U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And here's the list of economists supporting McCain. Five Nobel Laureates. So it is pretty lopsided.

Like it!

Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:

No, I don't think McCain would. McCain is for both a strong military and leaving entitlement/social programs more or less where they are. This means no significant budget cutting (though hammering ear-marks would be nice!). Obama likely would finish his first term with a budget that was not in deficit, or at least close to that level. Remember, Bill Clinton had little trouble doing that once he got serious about the budget as his "legacy," and Obama would be working against less Congressional opposition.

The only reason we can consider that is because of the surge, which Obama strongly opposed, saying it would not stop the violence.

I agree, but that won't stop Obama from reaping the better political windfall. Especially after his trip to the region, from which he will return with "new insight" and any justification he needs to tailor his policy where it will do him the most good. My bet is that McCain gains little credit for Bush's "success" while Obama actually picks up a half-notch on foreign policy for "connecting" so well with the Arab world.

[CountArach]

And here's the list of economists supporting McCain. Five Nobel Laureates. So it is pretty lopsided.

Touché sir...

Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:

McCain can't balance the budget by 2013

[Lemur]

Well know we know where you're coming from.

Last I checked I was in favor of both candidates. But the fact that I defend Obama from what I feel is a never-ending stream of attacks makes me ... captain librul dem lackey! Woo-hoo! If you're not with us 100% you're the enemy! As I was saying about tribalism ...

Where's the 'gridlock is good' Lemur? Voting McCain in with the current dem congress would be giving noone the keys to the kingdom.

As you love to say, way to completely dodge what I was saying ...

Oh, and Obama says 'one bomb' fell on Pearl Harbor. Good to see he's got such a good grasp of history.

That is weak, dude. So the transcript has "bomb" instead of "bombs." Is that the best line of attack you can mount? Seriously? This is the **** you want to win the White House with?

Here's an item of interest -- a reporter put together the Top Ten McCain Articles freely available on the web. Looks like some cool stuff.

1. The Life Story of Arizona's Maverick Senator McCain
2. Neo-McCain: The Making of an überhawk
3. Prisoner of Conscience
4. P.O.W. to Power Broker, a Chapter Most Telling
5. The Subversive: A Question of Honor
6. I Liked a Pol
7. Race Against Himself: Is John McCain Trying to Lose?
8. The War Secrets Sen. John McCain Hides: Former POW Fights Public Access to POW/MIA Files
9. Opiate for the Mrs.: When Laws Are Broken, Somebody's Got to Be Punished. In the Case of Cindy McCain, That Somebody is Tom Gosinski
10. McCain Pressed FCC in Case Involving Major Contributor

[ICantSpellDawg]

Last I checked I was in favor of both candidates. But the fact that I defend Obama from what I feel is a never-ending stream of attacks makes me ... captain librul dem lackey! Woo-hoo! If you're not with us 100% you're the enemy! As I was saying about tribalism ...

Don't pretend that you are going to vote for McCain, Lemur. You have a special place in your heart for Barry and you can't cover it up with quick claims!

[Lemur]

I get the impression that the right-wingers on the board would be much, much more comfortable if I would just line up behind Obama. Must be part of that authoritarian instinct -- fries or chips, soldier? There's a war on, pick a side! Tastes great or less filling? Don't try to waffle -- we all know you're a "tastes great" partisan.

McCain always was far and away my favorite of the Repub choices. Obama was my favorite Dem candidate. I'm still thrilled it's the two of them. There are ramifications that I'm not going to go into, since it would be taken as flaming by the right-wing die-hards. I am a happy, happy lemur.

I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...

....in support of a candidate that most conservatives are luke-warm for at best.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...

Well, it's a natural urge to to shoot a man down when you see him giving speeches to ridiculously over excited crowds all the time. That's why a lot of the criticism of Obama centers on "he's just a politician". Why would anyone bother to say that about McCain?

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's true. We all take for granted McCain's a pol, ie. a liar, scoundrel and general knave. You just hope you get one who doesn't lie to much and is only a little knavish.

