U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread

Obama or McCain/Democrat or Republican..you decide

  • McCain

    Votes: 14 7.5%
  • Obama

    Votes: 173 92.5%

  • Total voters
    187
  • Poll closed .
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama

By FRANK RICH
Published: October 11, 2008

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.

Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage.

To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner.

But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.
 
McCain up a couple of points in the Rasmussen and Zogby tracking polls today

I knew this would happen as soon as John Lewis made that statement. There are only three things that can still win McCain this election: a terrorist attack, race becoming the big issue, and cheating again.

You only have to look at those Republicans at the rallies to see how potent race still is. The violence of their rage is coming out of the humiliation they feel at the prospect of losing to a black man.

Even more obvious is the overt prejudice on both sides against Arabs and Muslims. McCain gets all these plaudits for taking the mic off that woman who said, "Obama's an Arab", and saying, "No, no ma'am, he's not." But that's not enough. What needs to be said is, "No he's not, and even if he were, that's no reason to fear or dislike him". Similarly, in Sarah Silverman's promo for "The Great Schlep", she reassures elderly Jewish voters in Florida that Obama's not a Muslim. But that's not acceptable. Someone has to have the guts to say, "He's not a Muslim, and even if he were, don't fecking vote for presidents based on their race/religion, you daft twat."

Obviously that's not very pragmatic, but race is such a dangerous issue that you can't afford to fudge it and pander to bigots under any circumstances. The result of McCain's intervention is that the notion that being a particular ethnicity would make you a scary, unelectable candidate has been legitimated yet again. Meanwhile Ann Coulter talks about "camel jockeys" :confused: on mainstream television. When will people grow up?
 
Someone has to have the guts to say, "He's not a Muslim, and even if he were, don't fecking vote for presidents based on their race/religion, you daft twat."

:confused: Surely religion, being one of a person's chosen convictions about the world, is a valid consideration when voting? For example, I would not vote for a scientologist. And the alternative would have to be pretty horrendous for me to consider voting for a fundamental Christian who thinks the world is a few thousand years old.

But obviously race should not be any sort of consideration. And neither should gender, sexuality etc. Basically anything that a person doesn't have a choice over, and doesn't affect their ability to carry out the job, should be irrelevant.
 
Even more obvious is the overt prejudice on both sides against Arabs and Muslims. McCain gets all these plaudits for taking the mic off that woman who said, "Obama's an Arab", and saying, "No, no ma'am, he's not."

The exact quote was "No ma'am, he's not, he's a decent family man".

The Republicans aren't going for the Arab/Muslim demographic I hope since he just suggested that all male Arabs aren't good family men.

If you put some of this stuff in a novel people wouldn't believe it.
 
:confused: Surely religion, being one of a person's chosen convictions about the world, is a valid consideration when voting? For example, I would not vote for a scientologist. And the alternative would have to be pretty horrendous for me to consider voting for a fundamental Christian who thinks the world is a few thousand years old.

But obviously race should not be any sort of consideration. And neither should gender, sexuality etc. Basically anything that a person doesn't have a choice over, and doesn't affect their ability to carry out the job, should be irrelevant.

I agree except it isn't always easy to avoid the religious loons out here.
 
:confused: Surely religion, being one of a person's chosen convictions about the world, is a valid consideration when voting? For example, I would not vote for a scientologist. And the alternative would have to be pretty horrendous for me to consider voting for a fundamental Christian who thinks the world is a few thousand years old.

But obviously race should not be any sort of consideration. And neither should gender, sexuality etc. Basically anything that a person doesn't have a choice over, and doesn't affect their ability to carry out the job, should be irrelevant.

Yeah, you’re right. I certainly wouldn’t vote for a religious extremist (although I voted for Blair and he turned out to be a lot more religious than I thought). And given the choice (which in the US you wouldn’t get) between an atheist and a religious candidate, all else being equal I’d certainly vote for the atheist.

That’s kind of different from picking out one religion though, and saying, I might vote for an Episcopalian or a Catholic or a Jew or whatever, but not a Muslim. If the religion in question was Satanism, say - something not just irrational like all religions but also beyond the pale and outside of Western cultural experience - that attitude would sit easier with me. But with Islam, you get the feeling what they really mean is a complex of the religion + dark skin + ideologies associated with ME states.

I also hate the idea that American Jews, who have always voted overwhelmingly Democrat on ideological grounds, would vote tribalistically on a single foreign policy issue (unless there was good evidence that the candidate wanted to do something really mental, in which case it would be reasonable). Voting against Obama because they think he’s a Muslim is nothing to do with theological arguments against the existence of God, or critiques of particular Muslim practices. What it means is, “They’re all meshuggeners and terrorists”, which is just blatant group profiling, i.e. bigotry.

