Ambivalent No More (?) [UPDATED]

It wouldn't be AmbivaBlog without that question mark, now would it?

But I've just about made my mind up to vote for McCain. 

Bottom line, the "empty suit" accusation directed at Obama finally sticks, for me.  He hasn't got enough of a record yet to demonstrate that he has what it takes.  In particular, he hasn't got a record of courage in bucking his own party or reaching across the aisle, which matters a lot to me.

I can think of only two real reasons to vote for him.  One is if you believe in Democratic Party ideology across the board, which I don't.  The other is because he's black, and it would be so cool to have a black president (which it would) that it's worth ignoring deficits that would sink a white candidate; and that's racist.

I don't believe in Republican ideology across the board, either, but McCain has been less of a party-line guy than Obama, despite his go-along-to-get-along behavior of the last few years.  Once elected, I don't think he's entirely predictable.

Don't I worry about trigger-happiness?  Mmm, yeah, a little.  But sometimes it's the guy with a reputation as a hothead who doesn't have to go to war.  And guys who've been in war take it very seriously while not fearing it.  Let's not trade chickenhawks for chickens.

Don't I worry about the Supreme Court?  Not so much.  Most people think Supreme Court appointments are made and confirmed in the interest of ideological outcomes.  Properly, they're not.  They're made on judicial philosophy and excellence, and good appointees aren't entirely predictable either.  Again, while McCain is socially conservative, it's not his obsession.

Isn't McCain too old?  Yeah.  I wish he was eight years younger, like I wish Obama was eight years older.  But I'll take his experience, at this point.  Let Obama go get some more.

Aren't I scared of Sarah Palin being president?  Yeah, she's far from ready.  I hope it doesn't happen within the next four years.  I'll take the gamble.

UPDATE:  I've gotten some very gratifying responses by private e-mail, but one of the best is at Stubborn Facts, where Simon wrote:

Come to the dark side - we have cookies!

I tried to comment as follows, but for some reason their site can't read my CAPTCHA as correct.  Maybe I have to go there via Safari instead of Firefox.  Anyway, this will crack my family up:

Where's my cookie??

That's the punch line, which I often use, of a disgusting joke that I am very fond of.

It has to do with an unorthodox method of treatment for a tapeworm.  Use your imagination.

Hint:  Each week the doctor says, "When you come next week, bring an apple, a pear, and a cookie."  "Bring a kiwi, a banana, and a cookie." etc. etc., as shaggy as you want your dog.  Then suddenly he says, "Bring a peach, an orange, and a hammer."  WTF?

(Validation code:  RISX.  As Insty would say:  Indeed.)

Comments

[realpc]

I was not thrilled with either of them after the debate. They both seem like decent guys, to me, but so predictable and uninspired. I realize they have to watch every word during these debates and can't risk saying anything imaginative.

But still I was surprised at the lack of surprise, given that the world's biggest insurance company and the world's biggest bank have just dropped dead. Neither had much at all to say about that and how it may affect our future.

[realpc]

But I think I'm going to vote for Obama, because I think we should send a message to the Republicans that they screwed up too many times in too many ways.

[Spud]

Amba, I had no doubt you were voting for McCain all along. How would another eight years for Obama make a difference, I don't see him changing his ideology. As for me, after eight years of Bush, we really need a change. It blows my mind with Bush's low approval rating, that this election is even close, go figure. We have a 580 billion dollar war tab, and supposedly a 700 billion dollar bailout plan, but yet McCain is going to cut taxes and balance the budget. It makes no sense to me. I can only hope McCain loses. I think I'll even pray that he does.

[Ruth Anne]

Here's the $64 question: will you be voting in NC or NYC? A red vote in a blue-blue-bleu-oh-so-blue state makes little difference. A red vote in a toss-up state [as of this week] actually matters.

[sail on]

Anyone who has read your blog consistently for the past 6 months will know you've always been at least a closet McC booster, so this is no shock. Sad, in my book, because I only see an apologist for the past ways (not only the past miserable 8 years) in McC. No maverick, he, or his far-right sidekick. Real change is needed. I hope Obama can bring it; at least he doesn't bring the same lame lines and try to repackage them as change.

[karen]

"How would another eight years for Obama make a difference, I don't see him changing his ideology."

Freudian slip is showin', spud:0). I don't think you meant this, did you?

