VA Scandel - pox on both houses and then some.

For the fifteen to twenty years anyone who has followed veterans affairs issues, particularly with regard to medical care would not surprised by the recent scandal involving the American VA. In the early 90’s funding going into the VA system shrank. WWII vets were becoming fewer and the VA was deemed to be a place to help balance the budget  or free funds for Congress’s pet projects. Yes, the was an aging pool of Korean and Vietnam vets that as they aged would need more support, but they were still years away from needing more intensive support and by when they did need such support the rapidly declining pool of WWII would soon be minimal.

Hence, over the 90s instead of facilities being updated, they were allowed to age, and not always gracefully either. In the mid to late 90s facilities were closing resulting in vets having travel two to three hours further to VA hospitals for treatment and care. Some vets in the areas of the country by 2000 were traveling a half a day or more to reach their nearest VA hospital. The overall strength of the medical staff not only decreased because of the closures of hospitals but also from decreases in medical staff at existing hospitals with aging and sometimes equipment that was not current.

The dedicated medical staff worked hard to care for those who came under their care in the same or greater numbers while having less and less resources to manage their care. And when this country went to war and its youth came home wounded in body and spirit, increasing the annual budget was not a priority of either Congress or the White House. In the 2000s to the present there were some budgetary increases, but they were not nearly enough to make up for the cuts, to modernize facilities, to open new facilities and clinics, to increase staff. The VA continued to serve more and more with inadequate resources.

With fewer and fewer resources, and with more demand, what is the logical result? What happens at a remote busy gas station and half the pumps are turned off? Lines and with longer wait times. And yet we are shocked by longer wait times at underfunded, underequipped and understaffed hospitals?

Earlier this year Congress refused to take up and pass a bill that would have given the VA an extra $2.1 million a year for the next ten years. This has been going on for decades. Congress by its action continued then and still does underfund the VA. Yet many of those who have underfunded the VA have been the first to cry out in scorn at the VA and the President for breaking faith with our veterans as if Congress and they themselves by their votes are blameless. Political commentators cry out in alarm, but the story has been there for decades and they did not cry.

Who has broken faith with our vets? It is not just this President with our veterans! It is the prior President too! It is not just past Congresses who bear a good part of the blame, but the current one as well. And on a personal level, personal blame goes to each Congress member and Senator  who has by their deliberate votes and willfully turned a blind eye to VA underfunding. Add to the mix the political commentators, politicians for their false horror, who push the story for political attack purposes.

Each member of Congress who is pointing fingers elsewhere, who is not accepting a portion of the blame and not saying, “I’m going to join others to do something about the underfunding” are not only perpetuating the problem, they are at the heart of the problem. They are breaking faith with our vets. Shame on them!

The story has been there for years. From time to time over the last decade there have been stories about the VA’s underfunding and growing wait times. Often this is not a new story has been marginalized and yawned at. Now it has finally has gained traction. And finally, I too am part of the problem for not writing my Congressman and Senators more often about the VA’s underfunding.

Dismissals are not the answer. The answer is simple, give the VA the resources that they need to do the job that they are not only charged to do, but want to do.  

The citizens of the United States, including myself, and our leaders who have broken faith with their veterans!!         

 

An Irresponsible Statement From the Pastoral Office

On August 16, Reverend Steven Anderson, the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, an “old-fashioned, independent, fundamental, King James only, separated Baptist church” in Tempe Arizona informed his congregation that he is praying for the death of President Barack Obama. Anderson stated the he prays that Obama “dies and goes to hell.” He went on to say, “If you want to know how I’d like to see Obama die, I’d like him to die of natural causes. I don’t want him to be a martyr, we don’t need another holiday. I’d like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer.” He not only mentioned it in his sermon, but has posted that sermon on his web site.

I do not know Anderson, but his statements alarm me on several levels. While I will not judge his spiritual standing, I do judge such statements as lunacy, irresponsible and most unbecoming of a man in his position. While we could be tempted to dismiss Anderson as a very rare case, he is not. Over the course of the last twenty years a good number of fundamentalist and evangelicals leaders, ministers and laity who have and continue to demonize those who do not think like them.