But Obama is seen by those enthralled (no, I'm not talking about you Lemur, be calm ) as a great virtuous demi-god who has risen above petty politics, you know - the next JFK, who'll be our savior. So it's a fight just to show him as a politician.

But I don't see, Lemur, how saying Obama's going to be bad for the economy is a 'hyperventilating' attack. The only thing that's hyperventilating, I dare say, is your description of the attacks.

CR

[Lemur]

But Obama is seen by those enthralled [...] as a great virtuous demi-god who has risen above petty politics, you know - the next JFK, who'll be our savior. So it's a fight just to show him as a politician.

You'll get no argument from me on that one. He is a politician, after all, and a shockingly talented one. It's a shame to see his supporters run from this basic truth.

But I don't see, Lemur, how saying Obama's going to be bad for the economy is a 'hyperventilating' attack.

It isn't -- you had the misfortune to get mixed in with the kitchen-sink-plus that's been going on in this thread. You also rested your entire economic argument on a well-established extremist's op-ed piece, which isn't exactly the bedrock to build a tower of unassailable logic upon. I would certainly have taken less umbrage if you'd found someone who isn't such a complete one-issue demagogue from whom to borrow your argument.

-edit-

Although you have to admit, Rabbit, that if the Pearl Harbor attack you quoted isn't hyperventilating, it's breathing very hard. I mean, face it: that talking point is borderline gibberish. Are we to believe that this over-educated guy, an editor of the Harvard Law Review and a constitutional law professor at Chicago University does not have even a Michael Bay-level understanding of Pearl Harbor? All based on a CNN transcript? And all based on "bomb" versus "bombs"? Which seems more likely: (1) Transcript error, (2) Simple misstatement, or (3) Total, absolute stupidity about recent American history? I'm guessing you went for 3 without much consideration, yes?

The fact that you're even willing to regurgitate weak **** like that smacks of ... well, I gotta say it ... tribalism. In other words, you don't ultimately care how you attack the other side, just that you do so. Somebody said he's a closet transvestite who must kill puppies to achieve orgasm? Run with it! Spread it far and wide! I always knew he was a puppy-killing trannie!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Although you have to admit, Rabbit, that if the Pearl Harbor attack you quoted isn't hyperventilating, it's breathing very hard.

Fair enough, but he has made other historical gaffes.

Somebody said he's a closet transvestite who must kill puppies to achieve orgasm?

Man, you made me LoL.

I would certainly have taken less umbrage if you'd found someone who isn't such a complete one-issue demagogue from whom to borrow your argument.

That's why I tried to highlight the facts in regards to Obama's plan to raise taxes.

CR

[CountArach]

Fair enough, but he has made other historical gaffes.

Like McCain referring to Czechoslovakia? (link)

“I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia. Apparently that is in reaction to the Czech’s agreement with us concerning missile defense, and again some of the Russian now announcement they are now retargeting new targets, something they abandoned at the end of the Cold War, is also a concern. So we see the tensions between Russia and their neighbors, as well as Russia and the United States are somewhat increasing.”

I don't really care though.

http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/ Comforting to know

[PanzerJaeger]

Uh, no, he said it wouldn't address political reconciliation, not that it would not stop the violence.

Then why did he purge his website of fun phrases like "The surge is not working"? Go ahead and answer with some more quotes from Obama after the fact.

I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...

Its about intellectual honesty Lemur, or a lack there of. Most of us - right and left - have staked out our positions. My feelings on Obama are transparent, and despite your "independence", so are yours.

You are right though. The attacks on Obama have been far more numerous than those on McCain. Come to think of it, the last hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse on McCain was a vicious article in the oh-so-credible Daily Mail full of rumor and speculation about his first marriage posted by... guess who.

[m52nickerson]

Its about intellectual honesty Lemur, or a lack there of. Most of us - right and left - have staked out our positions. My feelings on Obama are transparent, and despite your "independence", so are yours.