[Melinda]

Here's the $64 question: will you be voting in NC or NYC?

And if it's NC, does Michael's vote cancel yours out? (evil grin)

[Spud]

Karen, she said she wished Obama was eight years older.

[Donna B.]

It seems almost nobody is really excited about McCain, one way or the other. I don't see the kind of hate directed toward him that Bush got, or Sarah Palin is getting.

Obama, on the other hand seems to inspire both worship and hatred. I don't see very many who are "ambivalent" toward him.

Count me among those who initially wanted to vote for Obama because he is black. But I can't vote for anyone because of one thing only -- there's too much at stake.

When I looked at him closely, I did find a "there" there and it is one I do not trust.

There's too much socialism, too much marxism, too much '60s radical extremism.

Because of that, I'm not really voting for McCain, but rather against Obama.

[karen]

Sorry, spudly. Uh, nice dress:0). I wasn't connecting the two comments.

[amba]

Ruth Anne: NC.

[amba]

Amba, I had no doubt you were voting for McCain all along.

Well, Spud, then you knew more than I did. I would love to vote for Obama, but every time I almost decide to, I get this awful feeling that I'm bullshitting myself. He doesn't fill the bill he himself wrote.

How would another eight years for Obama make a difference, I don't see him changing his ideology. Could that be because you've never changed yours? It's actually possible, Spud. And short of a full-fledged "conversion."

[amba]

sail on: it's predictable that people would say, "You're not on our side, so you must have secretly been on the other side all along." My difficulty in deciding has actually been that neither candidate represents me. The one who has shown at least some ability to diverge from his own side represents me a little better than the other.

[Pastor_Jeff]

I didn't watch much of the debate. I just can't stand to hear candidates blather on and on like that. From what little I watched, it seemed like a toss-up.

Interesting calculus you went through on the decision, Amba. Thanks for sharing your thought process.

Now you can expect conservatives to reassure you and liberals to try to change your mind :)

[Donna B.]

I forgot to mention how much I love the "?" in the post title!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

It's okay to still be ambivalent. I'll vote for mcCain, no doubt, but it was going to be a noseholder some ways.

I actually think Palin could be a good President with some OJT, and I agree with her more often than any of the others.

[Melinda]

Charlie, I think there's going to be a lot of nose-holding for both candidates this November.

The real question is, if McCain wins, does that mean Tina Fey and Darrell Hammond have to come back to Saturday Night Live full-time?

SNL just spoofed last night's debate, and got in quite a number of jabs at Obama as well as McCain. That's an encouraging sign if Obama wins, because if we can't spoof the Prez, we're done for!

[Rod]

Amba:

I hold with those who think you made up your mind long ago. Sometimes we are the last to admit the die is cast.

When we are truly ambivalent, we generally revert to our default settings. It is another way of saying that when the pros and cons balance too closely, we vote with our gut.

Why should we choose Presidents any differently than we choose spouses? In the end, our emotions must be appeased.

[amba]

Rod: Actually, I don't think it worked that way in this case. My emotions are with Obama. My reason is with McCain. I grew up in Obama's neighborhood. I'm in many ways a cosmopolitan like him. That's my default setting. I would have loved to be able to vote for Obama. He has just disappointed me in not being a substantial and courageous and generous-minded enough representative of the tribe. I think he could grow up to be one, but he's underripe, still too bound by the tribe's conventional thinking. As stated previously, when I consider voting for him I just get this awful feeling that I'm bullshitting myself.

[David L.]

For Donna B: Like Amba and yourself I am voting more against Obama than for McCain. The "there" that is there for Obama is a fusion of three things that fully deserve our suspicion: the leftover left of the 1960's and 1970's, a corrupt city political machine, and his supporters' postmodern cult of the idealized other and despised self. One hopes the country can survive it.

[Michael Reynolds]

I think you made this decision in your heart at least, a long time ago. I've had no doubt you were supporting McCain.

I think you're making a great error in judgment, but obviously I could be as wrong as I think you are.

McCain is erratic, impetuous, dishonest and apparently incapable of strategic thinking. He's a crisis junkie, lurching from situation to situation and each time responding with sanctimony, hostility, smugness and contempt. His big decision so far -- Sarah Palin -- shows that he will put his own campaign and ambition ahead of his country. It was reckless and impetuous.

This is not the time or the circumstance for reckless.