You’ve said on here before that you’re pretty much immune to the tug of group identity, but for many it remains powerful, and it’s hard to formulate consistent ‘rules’ about what is or isn’t respectable. For instance, I’m sure there are some black voters who have been mobilised by a desire to see a black president. That’s voting on racial grounds, but given the history of the US and race relations, to me it’s entirely reasonable and understandable. (In an ideal world they'd be voting on who's got the best qualities and policies - but on this occasion there's a happy convergence of that with the tribalistic vote.) Whereas voting for McCain because he’s white isn’t - what it really means is voting for McCain because Obama’s black. One is based on a desire for equality, the other on bigotry.


The exact quote was "No ma'am, he's not, he's a decent family man".

The Republicans aren't going for the Arab/Muslim demographic I hope since he just suggested that all male Arabs aren't good family men.

If you put some of this stuff in a novel people wouldn't believe it.

Quite. Imagine the outcry if it was, say, 'Indian' instead of 'Arab'.

"He's an Indian"
"No, ma'am, he's not, he's a decent family man."

The amazing thing is that hardly anyone's commented on it, it's regarded as acceptable in mainstream culture.
 
You’ve said on here before that you’re pretty much immune to the tug of group identity, but for many it remains powerful, and it’s hard to formulate consistent ‘rules’ about what is or isn’t respectable. For instance, I’m sure there are some black voters who have been mobilised by a desire to see a black president. That’s voting on racial grounds, but given the history of the US and race relations, to me it’s entirely reasonable and understandable. (In an ideal world they'd be voting on who's got the best qualities and policies - but on this occasion there's a happy convergence of that with the tribalistic vote.) Whereas voting for McCain because he’s white isn’t - what it really means is voting for McCain because Obama’s black. One is based on a desire for equality, the other on bigotry.

I agree with pretty much all you said. However, I think the number of black people voting on racial grounds is often overstated, given how many black people voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
 
that's really underestimating black people like it's underestimating women when they say women will vote for Palin because she is a woman too. I like too think people are above that
 
while African Americans have always been a strong base of the Democratic party, this time they are voting in much larger numbers...that is why states like North Carolina and Georgia are in play for the Democrats...

so the fact obama is black is outweighing any votes against him because of his race amoung whites.
 
I agree with pretty much all you said. However, I think the number of black people voting on racial grounds is often overstated, given how many black people voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

You do realize Obama was getting around 95% of the black vote, right?
 
that's really underestimating black people like it's underestimating women when they say women will vote for Palin because she is a woman too. I like too think people are above that

Right, anyway, Hurricane Katrina. Go ask a black person about it and what they think of Republican presidents.
 
Interesting statement on the old BBC today, along the lines of "Every single president of the USA, for 230 years, indeed every vice-president, has come from British or Irish stock".

I would of thought the odd German, Italian, or East European would have featured somewhere along the line, but apparently not.
 
I don't think the virulent hatred you're seeing for Obama at McCain rallies can be entirely chalked up to his race. The fact that he has an extremely liberal voting record in the Senate (most liberal of all, according to at least one measure), the fact that he's proposing to pull troops completely out of Iraq, and the fact that he's proposing massive health care reform are all significant policy issues contributing to the anger. Sounds ridiculous if you're not a Yank, but all three of those things equate to cowardly, big-government socialism in the minds of too many Americans, whipped into a frenzy about it by the feckwitted hots of conservative talk-radio shows for the last, oh, twenty-some years. And socialism, as those same hosts and their listeneres will tell you, is about half a step from the fecking communists whom we worked so long and hard to defeat, and who really hate this country more than just about anyone other than Arab terrorists (whom those filthy Commies wouldn't mind working with if it hurt the good ol' US of A).

If the candidate beating McCain in all the polls were a black man or woman with a different political outlook (more toward the right), I don't think you'd see this sort of outrage, and I don't think it would be tolerated in the way that it has. And I feel pretty certain about that.
 
You do realize Obama was getting around 95% of the black vote, right?


that isnt correct. best estimates state somewhere around 80 percent. The truth is that african americans only make up 12.8 percent of the united states electorate so for him to win he will millions of white voters to vote for him.

we will find out nov 4 if they will
 
that isnt correct. best estimates state somewhere around 80 percent. The truth is that african americans only make up 12.8 percent of the united states electorate so for him to win he will millions of white voters to vote for him.

we will find out nov 4 if they will

At the beginning, she was getting a larger percentage. As it went on and people understood he was for real, it was 90+ everytime.