You are right though. The attacks on Obama have been far more numerous than those on McCain. Come to think of it, the last hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse on McCain was a vicious article in the oh-so-credible Daily Mail full of rumor and speculation about his first marriage posted by... guess who.

.....and in Lemur's post he says

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

More than any of the shots that have been taken at McCain, this has made me question my support for the guy. Am I over-reacting to an election-year hit piece?

So he posted the article and then was asking if he should take it into account. I think this is a little different then posting something and then saying "look McCain is a scumbag and left his sick wife, he will not make a good president."

[Xiahou]

I get the impression that the right-wingers on the board would be much, much more comfortable if I would just line up behind Obama. Must be part of that authoritarian instinct -- fries or chips, soldier? There's a war on, pick a side! Tastes great or less filling? Don't try to waffle -- we all know you're a "tastes great" partisan.

I seem to remember a lot of sniping from you over my refusal to support either candidate. Care to outline some stereotypes to explain that?

[Lemur]

I seem to remember a lot of sniping from you over my refusal to support either candidate.

What irritated me in the primaries was the fact that you only sniped at Obama (shocking, I know) but by your account had no dog in the fight. At least, once Fred Thompson had banked his 1% nation of True Conservatives and retired from the field for a mint julep. So you could throw bombs more or less endlessly, while supporting no one and nothing.

It struck me as a bit nihilist.

-edit-

Just looking back over that paragraph, I think I may have achieved the Holy Grail of mixed metaphors. Sniping ... dogs ... banking ... mint juleps ... bomb-throwing ... nihilists. Wow. I deserve some kind of prize for bad writing.

[Kralizec]

Like McCain referring to Czechoslovakia? (link)

I don't really care though.

http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/ Comforting to know

I'd hesitate to call that a gaffe. Some of my older relatives have made the same slip, being alive since before the split. Add to that the fact that neither country is particulary important...

[ICantSpellDawg]

What irritated me in the primaries was the fact that you only sniped at Obama (shocking, I know) but by your account had no dog in the fight. At least, once Fred Thompson had banked his 1% nation of True Conservatives and retired from the field for a mint julep. So you could throw bombs more or less endlessly, while supporting no one and nothing.

It struck me as a bit nihilist.

-edit-

Just looking back over that paragraph, I think I may have achieved the Holy Grail of mixed metaphors. Sniping ... dogs ... banking ... mint juleps ... bomb-throwing ... nihilists. Wow. I deserve some kind of prize for bad writing.

On these forums it may seem to you that more people attack Obama than attack McCain.I believe you are right. I don't like cheap quips about things that don't matter either.

I also notice that this forum is different from the media angle that is strongly in favor of Obama in general (except Fox). We are predominantly attackers here (while I would bet the majority on the forum supports Obama) because there is so much support everywhere else. Obama has more money and more employees than any candidate before him and McCain has a huge handicap in this race. If we stop taking cheap shots about him, can you find it in your heart to understand our frustration? McCain is simply not the most frustrating candidate in this election.

If you want to defend against stupid points about Obama and still want to be viewed as un-biased in this election - don't retort by attacking McCain, but only the foolishness of the comments about Obama. It usually goes like this:

Devastatin' Crazed Xiahou says: "something about the way in which Obama smells funny and is therefore ineligible for the presidency"

Lemure say in response: "Oh Yea?!!!? Obama is great and this and that. McCain is fat and has wierd arms"

Devastatin' Crazed Xiahou says: "You love Obama"

[Lemur]

If we stop taking cheap shots about him, can you find it in your heart to understand our frustration? McCain is simply not the most frustrating candidate in this election.

I do understand that this will be a very tough election cycle for all Republicans, not just McCain. And I get that McCain is not viewed with great warmth by the conservative true believers. I'm not clear on how frustration plays into all of this, but I'm willing to learn ...

If you want to defend against stupid points about Obama and still want to be viewed as un-biased in this election - don't retort by attacking McCain, but only the foolishness of the comments about Obama.