I think he would be a disaster. I don't mean metaphorically. I mean an actual disaster for a country that desperately needs someone with an eye on the horizon ahead, not on the horizon behind.

[Peter Hoh]

I still believe that either McCain or Obama could be a decent president. My worst case scenario all along was Clinton vs. Giuliani. I'm happy that we're not facing that choice.

Right now, I think that Obama has the potential to be a better president than McCain.

I don't think Obama is an empty suit as much as I think he's green. Yeah, I'd prefer to see an older Obama running. And I wish that, were he elected, he'd have to deal with a GOP Senate or House. But those options are not on the table.

I'm all for McCain 8 years ago, but it's not 2000 any more, and McCain is not the same man he was back then.

McCain's embrace of some of the worst aspects of his party bothers me. Instead of going against his party and choosing Lieberman, McCain blinked.

At least he repudiated torture in the debate.

McCain's choice of Palin shows him to be bold, but potentially flawed. The dark side of the bold temperament is recklessness, and that's what concerns me most about McCain.

Was he crazy like a fox this past week, or like a chicken with its head cut off? Either way, I didn't find McCain's actions or statements to be very reassuring.

[amba]

I think you made this decision in your heart at least, a long time ago.

I patiently repeat: in my head, not my heart. I am not following my heart. I have been extra hard on Obama in resistance to my own conditioned tendency to go all squishy for him. If he is going to represent my tribe -- the forward-looking cosmopolitans -- he better do a better job of it. He has disappointed me as only one of my own could.

[Tom Strong]

To a significant extent, your blog has been about Obama in the past year. It's been clear in that time that you've been increasingly disappointed with him (I'm reminded right now of your very first post, back in 2004). That may be why it's not surprising that you've chosen to back McCain.

I'm disappointed with him too, but I've been more disappointed with McCain. And that goes back well before the campaign.

[amba]

And, Peter, I agree that he's green. And that McCain is overripe. Obama is still sketchy. Losing this election and having to go back to the Senate and do some real work there would be the best thing that could happen to him: seasoning.

I'm not sure McCain is a different man than he was. He's a player of the game, and he has moved as the game has demanded. The fact that he is where he is suggests that he's played well. I am not convinced that he has completely sold out to the Republican base any more than I'm convinced that he was ever completely a maverick. He has tacked and flip-flopped as they all do, but quite successfully, to get where he was heading. I'm curious to see what he will do if elected. I can only hope that his experience and the compassion that comes from his suffering -- and maybe his flagging energy -- temper his impulsivity.

[amba]

Tom: I really wanted to like Obama, and I still see great potential in him. But potential is almost all it is. He's done one thing in the Senate that impresses me, and that is work on nuclear proliferation with Lugar. Everything else is either undistinguished, overcautious, or nonexistent ("present," or absent).

I read the sex education bill. Whoever revised it barely read it -- they just crossed out "sixth grade" and put in "kindergarten," and added "age-appropriate" (or developmentally appropriate, I am not being precise about what the language was). The bill remained written for older kids who might become sexually active, which made much of its language inappropriate for younger kids. I don't think that was intentional, I think it was careless -- which is inexcusable.

[Spud]

Well, Spud, then you knew more than I did.

I think it was more that I felt.

Could that be because you've never changed yours (ideology?

It could be. Maybe it's because I have always seen the Republican party as, "the poor have too much, and the rich don't have enough". Or maybe being a farmer all my life has something to with it. Or maybe it's just that I'm an unabashed liberal. :-)

[Liza]

Don't like Obama much myself, so I can relate to you doubts (that's why I read this blog - one of a very few, I have to admit). Eight years ago I would vote for McCain, even two years ago... Now he seems to be absent from the scene most of the time. As you said recently, he is not driving that bus anymore, and people who are in the driver's seat scare the hell out of me. They are willing and ready to do away with all - or most - of the freedoms we take for granted. What we saw in the last eight years might be just the beginning, and this is why voting for McCain is simply not an option for me these days. His choice of VP sealed it for me.
In addition, forget politics and ethics; if we voted strictly on aesthetics, can you just imagine the "first dude" putting his feet up in the Oval Office? Yuk.

[amba]

The First Dude putting his feet up would be a step up from the President getting his fly unzipped.

[amba]

Also, I've heard that meme about the fascist takeover -- from the humorless Naomi Wolf, and from the brilliant Jack Whelan -- and I wonder: is it paranoid, or am I naïve?

