For an opponent like John McCain, whose legislative record could encircle the planet

I take it you're not being facetious, though I'm hard-pressed to understand how you could make this statement with any degree of seriousness.

So assuming you're not making a funny, answer either of the following two questions:

1. What (oh, let's make this one a challenge: other than McCain-Feingold) legislative accomplishments can John McCain boast from his decades-long career?

2. Do you actually know anything about politics? Because I swear, a fair number of your posts make me think "No, no he does not."

And what are Hillary's legislative accomplishments? She may talk about them more, but she's so boring, no one's listening. I kind of mean that: IT'S THE FREAKIN' SENATE. They did this to Kerry too. Touting your legislative accomplishments doesn't work--the process is too group oriented, and they always come off sounding small and watered down. Watson was poorly prepared, and maybe that's the campaign's fault (or maybe he didn't read their talking points, or really did just blank). But this whole effort to find meaning in things that aren't meaningful is irritating--political coverage has become like sports coverage: people straining to find deeper significance to things that are either meaningless or far too complex to write a blurb about (i mean, give me some pages on how Obama's organization is able to kick ass time and again!).

We're not talking about Clinton, we're talking about the general. Republicans will care about accomplishments (or the lack thereof), especially if they don't want you to win, and they want to win swing Democrats.

This is just the primaries, and these things ARE meaningful. Or has anyone forgotten the last two elections and the Republican attack machine?

Have we forgotten that it was basically just ONE WEIRD NOISE that brought down the juggernaut that was Dean?

First of all, no it wasn't. He'd already lost Iowa and his campaign was in serious trouble.

Second of all, what's your point??? No one is saying Obama's got it in the bag. But this column was suggesting a change in message that makes NO SENSE. WHY would you want to match legislative accomplishments with McCain? It's playing to his strength. It would be like encouraging Obama to talk about how he's actually a pretty old guy. In other words, it would be stupid.

I don't think he was saying that he has to go toe-to-toe on Senatorial accomplishments, Obama would never win. What he needs to do is emphasize tangible things that he's accomplished--to show that he's talk and action. It can be lots of different things--the work he did in his community, stuff he did in the Illinois Senate, stuff he did in the US Senate. Just to bloster his image. Inspiration is good. Persperation is good. Inspiration + persperation = awesome.

All that the interview proves is Watson is a dufus! He should have known better (when facing Chris) that he will be asked a tough question. May be he should have had his son or daughter with him who would have done a better job of answering the question. It proved nothing about the capabilities of Obama or what he will achieve in future. Yes, talking of achievements of McCain - what has he done during his 25 years or so in US congress that the republicans brag about??

I'm sure they will find tons of stuff....I don't know much about him, but he has a good reputation among Republicans and Democrats.

I think that if people want to find out the accomplishments of any of the candidates they just need to make an effort to become informed--visit the websits, read candidate mailings. Additionally, people can watch the debates (I believe that including the debate scheduled for tonight, 19 have occured--two with just the remaining democratic candidates).

I have included a link of a young voter going toe to toe with a reporter that appears to think that said voter is voting on emotion rather than a grasp of the policy differences between HRC and Obama. My point is, the campaign has being going on for quite some time now, if you don't know where a candidate stands or how he/she stacks up against the competition, it probably is a case of not doing any independent due diligence, not that the candidiate is not substantive.

<link>

I

Yes, but isn't it strange that someone would endorse someone else and not know anything about them? I think that was the point made by Matthews. Don't elected officials have a responsibility to know the ins and outs of a person before giving them their stamp of approval?

I think that was the main point of the Slate article.

Mercadia,

It may be strange, but it is certainly not new. I'm not sure that the average voter takes the time to measure the candidates. In general, I think the vast majority of voters make their decsions based on their party affiliation, particularly dems and repubs ( I think independents may do a little more research than most as they can choose a dem, republican or 3rd party candidate). The next thing voters think about is what their party candidates can do for them, without thought to feasibility. For instance, a lot of people voted in the last two elections based on Bush's stance on abortion and gay rights--without really thinking about the fact that the president doesn't make any laws (executive orders not withstanding). People also thought that Bush was a conservative---but one certainly can't tell based on our deficit.

In terms of endorsement, no candidate really vets all of their endorsers or gives them talking points. What they want is that endorser, particulary state politicians, to utilize their base, to get votes. So again, the fact that this particular endorser was not able to answer the question may be dissappointing, but is certainly not surprising.

I just have to say one thing, cuz I'm irritating like that. :).

Bush doesn't really make legislation, but he appoints Supreme Court judges, which in turn decide to amend the consititution or overturn precident (i.e. overturning roe v. wade and making gay marriage unconstitutional). So they weren't really wrong in voting for him because of his position on those particular issues.