Hello, everyone. We're opening up our live blog now, with participants from our own political caucus community. They'll be monitoring cable networks like CNN, MSNBC and FOX, in addition to political Web sites like Huffington Post, Drudge Report, and Politico, for the latest in political news.

View Larger Map

Read all of their answers here.

As with the presidential race, our online Caucus-participating readership leans farther to the right than the left. Seven readers urged a vote for Republican Dino Rossi, four for returning Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire to office, and we couldn't tell about three of them.

Tim Clark of Mountlake Terrace called Gregoire "a typical tax and spend liberal that we should have stopped electing about thirty years ago. (I thought we learned something under Carter, which is why I thought we elected Reagan. Guess America did not really learn the lesson it should have under Carter)."

Clark managed to bring Alexis de Toqueville into his argument; de Toqueville, in 1831, "said that America's experiment in democracy will end when enough voters realize that they can vote for free handouts to themselves. From that point on, the greedy voters will keep voting more and more free stuff to themselves, until the economy collapses and a dictatorship results.

"The fact is, the Democrats are the party of free handouts that Toqueville warned about so long ago."

Dean Olson of Beacon Hill is unhappy with Gregoire's administration ("She caused a third recount and lost the Sonics, plus spent too much. Where's the viaduct and floating bridge that we're paying taxes on now?") but he's also unhappy with Rossi for not captioning his ads, an omission that has bothered Olson about many of the candidates this political season (he has a cochlear implant and depends on the captions). And he's not happy that Rossi has disputed the scientific consensus on global warming. So Olson says he'll cast a protest vote -- for former vice-president Al Gore.

Hugh Coleman of Kelso is voting Republican in hopes the GOP will shake things up in Olympia. "For decades the Democrats have controlled Washington State government," he wrote."We still have floods, 80 year old ferry boats, and an energy approach that is pre FDR."

Jon Smith of Tacoma argues for Gregoire. "Dino Rossi is aligned with all of the wrong private-sector groups at a time when the economy has burst on the real estate/credit bubble," he wrote. "His denunciation of the State employees wage settlement with the governor's office ignores the fact that the Legislature ... has the authority to vote against the settlement, whether it costs $88 million or $88.08. He also ignores that most of the settlements were at 2% COLA for each of two years, about half what the Boeing machinists have agreed to."

Bob Clark of Monroe is dismayed by the state's worsening traffic woes under Gregoire, and thinks Rossi will do better. "Governor Christine Gregoire has done little besides lip service in this county to help either with the death and carnage on US Highway 2 or to do something about the almost impossible commutes on Highways 9 and 522! To make matters worse she and her Transportation Department have funneled large amounts of Snohomish County generated tax dollars into King County and ignored funding for a number of projects in our county."

Finally, Paul Graves of Queen Anne managed to talk his Gregoire-leaning fiance into voting for Rossi (he had no luck convincing her to vote for Sen. John McCain). Here is part of his pitch: "Governor Gregoire inherited a surplus and turned it into the largest projected shortfall in Washington history. She gave kickbacks -- in the forms of drastic pay increases and a tax-free monopoly on gambling --to her special interest friends. And now, when things are sour and we all want change, she is telling us that things are hunky-dory. She has spent lavishly without demanding accountability, has helped well-connected friends while short-changing the average taxpayer, and is arrogantly resisting change. In short, she is all the things I dislike about George Bush."

It turns out that a number of caucus members have had this conversation with somebody they know well. Paul Graves of Seattle tried, to no avail, to convince his fiance to vote for McCain. Kurt Workman of Kennewick also had no success getting his mother-in-law to vote for Obama. But oh, they tried. Read all of their comments here.

Graves' argument begins this way: "John McCain has spent the last thirty years putting his country's interests before all else. He fought for it. He was beaten for it. He could have left the Hanoi Hilton three years earlier than he did. Doing so would have been a slap in the face to his fellow prisoners who were there longer than him and would have given the enemy propaganda. So he stayed."

Graves also notes McCain's support for legislation dealing with campaign finance reform, car fuel-efficiency standards and global warming.