The roots of such thinking stem back to the early 1980s to Jerry Falwell’s defunct and failed “Moral Majority”. Falwell rightly encouraged the faith community to be engaged in the political sphere and to make decisions on voting not by party but by faith measures. It is the latter where the failed legacy of the Moral Majority’s continues to linger. Instead of encouraging people to make decisions in a balanced way on a wide host of issues and values they made at the time four issues exclusive measures, a) reversal of Rowe v. Wade, b) fighting the passage of the ERA – legislation that recognized the equality of women both in the home, law courts and work-place, c) fighting passage civil-rights laws, and d) standing firm against any laws that recognize gays as having and civil protection in the work-place or from prosecution. Since, the religious right has kept to a very narrow agenda and has increasingly become an extension of the right wing of the Republican party.

As for Anderson, let me deal with the cancer statement first. Anderson has implied that brain cancer is a divine judgment and rightly fitting those who are destined to hell. No doubt about it cancer is a curse but it is a curse that falls upon the just and the unjust. To imply that those who have cancer are under some sort of divine judgment is preaching a gospel that is not found in the Bible and but is a false man-made gospel.

Rather than starting with the Word and allowing it to speak and shape his mind, it is clear from these few statements that like all too many other’s on the far right that Anderson starts with a political position and belief system and then uses carefully selected Bible passages to justify his preconceived bias while dismissing others that would not support such a view. In other words he is an extreme Republican who happens to be a Christian and uses the church and the Bible to support his political views.

What is most alarming is not his views, but the context and venue in which they are uttered. As a citizen of the United States he is free to hold any view he so desires whether they are grounded in truth or not. Also he is free to express them freely to the cheers or jeers of the listener.

I take issue with Anderson as these comments are spoken from the office of pastor and in the venue of worship. Credible seminaries carefully remind their students that what one says from the pulpit and in the context of the pastoral office must done thoughtfully. They remind their students that the listener views their words as a divine message more than merely the opinion of a man or woman. Such views are taken seriously by their congregants and some will accept them uncritically. A thoughtless personal opinion the pastor sees as “just my opinion” is viewed as a divine opinion by the listener. The pastor therefore must be guarded in his opinion and is advised to be cautious in uttering them within the contexts of a sermon, prayer, worship, pastoral counseling, or pastoral pronouncements. Anderson either was never taught this wise instruction or he has ignored this fundamental pastoral teaching.

As mentioned, as a citizen he has a right to speak these things. If he said them apart from the pastoral role and worship I would have no issue as such other than to say that I would disagree. But to state these things as part of worship or in the formal context of fulfillign the pastoral role is another issue.

That said, many other evangelical and fundamentalist leaders likewise ignore the wisdom of their thoughtful teachers. Too many start with a political agenda, speak on that agenda while using faith statements to justify their position, without most in their congregations realizing that they minister has misused his office and Scripture to push a political agenda. What is also disturbing is that many pastors do not realize that they are starting with an external manmade agenda and labeling it as God’s agenda.

The response from the religious community at large when a religious leader utters such statements is disappointing. Instead of their supervisors and peers speaking out in various ways against such thinking, they remain silent, and thereby tacitly indicate that such an utterance is acceptable. Since Anderson is an independent fundamentalist separate Baptist, he has no supervisors or peer system to hold him accountable. It is up to the church and individuals at large to speak out against such statements, statements that harm civil discourse as well as the church body as a whole in the eyes of the world at large.

Obama Angers the Democrat Left

Barak Obama is being criticized by many of the left of the Democratic Party for inviting Rick Warren to give one of the two prayers at his inauguration. Meanwhile, Warren has received calls from some evangelical and fundamentalist leaders asking him to decline because of Obama’s support for abortion as well as his position on gay rights and gay marriage.

Joe Solmonese, President of Human Rights Campaign has stated that inviting Warren has tarnished the view that “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your (Obama’s) table.” Solmones goes on to state that the selection of Warren shows deep respect for homosexuals.

For that last twelve years America has been increasingly been torn apart by divisive fighting between the extremes, with each side not being willing to build from the common ground. Bush claimed he was the President of all Americans and he would bring people together. Yet, his choices for his cabinet was heavily weighted with those who were far from being centrists. His choice for Vice-President signaled what was to come. Bush’s view was that he won the election and he would govern from the right (interestingly, with the collapse of the economy the right now claims Bush has not been governing from the right and he was not their man). What Bush meant by building a common ground was that others were expected to capitulate to his position.