[Meade]

My biggest problem with Barack Obama is not just his relationship to Bill Ayers but his deceptiveness about that relationship.

Bill Ayers was not just some guy in the neighborhood. In 1969, while John McCain was serving his country in an unpopular war, Bill Ayers was declaring war on John McCain's country. Ayers has never expressed regret for taking up arms against the United States. In fact, he has expressed regret for not doing more to help bring about its defeat by any means necessary.

In 1995 Ayers helped launch Obama's political career. Obama has had over ten years to understand who Bill Ayers is and to denounce and disassociate himself. His choice not to do so reflects either cynicism, unripeness, pure evil, or all three.

Liberals who are unabashed by their associations with entities such as Bill Ayers belie and betray their own principles of reason and tolerance.

As long as Congress is controlled by the phony "liberal" Democrats, I will not help elect a Democrat to the presidency.

[Liza]

"The First Dude putting his feet up would be a step up from the President getting his fly unzipped."
Ugliness of one does not diminish ugliness of the other.
As for the dangers ahead, I guess you simply don't see what I see, because the circumstances of our lives are different. A friend of mine was recently at a meeting between "community organizers" and the FBI leadership; one of the questions raised was on the nature of biggest terrorist threats that the FBI had to investigate over the last three years (not the specifics - just a general direction). Guess what? Not Arabs, not Iranians, not black Muslims, not Latinos - ultraconservative white supremacists. It fits with the overall anti-immigrant nastiness, with Lieberman's "freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion", with attempts to ban books, with the recent case that another friend of mine had to fight in court (strip search of an underage girl suspected of a drug possession at a local school). I can't shrug it off anymore.

[amba]

"ultraconservative white supremacists" are a dwindling and frightened rear guard. Most Americans occupy various positions on a middle ground between them and "transnational leftists." I suppose the propaganda success of the right is that more of those in the middle are more frightened by the latter than the former. But each extreme drives people toward the other. In fact, patriotism, a common American culture, immigration, diversity, proud strength and forward-looking openness are not irreconcilable and are all necessary American values! This is what drives me nuts about the polarization, as a patriotic cosmopolitan. It's like pitting your left and right hands against each other -- you'd never get anything done, either.

[wj]

Because I disagree with Obama on so many points, I really wish that the John McCain I remember from 2000 were on offer this year. That would make for a far easier, and different, decision.

Unfortunately, I don't have that option. (Assuming that my memory of how McCain was is accurate. I could be mis-remembering that McCain.) The John McCain I have seen for the last year just isn't the same man. The integrity, the good sense, the honesty, the honor -- all seem to have faded or disappeared. Perhaps it is just a matter of doing what he thinks he has to do to win the election, and the real John McCain will reemerge after Election Day. I pray that it is so -- whether he wins or loses. But I can't voted based on nothing more than a hope and a prayer.

[amba]

The main difference between us on McCain, wj, is that I'm more optimistic that he has been playing a long-term game rather than selling out.

[wj]

Annie, I really, really hope you are right. I just wish I could believe you are.

[Dave Schuler]

I'm still undecided.

I'm less than enthused about either candidate but don't think either is likely to be a disaster for the Republic.

I think that Obama isn't experienced enough and is likely to get steamrolled by the federal bureaucracy and the silverbacks in his own party. I think that McCain is too bellicose.

[jason]

I agree with Spud on all counts, Annie, but most especially on this one: Despite your protestations to the contrary, that your harshness toward Obama stemmed from a desire to like him, I never doubted you'd vote for McCain. Not once.

But after that debate?

He couldn't even look at Obama, show him respect by meeting his eyes and facing his opponent, treat him like a human being rather than a distant voice emanating from some dark shadow that need not be faced. Talk about a travesty of humanity! If you fail to respect your challenger and the one person who can dispatch your presidential dreams, you will respect no one at all at any time. Period. It was contempt in the most blatant form that I can only imagine will translate to us little folk when the times comes to wield power.

And wj points out the other most profound worry with McCain (aside from his party affiliation and the horrific thought of rewarding them with another four years after the disaster they've created while in control throughout recent history...): He is not the McCain who was a rebel, a standalone guy making up his own mind with a dedicated morality and sincere desire to do what mattered as opposed to doing what the party dictated. Now he tows the line, deceives and disparages, and shows no trace of the man who once was.