"He put his country before his chances of becoming President. He voted against wasteful and wicked farm bills and opposes ethanol subsidies and tariffs, even though it already cost him two Iowa caucuses and will probably cost him Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota."

Workman's shorter, but no less passionate, argument: "What we need right now is someone to restore faith in America. Not just the faith of the rest of the world, which we've largely lost, but the faith of America's young people. Electing this youthful, charismatic, black man lets us all know that we are still making progress as a nation. Obama has the ability to excite and inspire young Americans not seen in a long time."

And so it went. Among the McCain supporters, ncarmstrong1611 of Bothell found McCain's argument about income redistribution in an Obama administration compelling: "If I worked hard enough all my life that I crossed that $250,000 threshold, I wouldn't think it was very fair that I should be forced to give my life's blood away to someone else who had not worked for it. By the same token If I were to receive one of those 'rebate' checks, and by the way I would, knowing that I had not earned it and that it was taken forcibly from someone else who had earned it, I would be guilty. I would not want it. Socialism i.e. income redistribution is wrong and un-American no matter who is proposing it."

Dale Amundsen of Monroe finds himself stirred by Obama's eloquence, but not his message. "In a world where evil regimes wish to do grievous harm to America -- this 'city on a hill' -- I want a proven patriot who knows the American ideal is worth fighting for. McCain and his running mate strike me as committed to these ideals at the heart of their being.

"We don't need for our country to lose sight of its ideals while Obama seeks an expansion of this nanny government."

Christopher Hodgkin of Friday Harbor would urge a friend to look beyond rhetoric and count accomplishments. "Obama was trained as a lawyer to speak decisively and convincingly even in support of people or causes totally contrary to his real views. That's what he was taught. That's why his rhetoric is not a reliable indicator of what he truly believes or would do. That's why you have to look at the actual achievements of the two candidates to see who would lead out country safely through a perilous time."

Obama supporters included Marc, of Burien, who wrote "Obama is clearly more level-headed and thoughtful. His economic advisors, including Warren Buffett, are among the best people available, practical, but non-ideological." But he was especially unhappy with McCain's pick of Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, calling her choice "shockingly irresponsible."

Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson of Tacoma was turned off by Palin's pick as well, and wrote: "I feel that Sen. McCain has a strong record of duty and honor. However, I do not think he is especially thoughtful as a leader. Sen. Obama has shown opportunism at points (not disavowing ACORN or Rev. Wright), but every politician does. On the other hand, Sen. McCain's treatment of the economic situation was totally inexplicable. His choice of Gov. Palin for Vice President seemed more concerned with electoral positioning than with the country's future. He seems completely incurious about economics. It makes Obama's sometimes overly-tactical pragmatism seem downright desirable."

Dave I of Seattle used the candidates' choice of a running mate as "the best proxy" of their sound judgment. "Obama picked an experienced statesman with tons of foreign policy experience that could step in to serve as President if the need arises. McCain picked a somewhat experienced governor who stumbles describing her view on important national and foreign issues because she needed a reader's digest review of these issues. If it isn't a domestic social issue I don't feel Palin can step into the presidency with any degree of confidence. Obama wins this analysis hands down."

For anyone who's keeping count, 17 of our 31 respondents are voting for McCain, versus 12 for Obama. (To round it out, one reader's preference was unclear, and one posted two responses). (Update: Three more Obama supporters came in by email and have just been posted -- that brings the count to a closer 17 for McCain and 15 for Obama.) Are McCain supporters in a blue state more passionate? Are Obama supporters in Washington more complacent? Are Seattle Times online readers more conservative? Or is McCain going to pull a big surprise in this state Nov. 4? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

By David Domke

To his credit, Republican Party presidential candidate John McCain has not invoked the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his campaign against Barack Obama. It was Wright who blasted America in 2001 while pastor of Obama's church in Chicago. Obama denounced Wright's incendiary words during the Democratic Party's primary, and McCain in April said Wright was off limits. McCain has stuck to his word.

To his great discredit, though, McCain has done just about everything else. And it's not OK, say more than 100 professors of communication and journalism across the nation.

I'm one of them.