Solonese and others who are deeply angered by the selection of Warren are not far essentially in agreement with George Bush’s view of governing. The only difference is that while Bush governed for the most part from the far right they want their man to govern from the far right. They want Obama to use the language of being the President for the whole nation and seeking common ground but not to follow-through on that language. They do not want to have Obama reaching out and conversing with those on the political right. They want Obama to be the left version of Bush.

Like Bush Obama says he is the President of all Americans. Unlike Bush, he is bringing into his administration and cabinet strong people with diverse views. He is taking steps to reach out to all. He wants to have strong views argued within his Cabinet. He wants ideas to be challenged and sifted. I hope that he will help end the politics of polarities and divisiveness.

The Republican Socialist Charge

As noted in an earlier blog in this past election the Republicans tended to label Democrats as being Socialists and Marists. As one writer, Barbara Simpson, has penned “It’s clear Marxism will permeate Obama’s presidency.” The Socialist/Marxist label was not new to this election for it has been a tactic that has been used by the Republicans for decades.

Before commenting on the charge, let me summarize the essence of Marxism. Marxism views society through the prism of class struggle whereby the wealthy keep workers repressed while they absorb the wealth of their worker’s labor. The goal of the wealthy is to exploit workers by underpaying them and limiting their employment rights.

The goal of Marxism is to create an egalitarian system by eliminating class distinctions. It holds that all workers are to be paid the same wage. To this end, the state owns all corporate assets and creates monopolies, owns all farms and manages every aspect of the society. To help establish the egalitarian system and eliminate the wealthy landed gentry, Marx advocates the abolition of inheritance and implementing a heavy progressive income tax to strip the wealthy of the wealth that they have accumulated and inherited.

When I look at Democratic policies, I do not see Marxism at play. Neither the Democrats nor President-elect Obama is advocating that the state hold all property and assets, the creation of state run monopolies, implementing an egalitarian pay system and the abolition of inheritance.

No one can deny that the current tax structure is progressive with the wealthier paying a higher per cent of their income in taxes than those who are paid less. A progressive structure is not Marxism if it is neither heavy nor intended to eliminate the wealth of those who have amassed it. Heavy is a matter of interpretation. A tax rate of 35% is heavy if you believe that you should not be paying more than 20%, 15% can be viewed as outrageous if one holds that one should not be paying more than 7%.

Like the next guy, I would love to pay less in taxes. Yet, if there was a poor public infrastructure it is unlikely I would have my same standard of living. Public infrastructure elements ranging from transportation to education, from regulatory standards and enforcement to public safety are essential to a stable and healthy modern country. Without such a solid public infrastructure corporations and business owners would not be able to flourish and increase their wealth. Without a healthy business community, solid gainful employment for most in the country would be unlikely. A progressive tax structure allows those who are benefiting economically at a higher level to pay for a greater portion of the public infrastructure.

The red herring Socialist charges will continue to be made by the Republicans. As evidenced by Representative Michelle Bachmann’s blatant McCarthy like statement during the campaign, there are Republican elements who would be happy to have Congress investigate Obama and a host of Democrats for anti-American and Marxist beliefs. Fortunately, the attack has had less traction this year than in past elections because a large portion of those under the age of forty are buying into that language. The Republican attacks indicate that they are either ignorant about Socialism or if they are informed as to its definition, that they are intentionally preying upon those who are uninformed.

Reflection on 2008 Presidential Race

Two posts in one day...what can I say...my goal is to hit or surpass the goal announced in the challenge to the family. Now as as to the election.

As I type, throughout the east voting is concluding on the agonizingly long 2008 American presidential campaign. If the election goes along the lines of the polls it will not be close as far as the Electoral College is concerned. Obama should have about a 70 to 110 spread between over McCain.

About a year ago, the election started to impact our direct mail strategies. Earlier in the year our division was looking at implementing a donor call system that it has done in the past. Though Virginia has been solidly Republican for decades I argued then that we should not do so. The early signs indicated that Virginia could be a battle ground. Over the last four presidential cycles the popular vote spread between the two parties has narrowed significantly.

The military vote was not a solid as it has been in the past years for the Republicans. Add to those two factors that Obama was energizing the younger voters at a level unseen since Kennedy in 1960 and you have a fertile ground for a battle.

For the first time in decades Virginia has its second consecutive Democratic Governor and at least one Democrat Senator. With the second Senate seat being vacated by a retiring Republican, it seemed to stand to reason that the senate race was going to be hotly contested by the Democrats.