And this election has been over for a couple of weeks.
 
I find it to be a misleading pile of rubbish. But perhaps the author, a lifetime Republican Party flack, could be hired to craft a piece saying that Alex's and my opinions are "Not so different after all! Isn't that super? Who would have thought!"

Not that I agree or disagree with you but this is exactly the problem with politics in this country (not with you). If a person from the other party critisizes that party it's automatically dismissed as lies, propaganda or misleading. If someone from the same party does it they are a sell out or a traitor. And this goes for both demos and repubs. I hate to tell you all but for the most part politicians of both parties are really disliked right now. People are sick and tired of the bitching and blaming. There is plenty of blame for both. Neither of these candidates are for change, they are just for a change to them. Every campaign is a campaign of change.
 
of course Obama is not going to win without the white vote....the bradley effect which the GOP is hoping for will happen...only in reverse....

There actually is no such thing as the Bradley Effect. It's a media created myth.
Now that polls indicate Senator Barack Obama is the favorite to win, some analysts predict a racially biased "Bradley Effect" could prevent Obama from winning a majority on November 4th. That is a pernicious canard and is unworthy of 21st century political narratives. I should know. I was there in 1982 at "ground zero" in California when I served George Deukmejian as his general election pollster and as a member of his strategy team when he defeated African-American Democratic California gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley, not once but twice, in 1982 and again in 1986.

Bradley Effect believers assume that there is an undetectable tendency in the behavior of some white voters who tell pollsters that they are "undecided" when in fact their true preference is to vote against the black candidate. This so-called effect suggests the power or advantage to alter an outcome - a pretty serious charge. This would render poll projections inaccurate (overstating both the number of undecided voters and the African-American candidate's margin over a white opponent) and create an unaccounted for different outcome. However, it is indeed a "theory in search of data."

The hype surrounding the Bradley Effect has evolved to where some political pundits believe in 2008 that Obama must win in the national pre-election polls by 6-9 points before he can be assured a victory. That's absurd. There won't be a 6-9 point Bradley Effect -- there can't be, since few national polls show a large enough amount of undecided voters and it's in the undecided column where racism supposedly hides.

The other reason I reject the Bradley Effect in 2008 is because there was not a Bradley Effect in the 1982 California Governor's race, either. Even though Tom Bradley had been slightly ahead in the polls in 1982, due to sampling error, it was statistically too close to call. For example, the daily Tarrance and Associates tracking polls for the Deukmejian campaign showed the following weekly summations (N=1000 each) during the month of October:


Week of:
Oct.7th Oct. 14th Oct. 21st Oct. 28 Nov. 1

Bradley 49 45 46 45 45

Deukmejian 37 41 41 42 44


It is obvious that this election was closing fast. Yet, Bradley's win was projected by the most prominent public pollster in the state, Mervin Field, who boasted on Election Day that Tom Bradley would defeat George Deukmejian, "making the Los Angeles mayor the first elected black governor in American history" (UPI 11-3-82). The reason for Field's enthusiasm was that his last weekend polling showed a 7-point margin for Bradley, but this was totally at variance from the Tarrance and Associates internal tracking results. Field's own exit polls, on Election Day itself, where voters were questioned after they left the polling places, also predicted a Bradley win. This caused the San Fransisco Chronicle, ignoring the closeness of the election and mixed polling results, to print 170,000 copies of its early morning Wednesday edition under the headline "Bradley Win Projected."
Also at variance with the Mervin Field exit polls were the NBC and the CBS networks, using both exit polls and actual returns from key precincts, when they declared George Deukmejian the winner and not Tom Bradley the winner. In an AP report, a KNBC newscaster told viewers on Election Night "...half of the polls are wrong and I don't know who's right." The only thing we know for sure is the election was too close to call, and some of the Election Day projections were right and others (notably Mervin Fields' projections) were wrong and, unfortunately, most of this explanation because of selective memory has not been carried forward to this day.
 
good post Alwaysredwood....but it is very beilevable that there may be a reverse Bradley effect this time around...because culturally in certain communities it may not be very acceptable to vote for a black candidate....but people may vote for Obama because he is looking after their pocketbook.
 
good post Alwaysredwood....but it is very beilevable that there may be a reverse Bradley effect this time around...because culturally in certain communities it may not be very acceptable to vote for a black candidate....but people may vote for Obama because he is looking after their pocketbook.

I agree. I've spoken to two friends in Ohio who have told me exactly that. People are too scared to tell friends they are going to vote for Obama because he's black, but plan to.
 
