Obama is no liberal, and the "hope" he panders is utterly ersatz. He will transfer (most) of the troops in Iraq to the Afghan where they can either be ground into meat, or can commit a genocide, thereby "winning". Does this idiot actually believe that American troops can just keep fighting in one theatre or another indefinitely?

As for the economy, Obama will watch helplessly as China takes America's place as the leading economic power. If he is lucky they may open a few branch plants in Omaha. Americans, whose life expectancy just dropped to 28th in the world, will still not get health care. The war on terror, an empty evil, counterproductive exercise if there ever was one, will continue unabated -- with yet more obombs dropped on defenceless miserable countries in a pathetic attempt to "kill Bin Laden". Obama also loves Israel with all his heart, so no peace in Palestine either. Will he clean the air? No. Will he unite Americans? Trigger a full on civil war more likely. As for "redistributing the wealth", well, that ain't going to happen either. (which most Americans, astoundingly given the state of the average man's finances, seem to think is a very bad idea anyway, god forfend that American's would be forced to live like those poor benighted, and oh so hated and miserable Danes).

So what happens in 4 years with the economy mutilated and torn on the floor of unmitigated greed and hubris, multiple wars, and America more hated and more attacked then ever? It will be the end, the utter and complete end, of the pathetic and complicit Democrat party. At that point the door will open to the future -- a permanent Republican majority. Or should I say, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever." That's the plan.

Obama (whom I am voting for) is outspending his opponent ten to one. His opponent's party has the presidency during a recession. And now... he has about 5% more than half of the popular vote.

This is not a sign of a big shift in this country. This is a sign of the fact that you outspend your opponent by about ten to one during a recession ... you tend to win. In this case by surprisingly little.

Next year, FOX News will still be on the air, and Rush will be more popular than ever, and every tree that falls in this country will be blamed on the democrats.

The Republican Party isn't going anywhere.

After 18 years of Tory rule, during which the Tories were allowed to enact their vision for the country, Brits got completely fed up, and Labour had reconstituted themselves to win elections. The result is that, despite the complaints about Brown, the public is still not too keen to vote the Tories back in.

From the Tories' perspective, this has forced a dark night of the soul as they reformulate themselves through introspection and listening to the electorate. Now the Tories are definitely left of our Democrats.

This is what needs to happen to the GOP, badly. The GOP has become a thoroughly corrupt institution that stands for nothing beyond its own corruption. Regardless how the election turns out next week, it won't change this conclusion. The only way McCain could possibly win next week is through vote caging and Supreme Court intervention, which would only underscore the corruption that they've come to so thoroughly embrace these past years.

At the risk of sounding like an Obama ad, I think the country is on the edge of monumental change from the left and the right. Couldn't happen too soon!

or anything that will keep the Chicago thugs out of Washington. Oops almost forgot about Biden who claims Scranton but they may not claim him.

Whoever made up the graphic photo for this article is to be commended. It's really fantastic.

"Let's pray for The Bradley Effect"

Brilliant! If you can't win an election on the issues, hope good old fashioned racism does it for you. This is how morally bankrupt the Republicans have become. The Republicans are now the party of stupid ignorant white-trash rural racist assholes.

Well done, Republicans. Well done.

Brian Mulroney was the Canadian Conservative leader for two terms, an actual good friend of Ronald Reagan, and a dirty little creep if there ever was one. For a variety of factors too complex to get into here, he managed to pretty much obliterate the Conservative Party, if not the movement in Canada.

"Following Mulroney's resignation, his successor as Tory leader and as prime minister was Kim Campbell, who led the party into the disastrous election of 1993. The Conservatives went from being the majority party to holding only two seats in the House of Commons, which was not enough to maintain official party status despite garnering 16% of the popular vote. It was the worst defeat ever suffered for a governing party at the federal level; the 151-seat loss far exceeded the 95-seats lost by the Liberals in 1984." Wiki

That's the good news, the bad news is the few remaining cells metastasized and reformed into the "Conservative" party far more right then their predecessors and who are almost identical to their Republican counterparts. Astoundingly, and again for complex reasons, were just elected to second term under Stephen Harper, a man who positively loves George Bush to this day.

It's true, as Gary Kamiya says, that it's not just Bush or McCain - it's the GOP itself. But as the nominee, McCain could have tried to lead the party in a new direction. It's tempting to compare his failure to do so with Obama's wresting of the Democratic Party away from the Clintons and the DLC. But there's a better comparison: Nicolas Sarkozy of France. (Disclosure: I live in France and have participated in every anti-Sarkozy demonstration I could, so I'm definitely not a supporter.)

Like McCain, Sarkozy tried to become president in the footsteps of an unpopular president from his own party. Like McCain, Sarkozy had an uncomfortable relationship, even a rivalry, with that president, and had on several occasions publicly opposed him. But Sarkozy didn't run as a maverick - he ran as an insurgent.

The difference is enormous. A maverick prides himself on having been right where his party wasn't. Every time McCain uses the M word, he implicitly reminds people that the GOP was wrong. Sarkozy, by contrast, offered a stark contrast with Chirac not to criticize his party, but to invite his party to break with the old president. They jumped at the opportunity. (Another sign of this different attitude: McCain the maverick sucks his party's coffers dry, leaving nothing more than a few crumbs for the congressional candidates. Sarkozy - like Obama - did everything he could to help the legislative candidates from his party.)

The GOP needs to change, even its own members say so. But it has no real leaders. A maverick isn't a leader; he's an outlier. Even if McCain wins the election, he will have failed his party. He just didn't invest any energy in it.