With a hotly contested presidential and senatorial race the state would be flooded by robo calls between mid September and the election. Not only would candidates be making calls, but so would various PACs from right to life to woman’s rights groups, from the National Rifle Association to groups opposed to the United Nations. The last thing The Salvation Army needed to do was to make calls during the same period and be caught up in the backlash.

It appears that former Democrat Governor Warner will soundly defeat his Republican predecessor Governor Gilmore. The early returns appear that Obama will take the Commonwealth and its 13 electoral votes by seven to nine points, which would be a major shift.

With McCain going down to defeat, recriminations and figure pointing will commence within days. Some leaders of the Religious Right will cry the Republicans ignored their concerns by selecting the wrong candidate. Those leaders and their followers who nod in agreement need to be reminded of two realities. The first is that the Religious Right is one voice, albeit a significant voice, in the Republican Party. The democratic process is grounded upon the civil discourse and of putting forth a cogent persuasive. If others have a more convincing message than the Religious Right, they need to accept the result. They should not bemoan that they did not win the day and do what James Dobson did, announce that he was picking up his ball and going home because he did not like the result (he later came back to the game when Palin was picked by McCain).

The second is that the Religious Right has lost credibility by wrapping themselves around George Bush. In the last election many evangelical leaders made it clear, as did Sarah Palin’s pastor did, that a good Christian could not vote for Bush’s opponent or any Democrat. As these preachers of righteousness remained silent on abuses within the Bush administration the Religious Right started to lose its moral ground and hearing. The middle of the road independents, particularly those under thirty, are giving far less attention to leaders of the Religious Right than in the past.

The McCain campaign continued to struggle to find a message that would hold traction and undergird the whole campaign. The first narrative was McCain the hero who does not back away from tough fights vs. those who lack courage. How he tried to cast Obama did not hold. Obama did not allow McCain’s bait to distract him. Instead Obama remained calmly focused on the message of change and his game plan.

Over the summer McCain’s message evolved to be the deal maker who puts country first versus Obama the nonpartisan pretender. McCain had a long history of brokering deals and working with Democrats in the Senate but the message did not hold. That message did not connect primarily because Obama again was being cast far from how he was being perceived. The Republican’s underlying dismissive view of Obama was apparent in their messages.

During and immediately following Obama’s trip to Europe the Republican message shifted to McCain the decisive leader versus Obama the rock star celebrity. That message died quietly when the electorate felt Obama had serious ideas that stood behind his popularity with the younger demographics whereas McCain still was not focused upon the serious issues facing the nation. McCain’s answer to rising gasoline prices was to drill more and diversify. When pressed as to flesh out his diversify message he remained vague and wanting. He answers to the rising foreclosure rates remained fuzzy. A vague energy plan and a fuzzy foreclosure plans did not match the McCain the decisive leader message.

Saying it was a reflection of his decisive leadership McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. Immediately the unknown Palin became the rock star, a star who dwarfed McCain on the campaign trail. Coming out of the convention the new narrative was McCain/Palin, a team of mavericks standing against old style Washington politics. This message took hold for a while but soon lost traction. Though it lost traction the theme kept surfacing again and again through to the end of the campaign. The general public had difficulty seeing Obama as old style politics in light of his time in Washington and balanced thoughtful approach to issues.

In his effort to court the far right of the party McCain jettisoned a host of positions previously held. In changing his positions just to get the nomination, the maverick became a typical old style Washington politician. The message also lost traction when the public started to know about Palin and witnessed her in two disastrous interviews.

When the signs of the economic crisis become increasingly evident, McCain continued to claim that the fundamentals of the economy were sound. He and his financial advisor assured all would be well. McCain appeared shocked by the meltdown. Trying to portray himself as the decisive leader who could work with both parties to resolve a problem, he boldly announced the he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to solve the financial problem. That action backfired badly on three fronts.

It soon became evident that McCain was charging into the battle without understanding the nature of the battleground which was evident in several of his public pronouncements. Then people started to read and hear the stories that McCain sat silently in meetings without giving any suggestions. He was not being the reconciler or the decisive leader he claimed. Not only did he leave town without any plan in place but it appears that he emboldened those who were against doing anything. Hence, McCain became identified as being part of the problem.

Sarah Palin’s posturing herself as a down-home honest speaking hockey mom WalMart shopper was derailed by stories about $150,000 being spent on her wardrobe. It is one thing to have good looking clothing, but the cost of the outfits alarmed the middle of the road voter at a critical point in the race. Even when the press left the story, Palin revived it again by her comments on the campaign trail and by her Alaskan handlers false faulting Wallace.

