ELECTION 2008 #2

As this Blogers most learned political guru, I have only a few remarks for today's blog.

If the McCain who appeared on Letterman's program Thursday had been the one at all three debates there would have been no question who won. This is such an ambiguous statement that it should be interpreted any way you want. I expect that Palin's appearance on tonight's Saturday Live will gather the highest of listener ratings.

The newspapers are not prejudiced. I grant that they are supporting a specific candidate. I am referring to their "polls" and letters published. An example; Friday's New York Times published 13 letters regarding Obama and McCain, supposedly relating to Wednesday's debate. The time element suggests that they were all submitted by Email. Of the first three 1 was for McCain, 1 for Obama, and 1 noncommittal. That seemed fair enough. The next 10 were either all pro Obama or anti McClain. If my math is correct and this represents the country only 7.69% are for McCain. Another 7.69% still have not decided, and a whopping 84.62% are for Obama. We have seen votes like that in Russia and other "Totalitarian Democracies:

Seriously, with the economy the way it is, even "JC Himself" could not be elected as a Republican. That does not mean that all those who oppose Obama might as well stay home and not vote. That could be fatal. Polls do influence an election and are too many are designed to do that function. The election is decided in the voting booth and too often the quoted polls prove wrong.