I don't believe I have been attacking McCain, unless you consider those instances when I bring up an area in which one of our Republicans is attacking Obama in a way that would be equally damaging to either candidate. Then, sometimes, I feel compelled to point out that some attacks are bad for all.

I don't give much of a damn about whether I'm viewed as unbiased or not — and I seriously doubt that I am. (What does "unbiased" mean, anyway? I'll take "thoughtful" or "considered" instead, or better yet "funny," assuming I'm allowed to choose.) But it irritates me when others insist that I must think the way they imagine I do, and if I don't I'm being sneaky and deceptive. How dare I not conform to somebody else's notion of my thought process.

As another poster so thoughtfully highlighted, I raised exactly one attack article on Johnny Mac, and it was to sound out the Orgah's opinion on the matter, not to score some ephemeral internet debate point. If this is the basis for my rabid Obama partisanship, what can I say? The True Way must be narrow and difficult indeed.

-edit-

I also notice that this forum is different from the media angle that is strongly in favor of Obama in general (except Fox).

The thing that I notice about general media coverage is that there's just way more coverage of Obama, period. A lot of it's fluff and some of it's stupid, and lord knows every possible slander has been dragged through the spotlight, but if you weren't paying close attention, you might not notice that Johnny Mac was in the race.

I'd say much the same about this thread.

[Spino]

I do understand that this will be a very tough election cycle for all Republicans, not just McCain. And I get that McCain is not viewed with great warmth by the conservative true believers. I'm not clear on how frustration plays into all of this, but I'm willing to learn ...


I don't believe I have been attacking McCain, unless you consider those instances when I bring up an area in which one of our Republicans is attacking Obama in a way that would be equally damaging to either candidate. Then, sometimes, I feel compelled to point out that some attacks are bad for all.

I don't give much of a damn about whether I'm viewed as unbiased or not — and I seriously doubt that I am. (What does "unbiased" mean, anyway? I'll take "thoughtful" or "considered" instead, or better yet "funny," assuming I'm allowed to choose.) But it irritates me when others insist that I must think the way they imagine I do, and if I don't I'm being sneaky and deceptive. How dare I not conform to somebody else's notion of my thought process.

As another poster so thoughtfully highlighted, I raised exactly one attack article on Johnny Mac, and it was to sound out the Orgah's opinion on the matter, not to score some ephemeral internet debate point. If this is the basis for my rabid Obama partisanship, what can I say? The True Way must be narrow and difficult indeed.

-edit-


The thing that I notice about general media coverage is that there's just way more coverage of Obama, period. A lot of it's fluff and some of it's stupid, and lord knows every possible slander has been dragged through the spotlight, but if you weren't paying close attention, you might not notice that Johnny Mac was in the race.

I'd say much the same about this thread.

I honestly don't know if this election cycle is going to be that tough for all Republicans. Since gaining the majority in 2006 the Democrats are doing a bang up job of pissing the average American off. Despite the 'assurance' of having Democrats in control of the Legislature the public still thinks they're doing a piss poor job and so we have Congress' approval less than twice that of our infamous President's and getting alarmingly close to single digits!

Nancy Pelosi had a sit-down interview with Wolf Blitzer last week and when asked about Congress' ridiculously low approval rating all she could do was... blame George Bush and the Republicans! That and she mentioned needing a 60% majority in order to do anything meaningful. The Democrat's $300 billion farm bill went over like a lead balloon with the public and despite the fact that 70-75% of Americans want us to drill for oil off the coast to alleviate the gas crunch and wean us off foreign oil the Democrats are adamantly against it, opting instead to tap into the strategic reserve and push for everything else (so long as it doesn't include drilling for oil and nuclear... ). Obamamania aside I get the feeling the Democrats are deluding themselves into thinking they're going to have another cakewalk this Fall. I mean seriously, blaming a lame duck president for everything from the current state of things to global warming to tooth decay grows old after awhile.