In the closing weeks McCain turned to the traditional Republican message, the conservative fighter against the tax and spend liberal. Bush effectively used the same message against Gore in 2000. The message resonated with the base and independent voters who are right of center. It did find traction but it lost its punch when left of center voters recalled McCain’s past votes against Bush’s tax cuts undercut his message. The message lost some punch when amongst voters to recalled that Bush said the same yet is the President with the greatest deficit in the nation’s history whereas his “liberal Democrat” predecessor had a surplus.

That said, polls tightened in the last week as the Republicans unleashed an endless stream of attack ads that played upon fear. In the next hour time will tell if going to the well of fear will work once again. For the sake of future elections, their approach does not work.

On the whole, Obama has run a stronger campaign at all levels. His message has been consistent. His decisions have been thoughtful as against McCain’s rash selection of Palin and during the financial crisis charging off like mindless general into a war without knowing the nature of the battlefield. In his moving passionate speeches he has given the country a vision. We have seen a thoughtful passionate man. While campaigning is not the same as governing, running a thoughtful deliberate campaign does show potential leadership.

On another election issue, Kay Hagan is projected to defeat Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina (see the earlier 30 October post on this subject).

Republicans Know What Tuesday Holds

Regardless of the polls Republican talking heads speak of Republicans winning a host of Senate races and the presidential race on Tuesday. This morning Davis, McCain's campaign director affirmed on national television that McCain/Palin would win. They claim that the polls are biased to the Democrats and that their internal data gives a different picture.

Do the behaviors and decisions being made does not match the verbal statements? The evidence indicates that Davis and other Repubican apologists are not sharing true picture. For over a week Republicans have been in-fighting pointing blame for the poor results to various individuals. In the dying days of America's national election where the presidential and vice-presidential candidates travel indicates their own internal reading of the results. What they are saying in these last hours on the trail and the last minute ads speak volumes.

When Obama’s team increases commercial buys in Arizona, McCain’s home state, McCain is in trouble. When Obama spends his last four days focused upon states that voted for Bush in the last elections, that is an indication the Republicans are losing. Obama/Biden are not running around shoring up their base and ground they traditionally win. Besides visiting swing states like Ohio and Florida in the last five days, McCain and Palin are making campaign stops in Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina, three states that have been Republican strong holds. When the Republicans start pouring resources into Virginia with a week to go, a state that has not supported a Democrat presidential candidate since 1964, there is great concern. The same is happening in Indiana and North Carolina.

McCain's message has changed in these last days. He is asking for voters to vote for him by arguing that if he does now win the Democrats will control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. That message is a sign that across the board the Republican party are headed for difficult and disappointing night. McCain’s argument is founded upon strong indications that after this election the Democrats will have a much stronger majority in the House and Senate.

Interestingly, the Republican National Committee is running ads using a similar message in an effort to support their Senate candidates. The RNC ads plead for voters to vote for their Senator since Democrats will be controlling both the White House and the House or Representatives.

In Organ the RNC’s ad says "Sending Jeff Merkley to the U.S. Senate could give one party a blank check … Especially in this economy, Oregon needs an independent voice in the U.S. Senate." Polls are indicating that Democrat challenger Merkley may defeat incumbent Senator Gordon Smith.

In North Carolina, Senator Elizabeth Dole is at such severe risk of losing to Kay Hagan that Dole has run some of the nastiest ads this year. The RNC has jumped in to help support Senator Dole with an ad, "Who's the Senate race really about? Hagan or Dole? Neither one. It's about liberals in Washington. They want complete control of the government … The left wants 60 votes in the Senate." Though the Republicans use the traditional “liberal” attack, the problem for Dole and the RNC is that politically Hagan is very much a middle of the road. Similar ads are being run by the RNC where incombent Senators are at risk.

While McCain is admitting that the Senate and House are lost, the RNC is admitting that the White House and House of Representatives are going to the Democrats. The "vote for me because my party is going down in flames" messages are very telling, particularly in a party that has historically valued party loyalty. When a party that puts a premium on loyalty starts to use these messages and openly finger point, its days of glory are coming to an end.

Far too many Republicans have held that they have the divine right to rule. This view is somewhat grounded in the religious right that assumes it has all the right answers, that one cannot be a Democrat and true Christian, and God’s will is for them to rule America. When Clinton won the White House the religious right was so angry and bitter because his election put into question their viewpoint on ruling.