In a nonpartisan statement headed by Professor Edward Schiappa, Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Minnesota, my colleagues and I say this, in our opening words:

We wish to express our great concern over unethical communication behavior that threatens to dominate the closing days of the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Both major campaigns have been criticized by fact-checking organizations for prevarications. We call on both campaigns to halt blatant misrepresentations of their opponent's positions.

It would be misleading, however, to imply that since "both sides do it" there is no qualitative difference worth noting. In recent weeks, the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin has engaged in such incendiary mendacity that we must speak out. The purposeful dissemination of messages that a communicator knows to be false and inflammatory is unethical. It is that simple.

So what are our concerns? I'll focus on two.

First, McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin have regularly claimed that Obama "pals around with terrorists," a reference to Obama's connection with William Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon, as part of the radical group The Weather Underground, in 1970. No reasonable person defends these actions by Ayers.

It is an uncontested fact that Ayers held a meet-and-greet political event for Obama early in Obama's political ascent in Illinois, and the two served on an educational board at the behest of Ronald Reagan friend Walter Annenberg. Today Ayers is a respected Chicago educator who has been praised by Chicago mayor Richard Daley, and independent www.factcheck.org has deemed the McCain camp's claims about Ayers and Obama to be "groundless, false, [and] dubious." Yet the McCain camp persists, including hitting this point repeatedly in interviews with NBC News in recent days.

Why? Because they are hoping that voters come to see Obama as a dangerous dark-skinned man not far removed from another man whose name rhymes with Obama. It's a rhetorical strategy of implied linkage, in which the goal is to forge a connection in people's minds, through repetition, of the ideas of "terrorist," "Obama," and "radical." It's a communication approach that follows in the footsteps of the one used - to strategic perfection - by the Bush administration to tie together Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein, even though U.S. government agencies declared there was no connection. In politics, the implied is powerful. It also is false in this case.

The words of Colin Powell from a week ago are instructive: "This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate. Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far."

Exactly.

Second, McCain has looked the other way while his running mate Sarah Palin has consistently characterized Obama as someone who doesn’t see America the same way that most Americans do. There are two ticking implications in such rhetoric. The first is the unstated assumption that everyone sees the United States as moral and upright, and that Obama does not. In Palin's words at a fundraiser in Colorado: "This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America. We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism." The "we" is presented as a taken-for-granted position: of course all we good people think this way.

In reality, there are many Americans who do not hold such an unadulterated pure view of America. In a 2006 campaign poll, for example, fully one-third of randomly sampled voters agreed with the statement that "America's power generally does more harm than good when we act abroad" (no online link is available). That said, there's zero chance that one of them is Obama - who has spoken consistently about his appreciation of the United States and its special role in the world.

Indeed, the notion that anyone running for president would have less than a rose-colored view of the nation would be laughable, if the claim were not so serious. Painting a presidential candidate as bad for America is as common as attack ads, but saying he doesn't love America smacks of McCarthyism. It's also false in this case.

John McCain is an American hero, a senator who has done many good things for the nation. But his campaign's public demonizations of Obama are not among them. These communications are wrong. They are unethical. And they do harm to the nation.

David Domke, a former newspaper journalist, is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. Domke also has worked with Democratic Party leaders in the Northwest to understand the dynamics of modern political campaigns. His latest book, "The God Strategy: How Religion Became A Political Weapon in America," was published in January. He can be reached at domke@u.washington.edu.

Read all of their answers here.

"If I ever want to get a conservative view I will watch Fox News, if I want a liberal view, I will watch MSNBC, if I want an international and pretty non-biased view I will look at BBC, but mostly I will watch CNN," wrote Samir Junejo of Shoreline. "They have good reporting and don't always have an obvious bias, though I still don't trust anyone enough to believe everything they say." One of Junejo's favorite places for a steady roundup of political news, big and small, is CNN's Political Ticker at
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

"When it comes to the horse race, I love FiveThirtyEight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com)," wrote Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson of Tacoma. "They have a complex system that interprets polling results and breaks through the 'house biases,' trends, demography, etc. It's not always correct and doesn't purport to be objective, but it's always interesting." Johnstone-Anderson also likes Politico, "indispensable for fair-minded, up-to-date news and analysis. It's the New Media at full potential."