Neither of these candidates are for change, they are just for a change to them. Every campaign is a campaign of change.
I would say that ending the war qualifies as real change. As would serious health care reform, which is badly needed. Our current system is a national disgrace.
 
I would say that ending the war qualifies as real change. As would serious health care reform, which is badly needed. Our current system is a national disgrace.

So then you think Obama will take office and pull the troops out ignoring what the commanders are saying. This would go against what Obamas has said. I suppose depending on the definition of serious heathcare reform means depends on what will happen there. Again, the president can't install the legislation it has to go through congress and I can't see it the way it's being pitched.
 
Cali Red...there is huge differences between these candidates....just go look at their platforms....Obamas fundementally is geared to the middle class...and McCains is still geared to the upperclass and big business.

a fair question would be if either can achieve their goals in the current economic situation......
 
I agree. I've spoken to two friends in Ohio who have told me exactly that. People are too scared to tell friends they are going to vote for Obama because he's black, but plan to.

That can be read two ways.

Do you mean they're too scared to tell their friends because he's black (and presumably their friends are racist), or they're too scared to tell their friends that they're going to cast their vote for racial reasons?
 
a coment about ACORN....this is the dumbest thing the Republicans are spinning....

Firstly Obama has done his own registration drives...I know...I have seen it myself...and have visted the headquarters in St. Paul....
ACORN is a seperate organisation that can and has been used by both organisations...but mainly by Democrats.....thus the GOP spin....

in the cases of voter frauds...which ACORN themselves have brought up...they were defrauded by people they hired....who were being paid by the number of voters they registered...so these lazy bastards filled up false names to be paid.....

but here is the fact check...none of these people could vote...impossible....and that claim by some jerk who said he voted 75 times or some shit...FFS....the people who allowed him to do must be prosecuted....that act(s) has nothing to do with ACORN...anyone if allowed can do such a thing..if allowed to do so.

so the Red Herring about voter fraud that is brought...each election cycle by the GOP as an excuse to Suppress votes...which is What is Really happening...and will happen.These bastards are justifing throwing out thousands of genunie voters using this ACORN shit as an excuse. God they must think everyone is stupid...which there must be....that loads of idiots among Republicans..the uneducated inbreds that they are.....since they belive this crap.

They know they are way behind the Democrats in terms of voters registered and will vote....and sure the polls showing Obama way ahead must all be lying...

Yes. There is and will be voter fraud...and as always it will be the fecking GOP.
 
Cali Red...there is huge differences between these candidates....just go look at their platforms....Obamas fundementally is geared to the middle class...and McCains is still geared to the upperclass and big business.

a fair question would be if either can achieve their goals in the current economic situation......

I think you're slightly mischaracterizing both candidates but I full agree with your last sentance.
 
That can be read two ways.

Do you mean they're too scared to tell their friends because he's black (and presumably their friends are racist), or they're too scared to tell their friends that they're going to cast their vote for racial reasons?

A lot of people in Ohio don't want to tell their friends and neighbors they are going to vote for a black guy because there is so much racism.
 
So then you think Obama will take office and pull the troops out ignoring what the commanders are saying. This would go against what Obamas has said.

I politely disagree, although perhaps you have read something I haven't - if there's a conflict with the commanders on the ground, I'm unaware of it. But here's his plan, from the campaign website, for Iraq - phased withdrawal

"Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began."


I suppose depending on the definition of serious heathcare reform... Again, the president can't install the legislation it has to go through congress and I can't see it the way it's being pitched.
There may be some compromises, but I think the Democrats may have a majority in both houses, so I'm not sure what you think the holdup will be. I think support is also growing amongst the citizenry for change in the way healthcare is handled, so I think he will be able to make some significant changes. Hillary might have been able to do so fifteen years ago if she hadn't been such an egomaniacal rhymes with stitch in the way she went about it.
 
AlwaysRedwood is correct about significant differences in the tax plans. From the Obama campaign website...

Under the Obama Plan:

• Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan. Indeed, according to the National Review, McCain’s plan “offers very little in the way of direct benefits to Americans in the middle of the income scale..”

National Review, for those unfamiliar, is the foremost conservative magazine in America. Quoting more extensively from their article linked above:

Our own worries about the McCain plan are different. It offers very little in the way of direct benefits to Americans in the middle of the income scale. Controlling spending and cutting corporate tax rates may benefit them a great deal — but only indirectly and eventually. Republicans have won on the tax issue when they have also put money in people’s pockets.

Obama is promising to hold middle-income voters harmless and raise taxes only for people much richer. McCain needs to cut middle-class taxes, not just keep them from rising, to get to Obama’s right.