I'm curious, if each of the candidates actually implemented your advice for their respective campaigns, what would you tell them to do? I'm not talking about WHAT they say - I'm talking about HOW they say it. So, policies aside, what errors do you think any of them are making in their styles? ( If any ).

I'll start;

Obama, as eloquent as you are, you occasionally stammer. Some of this may be due to lack of sleep. But it comes off as being unprepared. At the very least, it's ok to take a little more time in your answers. Form the sentences in your mind and THEN speak them. Also, if you get the chance to ask Clinton anything, ask her, directly, if she genuinely believes that you are elitist tothe degree that she accuses you of. Sure, she'd like to take another crack at you in another debate. But that's because she wants to build on some momentum. You're not crippled or even tagged. But start asking her direct questions while stumping. Make her talk more about you and say things OUT LOUD. She likes to hide behind an old state of mind that says " Imply - but never really say what she thinks." Call her out on that bullshit. Make her say " Yes. I believe that Obama is TRULY an elitist and unelectable." People will see through that and flock to you because you and I both know that is not true. You're neither " unelectable " nor " elitist." And if anyone starts to say anything like " You'll need to be able to deal with attacks like this when the General Election campaign starts " point out that people are sick of down and dirty politics that require you to get in the muck and play dirty.

Clinton, you're good. Really good. But you are only good at the old way of thinking. I personally don't think you have it in you to operate any other way. However, I'm open to my mind being changed. Try this; Quit using those trigger words. You know whom you embolden when you talk like that? Republicans. You know what I start to think when you do that? You are more like a Republican than a Democrat in the way you think. Now, if you are fine with that, then have at it. But you are sounding more and more like a Republican. Just so you know. And you've not had one of those fake emotional moments in a while. Good. Quit doing that. Answer questions directly. YES and NO are perfectly acceptable answers.

McCain, you are a stud. Really. You are. Yeah, you're older. Big deal. I'm not worried about that. What I do worry about is your ability to actually " straight talk." Your party has so much baggage. I'm sorry, man, I really am. But come June or so, shift something a bit; Start speaking honestly. Start talking like you WANT to talk. Don't worry about Republicans who need to be coddled. Motivate. Inspire. Quit sounding like you are soft. You are not a warm guy - but you are smart. I like that. Show off your smarts more. Quit saying " My friends." It's the most forced phrase I have heard any candidate use in months. I don't want to have a beer with you. And you don't want to have a beer with me. LEAD.

To be honest, there's not much I'd tell Obama to do differently right now. To me, he says the right things. I oppose the "gas tax holiday" and he had a commercial out this week eloquently explaining that position (the opposite of McCain and Clinton).

Obama has saturated Portland with campaigners. Hillary's people are invisible if they are there at all - I've seen them only at big political events. But I run into Obama people all the time on the streets, registering voters (til last Tuesday).

I guess I would like to hear more from Obama about what kind of choices he'd make as president, how he'd conduct his oval office, etc. But that hopefully will come in the general election campaign.

Clinton at this point seems to be pandering. I think most of her attacks on Obama are disingenuous at best, false at worse (such as the suggestion that Obama "agreed with Reagan in the 1980s" which is total BS). The gas tax thing seems to be pandering, too. Then again, I guess at this point she has nothing to lose. I think she's in it now only in hopes that Obama stumbles badly or someone releases video of him smoking crack or something - then she can step in. But things like the gas tax - clearly pandering - make it almost impossible for me to want to vote for her. Believe it or not, I've been leaning Obama for a while but still considering a vote for Clinton. The gas tax thing pretty much seals it, though.

McCain? If I were him, I'd distance myself from Bush in particular and his Republican colleagues in the Congress in general. I'd also remind voters that Clinton and Obama would raise taxes but be honest about it, without making up distortions (as some of his emails have). Tell voters that their health care proposals, while well-meaning, would fail - but here's why John McCain's proposal is better (so far, his hasn't been).

And I'd drop support for the stupid gas tax holiday, which everyone clearly sees is a gimmick, pandering for votes.

Andrew

" And I'd drop support for the stupid gas tax holiday, which everyone clearly sees is a gimmick, pandering for votes."

Well they can't drop it now. Mistake. But I agree.

gas tax holiday......

Another temporary tax cut.....

I love tax cuts, temporary or permanent,

BUT, It is equally important to cut Gov spending by an equal amount. No one seems to want to do that.

personally, the cut will amount to 47 cents a day.
for others, less and some, much more.

After years of hearing, "pass this tax, it will only cost the average family X cents a day, less than a cup of coffee", then see people buy into that.......

I have to say, I gave up the "7-11" cup of coffee about 20 tax hikes ago, and it's nice to get a few cents back now and again. Politicians like to sell tax hikes on a less than a cup of coffee basis, let's take one back now and again as well.

CANDIDATES, Please address SPENDING CUTS rather than new social programs that will drain wallets further.....

If we are willing to shell out another 5 mils on the property tax for whatever levy, pass the bond issue for the new city building, accept a half cent sales tax increase for some additional spending plan, then we should also take the token cuts when offered.