"It's very, very hard to know who/what to trust," writes Jason DesLongchamp of SeaTac. "Being a conservative I expect conservative outlets to favor McCain and attack Obama, and vice versa. That's not very interesting to me. I really do want the truth, and it's fairly easy to sound convincing, so who am I supposed to trust?"

DesLongchamp tends to follow the Drudge Report, and also reads the New York Times and Seattle Times. He doesn't think much of bloggers, but he likes a slate of columnists including "Thomas Sowell, David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Leonard Pitts, Charles Krauthammer ... they usually have thought provoking things to say."

"We watch only movies sometimes to stop hearing all the negative ads," wrote Jim L. & Marie King of Snohomish. The Kings also read The Seattle Times and watch CNN, 700 Club and regular network news.

Marc Szeftel of Burien gets his partisan fix from The Huffington Post, but thinks that "the most comprehensive and objective source for news is Realclearpolitics.com, which has the widest range of columnists from left and right, as well as the most thorough polling data, updated regularly." He also reads The New York Times and periodically visits Townhall.com, "to see what the conservative base is saying."

"Every morning I start my day with my my.Yahoo page, where I check how badly my stocks are doing then go on to the news links to the top news and political stories from Reuters, AP, and the Seattle Times. I check out any stories that crave immediate attention," says Christopher Hodgkin of Friday Harbor of his daily morning routine. "Then I bring up the Drudge Report for links to news stories from a range of other media. I then bring up the New York Times and browse it briefly." Hodgkin has a few other local sites he visits for weather and Friday Harbor News, but beyond those, "If the news isn't on one of those sites, it doesn't exist for me."

"One of my mottos for the year is this: We earn intellectual capital by reading and listening," writes Paul Graves of Queen Anne. "We spend it by writing and talking. Aim for a surplus. It seems appropriate for this post."

Many Political Caucus participants are big fans of The Economist, and Graves is one of them; he calls it "humanity's best weekly." After that, "My surf-trail when I have time in the mornings goes like this: drudgereport, Wall Street Journal (front page then op/ed), NYTimes (front page then op/ed) Seattle Times (local then op/ed) PI (op/ed). I try to balance the partisan views I get, so I alternate one article apiece on Huffington Post-National Review Online. I get my local commentary from Crosscut, Sound Politics, and Horsesass."

"As a liberal, I especially appreciate an insightful column from a conservative perspective," wrote Carey Christensen of Stanwood. "Also, anything written with an historical perspective is interesting and valuable; I adore Doris Kearns Goodwin!"

"As the campaign increases in intensity, I often turn the TV off during the day," Christensen says. "I find it easier to read the opposition view than listen to it. I try to watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC and Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN every evening, and I also try to catch Bill O'Reilly on Fox. I never watch network news. I don't know whether I will be relieved or distraught when the election is over and the campaign news comes to a halt!"

By David Domke

Around the United States, Barack Obama's presidential fortunes have improved significantly in recent weeks. Since Sept. 15, when Lehman Brothers went under and the stock market began its free fall, Obama has opened somewhere between a 5 percent and 10 percent national lead over John McCain.

Surveys of registered and likely voters - compiled faithfully and neutrally at pollster.com - suggest that the race has moved in Obama's favor in state after state: New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In many of these places, Democrats running for the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and governor's office have also seen their standing rise.

For example, a New York Times article on Sunday included this passage:

"If Obama is able to run up big numbers around the country," said Mr. Anuzis, the Michigan [Republican] party chairman, "the potential for hurting down-ballot Republicans is very big." One sign of that has emerged in Nebraska, where Representative Lee Terry, a Republican, ran a newspaper advertisement featuring words of support for him from a woman identified as an "Obama-Terry voter."

Not if we believe the same pollsters.

Let's start with the governor's race. Since Sept. 1, there have been six polls publicly reported. In three of them, Republican challenger Dino Rossi has led; in the most recent one, published on Oct. 2 by Rasmussen Reports, Rossi and Democratic incumbent Christine Gregoire were deadlocked at 48 percent. Among the polling-fixated, Rasmussen is considered to have a slight Republican-lean "house effect," but in the same poll Obama had opened a 10-point lead, up from two points in the previous Rasmussen survey of the state. Rossi led Gregoire by a stunning 57 percent to 37 percent among unaffiliated voters.

