will vote for McCain. We all know that both candidates can't be taken at their word - they won't keep the promises they make. So you have to look at the circumstances of their presidency and their own record.

So here's the thing: McCain would face a very Democratic congress and has a longstanding interest in appearing to be bipartisan. With need and proclivity coinciding, he will work with the Democrats to get things done. I can imagine a balanced budget at the end of the McCain administration, generated by a combination of tax hikes and reduced military spending (McCain has nothing to prove on the military front), for instance. I can imagine real, tangible action on climate change. Certainly McCain will be considerably more competent in international politics than Bush has been.

Obama would have the same Democratic congress to work with, and his general political leanings are already less centrist. I expect his first two years to be like Clinton's: ambitious, partisan, contentious. They will end in deadlock and a big Republican victory in '10. Whether he can recapture Clinton's success after that depends on his ability as a politician. While he's good, he's no Bill Clinton, and I am not sure he could pull that off (Bill also got lucky - a bit).

I think a weak Republican president with bipartisan tendencies cooperating with a strong Democratic congress would lead to more progress towards fiscal responsibility and a competent foreign policy than a all-Democratic setup that sits to the left of mainstream America. I admit that if I really believed that universal affordable healthcare, universal education and real social security reform were in the cards, I guess I would be less sanguine about all this. But I don't see any of these things happening in the US. Not yet. I also don't believe that Obama would withdraw much faster from Iraq than McCain. So pragmatically, McCain seems to be a better choice for Democrats.

Of course, after being the butt of extremist partisan politics for 8 years, with blatant corporatism, vast unfunded tax cuts and a war of choice rammed down their throats, Democrats may not be able to subdue an irrational desire to have their turn and stick it to the other side for a change. Understandable, but irrational.

"With need and proclivity coinciding, he will work with the Democrats to get things done. I can imagine a balanced budget at the end of the McCain administration, generated by a combination of tax hikes and reduced military spending (McCain has nothing to prove on the military front), for instance. I can imagine real, tangible action on climate change. Certainly McCain will be considerably more competent in international politics than Bush has been."

It's a nice idea, but I don't see the evidence. McCain's attitude on international politics is harder and more hawkish than Bush. Maybe this is just pandering to the GOP base, but I don't see any inconsistency with his previous form.

As for economics, he's in favor of perpetuating the Bush tax cuts for the rich. I can't see him suddenly becoming a convert to fiscal responsibility.

It's really stretching credibility to say Obama will be in deadlock with a Democratic Congress, while McCain will give them everything they want. Obama is not some kind of Marxist, whatever the freaks on the interweb say. It sounds like some alternate universe!

I have to take McCain at his word on his policy positions, and they are very much following the same direction the Republicans have been moving these past seven years. Maybe he would change everything once in power, and become sweetness and light. But why take the risk?

I know some view Obama as some kind of radical Muslim communist who also has no experience, who mesmerizes everyone using black magic, and who may even be a sign of the End of Days. People can be very odd. For my money he's an intelligent man of obvious character and integrity who'd work very well with a Democratic Congress -- particularly on getting people on board with the changes America needs to make. I find McCain to be much more of a risk. I have no idea whether he would stick to his harsh rhetoric on North Korea or Iran, and I don't want to find out. I can well imagine him grandstanding against a Democratic Congress just like Bush. Certainly on the wiretap issue he seems to have come round to Bush's position on the unitary executive.

I'm afraid your wrong about McCain. He doesn't have bipartisan tendencies. If he did he wouldn't have won the nomination for the republican party. If you actually look at his voting record he has never strayed from the party line. He has said he would like war with Iran, he also said he would appoint more supreme justices like the ones bush appointed and that he will create more tax cuts for the rich.

He isn't exactly the same as Bush, but his policies are so close that it isn't hard to extrapolate. It seems like you are very mistaken with what McCains actually policies.

Pragmatic Democrats aren't trying to set things up for '12, either hoping for a deadlock in congress to hold back another republican president from doing any harm. We want to stop the problems now before they get worse.

