We turn on our PCs and Macs, hit the Internet Explorer Icon, and go immediately to DailyKos, HuffingtonPost, etc. to catch up on the latest campaign developments, recent polling results, and speculation as to who Barack will choose as his running mate.  Some of us even get inspired enough to post a diary and stimulate healthy debate.  But as the old saying goes, "Talk Is Cheap."

I just happened to be perusing electoral-vote.com and noticed that among the Red states (or those mostly Red), John McCain’s margin over Barack Obama is modest compared to that achieved by George W. Bush in his November, 2004 contest against John Kerry.  This web site compiles polling data from a number of sources and presents it in map format.  In some of the states where he presently leads, McCain barely breaks 50%, and in others, he wallows in the mid-to-high 40s.   Take Kansas for example; McCain is at 47% as compared to Bush’s 62% in 2004.  In Utah, McCain presently polls at 55%, whereas, in 2004, Bush got a whopping 71% in the general election.  In South Dakota, where Bush grabbed 60% of the vote in 2004 by trumpeting his pro-life stance, McCain is hovering around 51% as of April, 2008.  In Montana and North Dakota, both solidly red in 2000 and 2004, McCain is being held under 50%.  Throughout America’s western heartland, where Black voters and Democrats in general, are not found in appreciable abundance, McCain should be kicking butt.  But he isn’t.

None of us can be condemned for our enthusiasm.  Although most of us were similarly elated at this time in 2000 and 2004, at this juncture, we not only have a strong candidate, but a stiff breeze in our sails and a downhill run.  The Republicans appear to have little to offer other than personal attacks which may backfire since the voters, after two Bush/Cheney campaigns, have grown tired of character assassination and Swift-Boating.  The difference between 2000, 2004, and 2008 is that for once, the Dems are firing back rather than shooting themselves in the foot.  Obama and his surrogates have been quick and effective in their response to Republican slander.

The GOP strategy in the last several elections has been to suppress voting in those demographic groups in which Democrats have a distinct advantage.  Veiled in terms of their attempts to eliminate voter fraud, this effort has amounted to blatant disenfranchisement of citizens; a most cynical means to achieving a political objective.  In the America that they like to talk about, with all its freedom and justice for all, the over-arching goal should always be inclusiveness and the desire to increase participation.  One way to accomplish this would be to lower the voting age to seventeen, although it is likely that such an action would meet with strong opposition for reasons that I will elaborate on below.

John McCain’s lobbyist, excuse me, advisor, Charlie Black, has postulated that a terrorist attack could be to McCain’s advantage in the November election.  I doubt that this is an original thought, but in any event, there may be a kernel of truth to this twisted logic.  I seem to recall that the coincidentally-timed release of a Bin Laden tape just days prior to the 2004 presidential election scared enough soccer moms to suddenly boost Bush’s popularity and tilt the election in his favor.  Bush had already made the case for him being a "war president."  Cheney reminded us "that if Kerry were elected, we would be hit, and hit hard."  Was this really necessary since Bush was still fairly popular with an approval rating already hovering around 50%?

Just about everyone has an uncle, or knows someone that has an uncle, that has driven nothing but Oldsmobiles since the 1950s.  Sadly, over the years, the once smooth-riding, luxurious sedans with the big bench seats and padded arm-rests gave way to cheaper, shoddily-manufactured versions that let you feel every bump.  But every few years, like clockwork, my Uncle Al traded in his Eighty-Eight and drove a new one off the lot.  In '66, he broke with tradition and bought a Toronado coupe, but it felt too much like a Buick and after only 8 months, he sold it to a guy around the corner and bought a Dynamic Delta Eighty-Eight, swearing that he had learned his lesson.

It has taken an abortive impeachment attempt, a couple of contentious elections, a terrorist attack on American soil, the invasion of two sovereign nations, and political intrigue that would make Niccolo Machiavelli proud, for the neocon establishment to consolidate power within the U.S. Government to the extent that the traditional system of checks and balances has, for all intents and purposes, withered beyond recognition.  Dick Cheney’s vision of a restored and empowered Executive Branch has been realized, and the notion of public accountability has gone out the window.  Wrapping themselves in the banner of patriotism and national security, this authoritarian Republican cabal has positioned itself to influence both foreign and domestic policy in ways that have deliberate, enduring consequences.  The obvious beneficiaries of this enterprise are the corporate giants that tend to flourish under imperialistic policies that favor exploitation of cheap foreign labor, unlimited natural resources, and virtual freedom from environmental regulation.

Being the successful "wildcat" oilman that he is, our president has announced his intentions to press Congress to lift the ban on off-shore oil and gas drilling.  Bush claims that  offshore exploration and drilling could eventually yield 18 billion barrels of oil. The ban has been in place since 1981 and was enacted in response to several incidents, most notable of which was the large oil spill that occurred in 1969 in the Santa Barbara Channel. The source was a blow-out on Union Oil's Platform A, six miles offshore. Over a 10-day period, an estimated 3 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the channel and onto the beaches of Santa Barbara County in Southern California.  