Next let's look at the 8th Congressional District, where incumbent Republican Dave Reichert is being challenged for a second time by Democrat Darcy Burner. If ever the Democratic Party might win in the 8th, this would seem to be the year.

But in three publicly reported polls since Sept. 1, Reichert has led by an average of six points. The most recent poll, published this past Friday, came from Democratic-leaning Research 2000, and still put Reichert ahead 49 percent to 41 percent. Reichert led among both men and women and among every age group. Notably, the poll showed Obama up by four points, 47-43, in the 8th.

So why haven't Gregoire and Burner risen with Obama? Here's three key reasons.

1. Rossi and Reichert have successfully - so far at least - avoided the George W. Bush torpedo. Bush's presidential approval ratings are at historic lows, in Richard Nixon territory. Any Republican who is seen as closely tied to Bush or to the poor Republican Party brand is suffering. Rossi has gone so far as to run as the "GOP candidate," forsaking the Republican moniker in a terrible-for-Republicans election cycle. Reichert, for his part, has kept adequate distance from Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney. Advantage Rossi and Reichert.

2. Gregoire and Burner have not delivered compelling economic messages, a crucial detriment in an electoral environment marked by the worst economic downturn since the 1970s. Gregoire is a smart, can-do governor, but she has been unable to make the case that Rossi is too economically risky for the state. In fact, Rossi has had the better of this argument by pinning the current state budget deficit on Gregoire, even though Rossi bears at least some responsibility when in the state Senate.

Burner became a rising star in Democratic Party circles on the strength of her opposition to the Iraq War. In 2006, this issue was front and center for voters across the country, and Democrats rode it into control of the Congress. Burner didn't join them, but she came within 8,000 votes of Reichert. This year the issue has receded in the face of economic crisis, and Burner has struggled to pivot to the economy. It's not an impossible move: Obama has done it ably on the national level. But Burner has not been able to do it yet.

3. Gregoire and Burner have failed to build dynamic emotional connections with voters. Reichert is the sheriff who relentlessly pursued the Green River killer. Rossi is the almost-was-governor candidate, who lost (or had the election stolen) only after three counts of the ballots. Like 'em or not, Rossi and Reichert have powerful stories.

Gregoire and Burner have stories to tell too. But, by and large, they haven't told them with the kind of emotional oomph needed to connect with voters. Here, again, is something that Obama has been able to accomplish in recent weeks, a point I wrote about in my last Times column. It's I-feel-your-pain time.

Every election year, some book seems to capture the public's attention in explaining how people make voting decisions. The book for this election cycle is 2007's The Political Brain, by Drew Westen, a political psychologist at Emory University. In an essay he wrote for the Washington Post (and printed in the Times) more than a year ago, he put it this way:

"Two visions of mind and brain have dominated contemporary American politics. One is a dispassionate vision, which suggests that voters choose candidates by examining their positions on the issues and coolly calculating their relative costs and benefits. The other, a passionate vision, suggests that voters are moved by the feelings that candidates and parties elicit in them and are guided by their shared values and goals. The dispassionate vision has guided much of the strategy that has reliably cost Democrats winnable elections over the past four decades, and it could do so again in 2008."

Gregoire and Burner have three weeks remaining to ask voters this question: can you feel the economic plans I will pursue? If the answer is no, then Washington may be one state in which any Obama effect on down-ballot races is unfelt.

David Domke, a former newspaper journalist, is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. Domke also has worked with Democratic Party leaders in the Northwest to understand the dynamics of modern political campaigns. His latest book, "The God Strategy: How Religion Became A Political Weapon in America," was published in January. He can be reached at domke@u.washington.edu.

With that in mind, we combed through the descriptions given by our 219 Seattle Times Political Caucus participants when they signed up for the caucus (most joined in early summer, when the political landscape looked different). We looked for people who defined themselves as independents, said they were uncommitted, or were otherwise unhappy with either of the candidates. We found 32 of them, and we asked:

If the election were held today, which candidate for president would get your vote, and why? How about governor? If you haven't made up your mind yet, what do you need to know to help you decide?