I'm sorry for your decision. I truly am. This country has had enough, enough bailouts and enough war and enough spending and enough lies and enough disrespect. It truly is time for a change.

[amba]

Jason, I think decided partisans saw what they were predisposed to see in that debate. People on the right saw Obama calling McCain "John" as an attempt to belittle him! I suspect both of them were attempting to put the other down and make themselves appear superior -- it was like a wrestling match. I usually think Obama is more sincere, which also translates as more naïve and unskilled in this vicious game. McCain is more cagy. I try not to take those theatrics at face value. It's a fight.

What it comes down to is that as a genuine nonpartisan, I am voting for the slightly less party-line guy, even though he has acted like a party-line guy (with exceptions, e.g. torture) for the last few years. I am betting that that's to get where he got. I hate the "drill, drill, drill" mentality, that's been a big stumbling block for me. I have to hold my nose to vote for him. But what it comes down to is Obama's lack of a courageous record and his being pretty much a generic Democrat. Since I am no more a Democrat than a Republican, I don't want generic.

[Ron]

He couldn't even look at Obama, show him respect by meeting his eyes and facing his opponent, treat him like a human being rather than a distant voice emanating from some dark shadow that need not be faced. Talk about a travesty of humanity! If you fail to respect your challenger and the one person who can dispatch your presidential dreams, you will respect no one at all at any time. Period. It was contempt in the most blatant form that I can only imagine will translate to us little folk when the times comes to wield power.

I'm sorry, but that simply sounds like melodramatic hyperbole. I've seen and been in debates where my opponent didn't make eye contact with me; so what? In that case, he's trying to win the crowd, not intimidate/impress his opponent.

enough bailouts and enough war and enough spending and enough lies and enough disrespect. It truly is time for a change.

Yeah, this war is Bush's, but, hell, it's not as if Democrats haven't gotten us into wars! The Dems treat FDR and JFK as saints, but FDR engaged in far more trickery than Bush to get us into war with the Nazis. (and the Japanese?) JFK oversaw clownish CIA attempts to overthrow Cuba, which almost got us into nuclear war with the Russians, so spare me that line. Maybe Obama will get us into war, maybe not. If there is another terrorist strike, perhaps President Obama will feel forced into attacking somewhere, much as Bush did.

And after the Republicans have spent like drunken sailors, I still feel the Democrats will be worse in that regard, much to my disgust, and nothing Obama has said has changed my mind on that! I'd bet Hillary would have still tried to implement a massive health care bill, if she were in Obamas position after this financial craziness.

I can understand voting for either candidate and Amba has laid out her reasoning/feeling very, very well.

[karen]

"The First Dude putting his feet up would be a step up from the President getting his fly unzipped."
Ugliness of one does not diminish ugliness of the other.

OK- what's up w/the feet on the furniture remark? Is it because, being a Redneck- it's assumed he doesn't know enough to ~stay off the furniture~, like to some ill-trained dog?? That's pretty catty.

"Talk about a travesty of humanity! If you fail to respect your challenger and the one person who can dispatch your presidential dreams, you will respect no one at all at any time. Period."

Funny, i always felt the same way knowing Bill freaking cheated on Hillary any chance second he got. If you can't be honest w/your wife...

[jason]

I had a response. TypePad keeps eating it. Page not found or some other generic error. Maybe at a later time...

[jason]

(Sorry if this posts twice--or ten times. TypePad is kicking out all sorts of errors at the moment...)

Ron: It's a matter of respect. Impressing the audience is playing to the crowd. Perhaps that's what matters to those who see shallow, but it's not what matters to those who see deep. One can easily display esteem for both without coldly ignoring one in favor of the other.

(BTW, Annie, calling someone by their first name has never been a sign of disrespect in my 40 years of life. It's been a sign of familiarity mixed with regard. I do understand how we see that differently, but I know--as both a Yankee and a Southerner--that looking at someone to whom you are speaking has always been a sign of acknowledgment.)

And as someone who excelled in debate and looks at argument as a wisdom-providing opportunity, maybe I delve further into the truth of body language than do a great many others, yourself included, Ron. I favor a trustworthy sign of engagement, not a detached display of stoicism. What I saw was an indication of how McCain would treat me were I to engage him--and I'm the one he would ultimately work for were he to win the presidency. That matters.

