is only superficial.

The main difference between the two of them, is that Reagan had great ideas based in conservative Jeffersonian ideals regarding the power of individuals to do great things for themselves, if government would only get the heck out of the way. Reagan, in his 1981 Inaugural address proclaimed "government is not the solution to our problems; government IS the problem." On the contrary, Obama seems to believe that government is the means to solve problems, not the causal agent.

To me, Obama is really more reminiscent of Jimmy Carter -- a sincere and personally moral man with good intentions, but whom, when given the chance to lead, flopped; running the nation into the ground.

Phil,

"Laffey...he choose to run against a fellow republican."

There is absolutely no truth to that statement.

George Please elucidate.