We got a small number of thoughtful, interesting replies, and the trend (within this microcosm of a group, at least) indicates that independents in our small sample are leaning toward Sen. Barack Obama -- even those who originally sided with Sen. John McCain. In the gubernatorial race, more independents prefer Dino Rossi over Gov. Christine Gregoire. We won't hold them to it, and we'll be sure to check back again; you can read all of their responses here.

"Since shortly after beginning his 2008 presidential campaign, McCain has either stifled, reversed, or otherwise abandoned most of the characteristics that I had previously admired," wrote Mike Matesky of Seattle. "The impression I get is that his campaign feels he already has 'Maverick' credibility with independents, so it's safe to pander to a social conservative base. McCain increasingly sounds like a typical, partisan Republican, which won't get me or most other independents to elect him."

Matesky was turned off by Sen. McCain's pick of Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate. He thinks Obama sounds reasonable and measured, and doesn't just repeat boilerplate soundbites.

"Frankly, I'm ready to have someone with brain power in the White House, regardless of whether he buys arugula at Whole Foods or iceberg lettuce at Safeway," Matesky ended.

Tim Perez of Seattle backed Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primary, and never thought Obama would get his vote. "After the DNC slighted the 18 million of us who voted for Clinton, I was certain I would be voting for John McCain. However, John picked the Mouth of Sauron or Sarah Palin as she's known in some parts. And there was no way in Hades that I could in good conscience aid in having someone so under qualified become VP. I've always been a huge Joe Biden fan so the choice became clear."

Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson of Tacoma was "itching to cast a ballot for the McCain of 2000. Aside from attacking ethanol, where's that McCain? I haven't seen him for months."

Instead, Johnstone-Anderson writes, "after a summer of leaning McCain, I find myself now intending to cast a vote for Senator Obama. While both candidates offer robust policy positions, McCain has lost me on theme. Case in point: I liked Governor Palin as a reformer in Alaska, but I'm not at all excited about Vice Presidential candidate Palin. I thought that the "campaign time-out" to address the financial crisis was a calculated and distracting ploy. Senator Obama hasn't been perfect, either, but "hope" and "change" aside, he's run a less cynical campaign."

Ted Noggles of Bothell is backing Obama because "McCain is still too similar to Bush and therefore too much of a status quo," and Louis Couwenberg of Seattle expects to vote for the Democrat "because I don't see voting for him as taking a risk anymore. Honestly how much worse can he do than what the Republican administration is giving us now?"

In Spokane, Chris Kelly, a Hillary supporter, was dismayed that McCain didn't pick a more qualified woman to be his running mate; he's leaning toward Obama at this point.

And Luther E. Franklin of Issaquah, a former Naval aviator, thought about not voting at all, then leaned toward McCain, but finds "his flip-flop behavior just before and during the current financial crisis reprehensible."

Benjamin Lukoff of Seattle gives Obama a lukewarm endorsement. "My opinion of McCain has really suffered this year," he wrote. "Again, I'm not a huge fan of either of them, but since it will be one of them I want to make sure it's the one I dislike less."

But not all of our independents agree. "McCain's federalist views are much more appealing than Obama's socialistic views," wrote Morgan Barney of Newcastle. "I think we need less federal government and more decision making at the local /state level. When it comes down to it, I trust McCain more to be the Maverick /Independent that he has always been than I trust Obama to move all the way to the center from the far left. I know that McCain will work with Democrats and Independents. Obama will only try to get others to work with his ideas."

Scott Kastelitz of Bothell was originally drawn to Obama, "but I've come to realize that hope is not a strategy, and that it takes real plans and real actions to accomplish things." McCain started to impress Kastelitz during the first debate's foreign policy portion, when "he showed that he not only understands the threats that face our nation, he was prepared with plans and courses of action. McCain will need to do more of this to keep my vote and Obama will need to start showing his vision is not just empty rhetoric in order to woo me to his side."