The gas tax holiday is not a tax cut, it's a tax deferment, which means even higher budget deficits and higher taxes down the road to make up the deficit. Probably the dumbest idea being talked about on the campaign right now.

so, cut agency budgets by the equivelent in the next fiscal cycle to make up for it. Problem solved. spend within the means. Gov should be held to that. Hey, every upward tick in gas prices is a pay cut. Employers aren't coughing up raises because of increasing expenses. I'll take my savings when I can get it.

If you need to save $28 over the summer period, may I suggest a better attempt at earning income rather than looking for savings? Like I said, it's not a savings. It's a deferment to be paid later with interest. Unlike cash strapped, credit card reliant Americans, I prefer to pay as I go, not put it on tomorrow's tab.

Roger writes:
so, cut agency budgets by the equivelent in the next fiscal cycle to make up for it. Problem solved

If agency budgets could be cut anyway, why not simply leave the gas tax as it is and cut the budgets? Why do spending cuts have to be tied directly to tax cuts? Wouldn't it be better to borrow a little less from the Chinese and get a wee bit closer to a balanced budget? Or would you prefer to borrow more so you can save 30 cents a day on gas?

Andrew

For me, it's gotta be worth it. This small amount isn't worth my vote, or consideration.

Also consider the lions share of your tax bill is war related, and growing because of things like this.

What's a substantial savings? 30 bucks, 100 bucks, 500 bucks?

Well, to get anywhere near the 500, it's highly likely that most all of the programs would have to see serious, if not complete cuts to meet that burden. They are only a small portion of the total tax burden.

Most people don't know this. They think the higher taxes are due to handouts. The reality is the high tax burden is due to NATIONAL DEBT that's growing at a very high rate, because WE ARE RUNNING A WAR on BORROWED money.

Think of it this way. To get your tax bill cut in half, we would have to get rid of all the war spending, which is easily double all the commonly targeted programs COMBINED.

The whole sham is like a payday loan. Borrow $100 dollars at 400 percent interest so you can save a few bucks now and pay huge at the first of the month. What does that do? It means you will be doing it again, and again, and again.

That's where we are right now.

Put in terms of a person, one side job would easily produce the same amount of money as you will save with this silly gas tax bit. And there is absolutely no assurances that the oil companies and gas distributors won't just pad their prices to just take the dollars anyway.

Doesn't matter if it's a small amount or a big amount. A tax giveaway, an obvious ploy for votes, isn't worth it when you have to go and borrow the money and pay the interest on the loan forever. It's not an investment that will pay dividends later (like a new bridge over the Columbia river or health care for kids). It's just consumption, borrowed to make people want to vote for McCain or Clinton.

Andrew

The first thing I would have told Hillary Clinton was to fire her former chief strategist, Mark Penn. I would have fired him after Iowa, but for reasons unknown to the rest of the world, she kept him on staff until very recently. I blame him for much of went wrong with her campaign. He tried to sell her as one thing without allowing her to accentuate other components of her personality and intellect.

Secondly, I would have asked her to reign in her husband. I think that in some parts of the country, he’s done more harm than good. And I’m a big Bill Clinton supporter.

Thirdly, if Chelsea Clinton is going to be an active part of the campaign, she should take questions from the press. She’s no longer a teenager, but rather a very well spoken woman capable of answering questions about her mother’s campaign.

With regard to Barack Obama, I question whether he is ready to lead. I’d want to know more about how he plans to hit the ground running. It took Bill Clinton nearly his entire first term to become “presidential”. How would he avoid the same problem? What kinds of people would he want to appoint in the executive and at the cabinet level.

John McCain seems to be a retread of George W. Bush. I haven’t heard anything new or original for the McCain camp. How would he govern differently from Bush, given that many Republicans on the hill felt that the Bush White House has done a rather poor job keeping them in the loop?

I’d also want to know why he now supports the Bush tax cuts when he voted against them in the early part of the Bush Administration.

Lastly, given his wife’s problem with drug addiction, how would he address the drug problem in the United States?

may I suggest a better attempt at earning income...



Weak response. No different than saying everybody should have healthcare. Easy to say, difficult to deliver. On the other hand, if you have some actual hard leads for me to pursue, I will accept your offer of guidance to a better income.

Every day is a hustle for a better income.

" With regard to Barack Obama, I question whether he is ready to lead. I’d want to know more about how he plans to hit the ground running. It took Bill Clinton nearly his entire first term to become “presidential”. How would he avoid the same problem? "

In my opinion, that's a valid point. I agree that it took him a while ( I disagree that it took his entire first term - but your point is not lost on me ). However, I do not believe that Obama will do anyting less than " hit the ground running." He has campaigned on doing exactly what you ask for. If he doesn't, then I will be the first to note it and demand better. If am am truly being fooled, then I will wilt away and conceded defeat on that score. I know " How convienient." But I gotta go with what I believe and what my research and gut tell me. Sometimes they are equally important. Other times, one wins over the other.

" Lastly, given his wife’s problem with drug addiction, how would he address the drug problem in the United States?"

Fair enough rationale or criteria. But if I am going to NOT be a hypocrite, saddling McCain with that issue feels unfair or wholly baised. It feels unimportant and unrelatable to me. I know it's a LOT to ask, but frankly, I am tired of an exception to that rule being implemented as policy decision making motivation. His case is rare enough to warrant deferring to something more applicable to the the situation as a whole. I do not want him to make policies based on his wife's issues.

I know it's a tough call - but I don't think I want that in a President.