[CountArach]

I honestly don't know if this election cycle is going to be that tough for all Republicans. Since gaining the majority in 2006 the Democrats are doing a bang up job of pissing the average American off. Despite the 'assurance' of having Democrats in control of the Legislature the public still thinks they're doing a piss poor job and so we have Congress' approval less than twice that of our infamous President's and getting alarmingly close to single digits!

According to this Gallup poll a "generic ballot" of a Democrat vs Republican House member the Democrats win 52-42 amongst likely voters. This site puts the Democrats at likely to hold 55 Senate seats, with 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats to 43 GOP seats. McCain has not led in a national poll for a long time and both of the national tracking polls (Gallup and Rasmussen) have him behind. Further, the Democrats have a huge advantage in terms of fund raising (I will dig up the numbers if you want them).

This is going to be a very tough year for Republicans.

[ICantSpellDawg]

According to this Gallup poll a "generic ballot" of a Democrat vs Republican House member the Democrats win 52-42 amongst likely voters. This site puts the Democrats at likely to hold 55 Senate seats, with 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats to 43 GOP seats. McCain has not led in a national poll for a long time and both of the national tracking polls (Gallup and Rasmussen) have him behind. Further, the Democrats have a huge advantage in terms of fund raising (I will dig up the numbers if you want them).

This is going to be a very tough year for Republicans.

Those numbers are important, but not as important as where they are coming from and why. If the overwhelming majority of New York and Cali are for Obama, then all of those numbers are less important. Obama doesn't need whole States to love him, just larger electoral vote winning majorities.


Media Media Media. That is what will make it hard.
Say what you will about Fox, but the truth is McCain wouldn't exist in this election cycle without them.

[CountArach]

Those numbers are important, but not as important as where they are coming from and why. If the overwhelming majority of New York and Cali are for Obama, then all of those numbers are less important. Obama doesn't need whole States to love him, just larger electoral vote winning majorities.

Then would you prefer state-by-state polling showing Obama up with 312 EVs? How about an average of 292.4? How about betting markets showing Obama with 306? Good pollsters (Which Gallup and Rasmussen are) take the population levels into account, as well as partisan identification, to make their numbers more accurate anyway.

Media Media Media. That is what will make it hard.
Say what you will about Fox, but the truth is McCain wouldn't exist in this election cycle without them.

Yep, McCain has been a bit left out from what I can gather (obviously my coverage is limited a bit more. I only get Fox and CNN, as well as what I can get on the Internet), but just because Obama gets all of the media doesn't mean it is entirely positive. I can understand your frustration though - similar things have occurred down here in the past.

[Marshal Murat]

AP (and Yahoo) ask "Is teh Coverage Fair?

[Lemur]

Another nail in the coffin for the sad, deluded notion that voters are logical creatures who vote in their self-interest, unaffected by hype and trivia:

Jonah Berger, Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of Business, conducted a terrific study where he demonstrates that where people vote affects how they vote. Essentially, people whose voting booth is located in a church are more likely to put more weight into social issues, people voting in fire houses care more about safety, and people voting in a school tend to put more weight on things like education.

[Marshal Murat]

Drudge Reports NYT fails to allow McCain's Editorial

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

Obama's Piece

I think it's terrible that NYT doesn't deem an editorial by a Presidential candidate worthy enough to be printed. While I can understand the article may not 'mirror' Obama's piece in it's subject, does that mean it shouldn't be printed?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think it's terrible that NYT doesn't deem an editorial by a Presidential candidate worthy enough to be printed. While I can understand the article may not 'mirror' Obama's piece in it's subject, does that mean it shouldn't be printed?

They're in the business of selling newspapers. Their core readership is far more intrigued by the doings and sayings of the Senator from Illinois than by those of the Senator from Arizona. If they can't hook it to Obama, then its less likely to sell papers.

This is McCain's biggest hurdle right now -- during the Summer doldrums. Until the conventions, most people aren't paying a lot of attention and McCain (whatever you think of him) is a pretty known quantity. The "new kid on the block" is just more compelling a news subject. Unless McCain can uncork something more "man bites dog," he's just not going to get much face time.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is a fine article, but it comes after so it is obviously more of a retort. NYT is NYT, who expected anything else?