And John McCain will be under intense pressure to set the stage for the next Republican president. I think it's highly unlikely McCain will be supported for a second term. Right now the Republicans are grooming their candidate for 2012. McCain is not going to do anything that will make Democrats look good.

He is, after all, a party hack. Any man who would allow himself to be humiliated by his own party in the last election and then kiss GWB is a party hack.

Democratic poseurs will vote for McCain.

Democrats will not. Many Independents and Republicans also will not.

As for economics, he's in favor of perpetuating the Bush tax cuts for the rich. I can't see him suddenly becoming a convert to fiscal responsibility.

He was against them at the time. I believe that - once elected - he will revert to being fiscally responsible.

It's really stretching credibility to say Obama will be in deadlock with a Democratic Congress, while McCain will give them everything they want.

No, that's not the case. Obama and a very Democratic congress will overreach, and be defeated by the Republicans with some Blue Dog assistance. That's what happened to Clinton. McCain would not try something that foolish and will revert to his usual compromising.

I have to take McCain at his word on his policy positions, and they are very much following the same direction the Republicans have been moving these past seven years. Maybe he would change everything once in power, and become sweetness and light. But why take the risk?

I don't think it makes any sense to believe what a politician says during a campaign. It makes more sense to see what he's been like over the last few decades in politics. I don't believe McCain's conversion to tax cutting and dogmatic social conservatism.

For my money [Obama is] an intelligent man of obvious character and integrity who'd work very well with a Democratic Congress -- particularly on getting people on board with the changes America needs to make.

I agree, but I see this as no different from Clinton in '92. I also see no reason why the result would be any different. It will essentially cost us two years before something gets done.

I find McCain to be much more of a risk. I have no idea whether he would stick to his harsh rhetoric on North Korea or Iran, and I don't want to find out.

But why would you believe Obama's soft rhetoric on the same subject? In office, McCain can compromise, as he has nothing to prove, whereas Obama will continuously be under pressure to show he's not weak. You've already seen him back up on supporting Israel, who knows where he will stop?

Personally I agree with most of Obama's ideas on what needs to be done. I just don't think he can get most of them done. He'll overshoot, and will fail. I think a Democratic Congress with a weak Republican president will get more things done.

Adrasteia, I agree that this is the one thing that really bothers me about McCain - that he prostrated himself for W after the way he was treated. But I don't think he's a party man, and certainly won't be one if elected. It will be his last hurrah, and I don't think he'ld use it to prep for 2012.

It will be interesting to see who both men chose as their running mates.

McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list

Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) new-found opposition to Roe v. Wade is rather remarkable, even for him.

In 1999, McCain was in New Hampshire, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a moderate. He proclaimed himself a pro-life candidate, but told reporters that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” He explained that overturning Roe would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” Yesterday, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a conservative, McCain said the opposite.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support…. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states.

The old McCain didn’t want an amendment and didn’t want Roe overturned. The new McCain completely disagrees with the old McCain.

It’s worth noting that politicians’ opinions on abortion can, and often do, “evolve” over time. Dick Gephardt and Al Gore, for example, both opposed abortion rights before eventually becoming pro-choice. With this in mind, McCain’s unexpected shift may simply reflect yet another pol whose thinking has changed over time.

Or, far more likely, McCain is once again abandoning any pretense of consistency and integrity, and is now willing to say literally anything to win.

Let’s return, once again, to McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list, which is now a Top 11 list.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

It’s not exactly a newsflash that McCain is veering ridiculously to the right in a rather shameless attempt to reinvent himself, but Dems should take advantage of the situation and help establish the narrative now. Despite his rather embarrassing record of late, we still have major media figures telling the public that “no one would accuse McCain of equivocating on anything.”

Now is the time to begin characterizing McCain — accurately — as a man with no principle beliefs. Dems should not only criticize McCain’s constantly evolving opinions on nearly everything, they should openly mock him for it now, so that the storyline becomes second nature (like the GOP did with “serial exaggerator” Al Gore).

The nation is seeing McCain 2.0, and we like the old one better.

"John McCain vs. John McCain": Flip-Flops Gone Viral

<link>