Responding to widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive public investigation into allegations of voting irregularities.  In one of the most thorough and broad-minded inquests in recent history, the Commission found that the problems Florida had during the 2000 presidential election were serious and not isolated.  Remarkably, the Commission failed to conclude that the highest officials of the state (you know who they are) conspired to disenfranchise voters.

An interesting and informative article in the New York Times discusses an essay written by John McCain while attending the National War College in 1974, in which he expounded upon the motives of fellow POWs who collaborated with their Communist captors.  At the core of McCain’s thesis was the notion that "The biggest factor in a man’s ability to perform credibly as a prisoner of war is a strong belief in the correctness of his nation’s foreign policy."  Who could rightfully criticize the young Lieutenant Commander for believing that the U.S. was involved in a "just cause" in its endeavor to push back against Communist expansionism in Southeast Asia, since it was only in hindsight that wise men came to realize that Vietnam was a divided country seeking unification, and above all, to throw off the yoke of foreign imperialism and colonial domination.

According to Karl Rove, if you repeat something often enough, no matter how ludicrous, it becomes the truth.  Some of the most tired and oft-repeated canards are those trotted out by Republicans during each and every election cycle.  Whether used as a rallying cry for their base, or as talking points for their sycophant media hacks, these disingenuous notions are somewhat reminiscent of the well-worn slogans of Chairman Mao.  And like those "chestnuts" of the so-called "Great Leap Forward," they are most effective when they fall on impressionable, young ears.  Ask any "College Republican" and they will enthusiastically parrot a few for your consumption.

Some of my favorites are as follows:

1.  America is a right-of-center nation

2.  America is a Christian nation

3.  Democrats are weak on national security

4.  Democrats are bad for the stock market

In October 1992, and coincidentally, during the run-up to that year's Presidential Election, a concert celebration was held at Madison Square Garden in recognition of Bob Dylan’s 30 years as a recording artist.  Numerous musicians, young and old, showed up to pay tribute to Bob by performing personalized versions of his songs.  None was more moving than Stevie Wonder’s rendition of "Blowin’ In The Wind."  When I first heard it during its broadcast on PBS, it literally made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.  I’m not sure if it was the song, Stevie’s words, or both.

It’s only a matter of time before some GOP hack drags the Ten Commandments into the 2008 Presidential Election.  It will probably play well down South.  Southern Ohio, that is.  This should dovetail nicely with the "Obama is a one-man Muslim terrorist sleeper cell" meme that has been making the rounds for the last several months.  After all, Mr. And Mrs. B. Hussein Obama know the secret "fist bump" handshake, at least according one of the bimbos on Farts Noise Network.  Perhaps they are sending a "signal" to their vast network of elitist, American-hating, Marxist anarchists.  We should hope that all the smears to come Obama’s way will be as comical.

Polls consistently indicate that John McCain has a distinct advantage over Barack Obama among older voters.  However, the one issue that is near and dear to their hearts is Social Security, which everyone agrees, is in need of reform.  Both McCain and Obama speak of reform, and of protecting Social Security.  But perhaps unbeknownst to the very Seniors that he is trying desperately to court, John McCain is bad for Social Security.

To borrow one of President Clinton’s oft-used phrases, "I feel your pain."  One year ago, Hillary Clinton was my candidate of choice.  I felt that she had the "right stuff" and my opinion has not changed in that regard.  The fact that she voted in the Senate to authorize military action against Iraq was of little consequence to me.  Hillary embodies the core Democratic values that have attracted my undying Party loyalty since I began voting in 1970.  Her long advocacy for children and families, affordable health care, education, and economic opportunity has always resonated with me.  The fact alone that she was willing to subject herself to the slings and arrows of the GOP attack machine demonstrated that she has what it takes to lead this nation.  And oh yes, who better to break the gender barrier than someone who has stood as a role model to young women for so long.

As Michael Moore pointed out in Fahrenheit 9/11, when the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. didn’t invade Mexico, and for good reason.  Most of us agree that the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was a preposterous and overtly-contrived reaction to the events of September 11, 2001.  Virtually everyone in the Bush/Cheney inner circle knew how ridiculous this would appear in the eyes of American citizens, even those bent on revenge against some unseen middle-eastern enemy, and therefore spared no effort in orchestrating an a deceptive scheme to make this happen.

It should come as a surprise to no one that the GOP, their surrogates, and partisan media hacks are once again preparing to crank up the slime machine.  Lacking new ideas, a charismatic candidate of their own, and with George W. Bush’s smirk tattooed on all their foreheads, they are like so many cornered badgers.  Faced with the prospect of losing their hegemony and the power that they have consolidated over the last eight years, their opening gambit will be to attack Barack Obama relentlessly and raise serious doubts in the minds of swing voters as to whether he is suited to be Commander-in Chief.

In 2000, the Bush/Cheney mantra was "compassionate conservatism."  In 2004, it was "if we elect a Democrat, we will be hit again and hit hard."  There was something in these messages and their companion rhetoric that resonated with a sufficient number of swing voters to make them swing in the direction of the GOP.  Then there was the inevitable backlash against the Clinton years (VP Search Committee, please take note).  The bottom line is that in two successive close elections, swing voters made all the difference.  The question is, which way will they swing in 2008?