Either way - I've already gotten what I wanted from this election. Not just one Clinton, but two were mortally wounded in the eyes of their party and are no longer a threat in this election. Wee.

[Don Corleone]

I actually think the NYT is doing Senator McCain a favor here, and is doing Senator Obama an injustice.

Anybody that subscribes to the NYT is already guaranteed to vote for Obama. So there are no direct affects that would help Obama or hurt McCain.

Similarly, anybody that subscribes to the National Review is going to vote for McCain.

It's the middle ground that's of interest here. As Seamus points out, we're in some summer stall (ideal time for Obama to finally go to Iraq, by the way. Maybe not the most ethical approach, but certainly the most shrewd politically). Right now, any press McCain can get is good press. If the NYT had published his version, it would have been a quick "me too" and it would have been forgotten. Now it's become a rallying cry "Elitist Leftist media outlet won't run position pieces unless they mirror Obama". Plays well for him, ginning up the outrage in advance of the convention.

But it also works against Obama. I'd like to think that I'm not the only discriminating voter from the right that's concerned about fiscal conservatism. To that end, McCain is by no means a lock for me. We're cruising up to our credit limits and then the party's over, something McCain doesn't seem to understand. As Seamus pointed out, the one thing Obama is almost guaranteed to do in his first term is to find some means, by hook or by crook, to balance the budget before 2012.

Now, people like me see an article like this, and it actually makes us begin to question the competency of a candidate that appears to require having the NYT (granted, a pretty left-leaning rag, but with some reputation from it's prior days left), basically fix the race for him, or at least attempt to.

Seriously, if Obama's camp thinks they can only debate in one-sided exchanges and have pulled strings with the Times to get that kind of "only I get to talk" coverage, that doesn't speak very highly of how much confidence they have in their position.

Seriously, Obama wrote that piece before his first ever visit to the battlefield, but the NY Times feels his is the only opinion that can be allowed to be presented? Doesn't give you a strong feeling of confidence for how defensible Obama's position is.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I'd like to think that I'm not the only discriminating voter from the right that's concerned about fiscal conservatism. To that end, McCain is by no means a lock for me. We're cruising up to our credit limits and then the party's over, something McCain doesn't seem to understand. As Seamus pointed out, the one thing Obama is almost guaranteed to do in his first term is to find some means, by hook or by crook, to balance the budget before 2012.

Nothing crooked.

He'll raise taxes on capital gains, on the highest 10% of incomes, on the social security/medicare tax by removing the income limitations, by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to lapse, and by working with Congress to establish a new (higher) limit on estate exclusion -- but nowhere near the 3M limit or no limit we're currently enjoying/will enjoy in 2010. There will be some slump in the economy from the tax increase, but not a catastrophic one, and overall revenues will go up slightly.

On the spending side, he'll progressively ramp back military spending to levels equivalent to the percentage of GDP we saw under Clinton. This is the easiest of the "large" segments of the budget to pare back and will dovetail nicely with the Obama model for the War on Terror (a return to the "police/legal model" approach). Bill Clinton proved this model of funding can work. Obama will have a bit more difficulty slowing spending growth on the social side, but the modest increase in tax revenue will allow for enough of this to please his core constituencies.

[m52nickerson]

On the spending side, he'll progressively ramp back military spending to levels equivalent to the percentage of GDP we saw under Clinton. This is the easiest of the "large" segments of the budget to pare back and will dovetail nicely with the Obama model for the War on Terror (a return to the "police/legal model" approach). Bill Clinton proved this model of funding can work. Obama will have a bit more difficulty slowing spending growth on the social side, but the modest increase in tax revenue will allow for enough of this to please his core constituencies.

Funny in this article says he will add more troops and increase the military budget.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042702027.html

.....and this article http://www.huntingtonnews.net/column...nmilitary.html

So, were did you get your information?