The nation needs a well balanced Republican party, a party that is not controlled by the right wing. The over dominance of the right wing has not been good for the party or the country. Hopefully they will go through a much needed soul searching in the coming weeks and months that will drive them toward being much more toward the center. Hopefully they repeat what they did following Clinton's victory by moving further toward the extreme right.

Election Math

The national election is the United States is in its home stretch. In September polls have constantly shown Obama with a lead, a lead that continued to widen. No candidate or party has given a knock-out punch or faltered to the degree that victory is hopeless.

Over the upcoming twelve days the polls will narrow, which is what typically happens when the election is not going to a landslide. That said, there are signs of growing tension within the McCain campaign’s leadership. McCain messaging has continued to meander. Palin’s fitness to be President has increasingly come into question and today 55% of those surveyed feel she is not qualified to be Vice-President.

In the United States, the candidate entering the White House does not need to win the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the race. The race is focused upon winning the Electoral College. Win a state, even by one vote, the candidates receives all that state’s electoral college votes.

I would note for family and friends north of the boarder that it is possible to win the White House by winning only eleven of the fifty States. The eleven have the largest electoral colleges and when combined gives a candidate 271 electoral votes, one greater than what is needed to win. The eleven states are:
California with 55 electoral votes
Texas with 35
New York with 31
Florida with 27
Illinois with 21
Pennsylvania with 21
Ohio with 20
Michigan with 17
North Carolina with 15
Georgia with 15
New Jersey 15

Losing three of the above states does not unduly harm a candidate if they are not all in the largest four. Losing one of the large four and two of the others can be easily off-set by strength from a range of smaller Electoral College states. But losing five or six of the eleven creates a great challenge for any candidate. Both parties are aware of the importance of these eleven and build their campaigns around winning as many any of the eleven as possible.

Before the campaign started the Democrats knew Texas is going Republican and conceded Texas. Texas is easily offset by Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington and the District of Columbia.

Georgia too is likely to go Republican. Democrats balance off Georgia with Massachusetts and Vermont, both of which are strong Democrat states.

Though the fight for North Carolina is a tight, North Carolina too is likely to go Republican. Again its lost is not of great concern since the northeast strong holds of Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire compensate for not winning North Carolina. That said, the Democrats are pouring resources into North Carolina in an effort to drain Republican resources from other states as Republican success depends upon Republicans winning North Carolina.

Though the Republicans have conceded Illinois, New York and Michigan, they would be in great difficulty if they lose North Carolina. What is interesting is that recent polls indicate that Obama is within two or three points of winning North Carolina. If Obama wins North Carolina it is more than likely that Obama will be the overall victor.

A great deal of attention is being given by both parties to Ohio and Florida. In the last two presidential elections these states could easily have gone Democrat. For the Democrats losing either Ohio or Florida could be balanced off by a series of smaller states, but for either party to lose both creates an uphill battle, particularly for McCain.

Democrats losing Ohio is balanced off by winning Maryland, Maine and Iowa. Iowa which went Republican in 2004 gives Democrats more breathing space. Loosing Florida requires the Democrats to win Maine and Hawaii, which the Democrats have won in the last four election cycles, as well as several states that swing back and forth.

Losing Ohio and Florida means Oregon, Colorado and New Mexico become must wins for Obama. Both Florida and Ohio are close. Obama has a strong lead in Oregon and somewhat of a lead in Colorado and New Mexico.

For the first time since 1964 Virginia could be taken by the Democrats. Virginia is being hotly contested. If the Commonwealth of Virginia does vote for Obama and so does Oregon, Colorado and New Mexico, the Democrats will be in a strong position to win the White House, even without lost Ohio and Florida.

Given where Virginia is polling recently, significant campaign money is being poured into the state. Though the Commonwealth may well go Republican, Missouri too is receiving a great deal of attention from both parties.

For McCain to win the White House he must take Ohio, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia. He is going to lose Iowa and New Mexico. The lost of these two states means Maine and Pennsylvania become must wins for him. Hence, the Republicans are pouring resources in Pennsylvania in an effort to win there even though the polls indicate that McCain is behind in the state by six to nine points.

For any reader who is interested in playing around with various combinations, I would point them to http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/electoral-vote-tracker.htm

The race will tighten and the heavy focus will come down to six to eight states.