Damn - was called into a meeting, so by the time I finished that, others beat me to it.

Don't you hate how work can intrude on our internet time? :o)

if we were enjoying a great economic time like when Bush ran , it would work

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We were in a recession when Bush ran in 2000.

The first 100 days. That's the grace period that a first term president usually gets, isn't it? Now, Obama is clearly a guy who can learn what needs to be learnt and put it into practice in 100 days. So is Biden and McCain. Sarah Palin? I have no confidence there. I fear that if Sarah Palin became president she would rely too heavily on her advisors, more so even than W has been accused of.

When you elect a president (or vice president) you elect them primarily for their judgment.  Of course they'll rely on advisors since they can't know everything about everything, and they'll have the best and the most opinionated advisors available. But in the end it comes down to policy direction and judgment.

Now McCain may be the asshole that he's been painted as recently, but what counts against him for me is that i disagree with his policy direction.  I think he's flip-flopped on a lot of important issues, but I think his judgement will probably mostly follow his policies as they are defined now. He'll be a good president for those who agree with his current positions.

I'll vote for an asshole if that asshole has policies that I like and the balls to carry them out, and for his constituents I think McCain has that. He has a far more conservative platform than in 2000, but that's how it goes.  The only surprise would be if McCain got elected and suddenly dropped the 2008 McCain in favor of the 2000 McCain, however unlikely.

I think Obama and Biden will probably be effective as well, at carrying out most of their policies.  Obama has made a point of wanting to be Bipartisan, but the true test of that would be if he got elected with a solidly democrat congress and senate and still reached across the aisle. But doing that would probably have parts of  the Democratic Party screaming bloody murder.  

Sarah Palin? She doesn't seem to me like someone who has strong opinions on policy (except for god and taxes) and I don't feel confident in her judgment. But I don't agree with her policies, such as they are, either, so I don't want her to president. All the other arguments are vicarious.  

Jason Czeskleba wrote:  Christopher Allen Miller wrote: We were in a recession when Bush ran in 2000. That is debatable, depending on how you define recession.  For example, I found this article which discusses whether the recession should be considered starting in March 2001 or November 2000.  Some people date it even earlier, but that is only retrospectively.  At the time no one was talking about a recession, and my recollection is that the economy was not considered a major problem during the 2000 campaign.  My recollection is that the stock market began tanking right after the election, during the period of uncertainty before the Supreme Court selected the winner of the election.

National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of the time lines of recessions, never date a recession until it's over. (source).  Here are the recessions they have dated since the end of WWII:

Looking at the above information coupled with Jason's link, no matter how you slice it we weren't in a recession when Bush was running for president as Christopher contends.