I never said Democrats hadn't started wars. Your straw man counts for nothing in this regard. I'm talking about the present, the last decade at most (I voted Republican for a long while before then, so don't assume you know me or my politics). I will spare you nothing in that regard. Tilt at windmills if you must...

Republicans have become the heavy-handed spenders while Democrats have become the conservative savers. I live in the now. What's in the distant past means little given this new dichotomy of party practices. Maybe I'm alone in that regard.

And karen, if Clinton is running in this race and I don't know about it, I would greatly appreciate you sharing that information. As I just said, the past eight years have changed the playing board in its entirety. When did Republicans become the spend-crazy idiots and the Democrats the thrift-minded holdouts? That would be during our recent debacle of mayhem, our disaster of leadership from both the executive and legislative branches while under "conservative" control. History notwithstanding, the parties have changed and I see that. Do you?

And Annie, I wholeheartedly agree with you: "But what it comes down to is Obama's lack of a courageous record..." That sounds like change to me. Perhaps I'm just stupid that way, too simple to tie myself up in politics and too naïve to think that change for the sake of change sometimes matters more than the history of affiliations.

[Danny]

Three comments above stand out for me:

1. "I actually think Palin could be a good President with some OJT, and I agree with her more often than any of the others."

Not trying to be snarky here, but...really? What has she actually said in terms of her beliefs and plans for this country that you agree with?

2. "'Ultraconservative white supremacists' are a dwindling and frightened rear guard."

What makes you say that? Just a hunch? I don't get the impression that they are dwindling OR frightened these days.

3. "FDR engaged in far more trickery than Bush to get us into war with the Nazis."

Are you actually trying to say here that the Dems used more manipulation to get the U.S. into World War II than Bush and his cohorts did to get us into Iraq? Are you also comparing the two wars and saying that Iraq is somehow a nobler cause than fighting the Nazis?! What was the trickery? Do you think Pearl Harbor was some FDR-ordered conspiracy?

Finally, I can't believe people are still dredging up Bill Clinton's problems with his zipper. ***YAAAAAWWWWNNNNN!*** A) He's not running for office so if you have to resort to that to slam the Democrats, it's a little sad. B) I wouldn't want to be married to the guy, but I would certainly rather have him in the White House than George W. Bush who may not be cheating on his wife but has been fucking us over royally for eight years. C) The Republicans are HARDLY in the clear in terms of this seamier side of their personal lives, in case you haven't noticed.

Oops, I really was trying to get through this comment without any snarkiness or partisan hysteria. I failed!

[karen]

"And karen, if Clinton is running in this race and I don't know about it, I would greatly appreciate you sharing that information." ...

Jason... whatever.

[Elyas]

I have to echo some other commenters' observation that, although you took a long road to get here, it seemed long ago like this was your final destination.

And there's nothing wrong with taking the long road. However, it seems like your focus for months and months has been on issues of personality. You've tried to psychoanalyze both candidates and dig deep below the surface, and in doing so, you have paid little attention surface itself (i.e., actual policy) where answers may be easier to come by.

They have very different plans for once they are in office. Do you favor a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq? Do you prefer tax cuts for the upper or middle income brackets? Do you prefer focus on expanding coverage or targeting costs with respect to healthcare? And so on...

We all make decisions differently, and I certainly don't fault you for exploring beneath the surface. But as a long-time reader, I've been a little disappointed in how much personality has overshadowed policy in your quest to reach a decision.

[jason]

Brilliant response, karen! I can see your vote will count for a great deal given such an eloquent, indisputable line of reasoning.

How McCain of you...

[RW Rogers]

Thanks for sharing your decision, Annie. I'm impressed by the number of mind-readers here. If you find yourself too busy to write posts, I'm sure any one of them is qualified to write them for you and will be more than happy to so so.

[Ruth Anne]

Annie:
We were driving back from the beach today and I thought back to our meet-up 11 months ago when we both sheepishly admitted finding Huckabee to be intriguing. So now he's got his own show on FoxNews with a house band called the "Little Rockers." And McCain brought back his campaign from life support and Obama slayed Hillary. What a difference 11 months make.

[Donna B.]

Amba, what I'm wondering is... if you'd decided to vote for Obama, if I would be spending so much time and so many words trying to talk you out of it.

I think it's pretty funny that your posts have made me take a second look at Obama several times. (Would that be second, third, and fourth looks?)