Thursday, October 2, 2008

The presidential race in Michigan is over

Having just watched the vice presidential debate, I feel compelled to come up with something political to post. (By the way, is it just me or was Biden-Palin far more interesting than McCain-Obama, regardless of your political affiliation?)

Well, here's the best I can come up with, courtesy of Michael Cooper at The New York Times:

"Senator John McCain is giving up on his efforts to win the state of Michigan, his campaign said Thursday, in the latest sign that the faltering economy has reshaped the presidential race and cost Mr. McCain support in crucial states.

"Ceding Michigan is a major blow to the McCain campaign, which had spent heavily on television commercials there and where Mr. McCain had campaigned repeatedly in the hopes that he could appeal to enough blue-collar voters, so-called Reagan Democrats and independent voters, to bring the state back into the Republican column in November."

If you support Obama, be happy. If you liked McCain, at least you'll be subjected to fewer political ads between now and November as both candidates slash their spending in the Great Lake State. (I guess this is bad economic news for the state's media outlets.)

"The McCain campaign has spent nearly $8 million on ads in Michigan, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a company that monitors political advertising, and now it has no more plans to advertise there, campaign officials said. And Mr. McCain canceled a visit he had planned to make to Michigan next week."

Please note that I'm trying to be non-partisan here. I chose this because it's about politics and Michigan, not because it's bad news for McCain. So please, no ranting and raving from either party. Or, even better, please rant and rave if you like, but let's hear from both sides, please.


  1. Biden-Palin was more interesting, IMHO. Simply put, you're talking about two presidential candidates who chose their VP candidates for WHAT they bring to the table, not where they come from.

    Amongst other things, it means we get to see where our VPs will be exercising their powers (i.e. where our Presidents see themselves as weakest). For that alone the VP candidates are more interesting than the presidential candidates.

  2. Godozo, I agree. The VP's seemed a little more free to get excited,to get mildly emotional, while the presidential candidates were trying to be so, well, presidential.

  3. My first impression was Palin looked into the camera - Biden at the moderator. When Biden would turn to look at the camera, the camera would pull back for a scenic shot, then come back to him which I felt lost him his effectiveness then.

    I found Biden to be very stiff and tired in the beginning. If the debates had only lasted 20 minutes, Palin would have won.

    Biden became more passionate on issue and more real as the debates went on. And Palin's only real ramble was her rebuttal after Biden had mentioned his son, but not many cared what she said at that time anyways.

    It was a good debate. Biden made all the correct remarks for his party. Palin as well...

    I almost wish these two VPs were running for President, because I'm already tired of the other two.

    ps. since I'm of the "east coast" persuasion, it will be interesting to hear what middle america came away with. I'm reminded of a mayoral vote awhile back... one guy was great on issues, the other guy you wanted at your dinner table. guess who won?

  4. Please, forgive me, I'm from Flint.


  5. Agreed, it was a more interesting debate, but I think it was in part to the wildcards that people perceived them both to be.

    I don't know how people can look at this as a tie...Palin had to dig herself out of a hole, while Biden could focus on discrediting McCain. All Palin did was reassure republicans, while Biden chipped away at the top of the ticket and probably picked up some more votes along the way. Palin got a few shots at Obama, but nothing that Biden couldn't or didn't intercept with sound, factual, persuasive defense. If viewed objectively, one was substantive and one was not, as a previous poster intimated.

    Now, for my less objective side, I just can't believe someone who looks into a camera, with a maniacal smile and says, "I am tolerant. I am really, really tolerant." Me thinks she doth protest too much.
    Kathy W.


Thanks for commenting.