As far as the gubernatorial race goes, only a few of our participants weighed in with strong feelings. It's clear that the political ads are rubbing some of these independents the wrong way. "I hate the ads, I can't stand listening to the mis-information on both sides and I feel like spanking both of them," wrote Kelly, of Spokane, who is leaning toward Gov. Christine Gregoire.

Morgan Barney is also "disgusted by the negative ads. I have seen / heard more negative ads from Gregoire. This may be the deciding factor as neither of them are very up front in answering questions."

Kastelitz is a Dino Rossi fan. "From the beginning, I have never thought Gregoire was capable of being an effective leader for our state," he wrote. "And she’s done nothing to change my mind in the last four years."

Tim Perez "was a Dinocrat the first time and shall remain so this time around. CG isn't bad per say, again this is probably more of 'revenge' vote for the lack of class and concession when Rossi clearly won the first time around."

And finally, Ted Noggles expects to cast a vote for Rossi "primarily because I feel our state has been controlled by the liberal Democrats for way too long. Taxes, spending, and more taxes and more spending habits of the incumbents seems to me to be running out of control and without oversight. Let's get some control on our spending."

By David Domke

Presidential debates are tricky things.

For one thing, they present an artificial setting: average citizens never engage in formal debates, and if elected neither do political leaders. Second, audiences are present, but they often aren't allowed to applaud, boo, or do most anything except sit quietly. Third, candidates must stand by while someone else criticizes them repeatedly. Who would do well at that? Finally, all of this is live, on-camera, with no commercial breaks. There is no hiding anything, as George H. W. Bush (checking his watch) and Al Gore (heavy sighs) learned to their detriment in past elections.

Not surprisingly, therefore, pundits and reporters often are all over the board in their impressions of debate performances. Consider some reactions after Friday's presidential debate, the first in the 2008 election.

On one side, Roger Simon of Politico said: "John McCain was very lucky that he decided to show up for the first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., Friday night. Because he gave one of his strongest debate performances ever." Similarly, highly respected Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen said, "The only good news for Obama is that any pain from this debate is likely to be short-lived."

On the other side, Joe Klein of Time said, "Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces." Others similarly declared Obama the winner.

In general, though, punditry reaction missed the two most important things that happened Friday - both of which were distinctly favorable for Obama. Don't take my word for it: it's what public reaction to the debate is telling us.

In every systematic analysis of public response to the debate, results suggest Obama won. A night-of-the-debate CBS poll of undecided voters showed it, a CNN poll did too. Focus groups by Time, Media Curves, conservative-leaning Fox News, and liberal-leaning pollster Democracy Corps showed it. And a Gallup poll released on Sunday showed it.

Why?

First, Barack Obama was uncowed in being on the same stage with John McCain. Newcomer Obama could have wilted standing next to a former POW military hero, a lion of the Senate who has passed several pieces of landmark congressional legislation. Obama didn't appear intimidated or, conversely, over-compensate with arrogance. In fact, Obama was so comfortable that when he agreed with McCain, he commended his opponent's answers with statements such as "Senator McCain is right."

These words were jumped on by pundits, who said Obama was too generous to McCain. The McCain camp immediately put out an ad showing Obama's "he's right" comments. These reactions all missed something deeper: Obama didn't come off as a sycophant; he had the feel of a man confident enough to offer credit sometimes to his opponent, an unusual move in today's macho political culture.

McCain took a different tack. He didn't look once at Obama, didn't mention him by first name, and several times called Obama "naive" or "inexperienced." It turned off political independents. I watched the debate on CNN, which included instant reactions from a focus group at the bottom of the screen, and every time McCain harshly criticized Obama, the reactions went negative. Every single time. Obama's respectful confidence played much better than McCain's approach, which came off - whether intentional or not - as dismissive and contemptuous.

Time's focus group of undecided voters in St. Louis told us this:

McCain was seen as the more negative of the two - by 7 points before the debate and by 26 points after. The audience did not like it when he went after Obama for being "naive" or used his oft-repeated "what Senator Obama doesn't understand" line. When the two clashed directly in the second half of the debate, with Obama repeatedly protesting McCain's characterization of his statements or positions, the voter dials went down. Voters appear to have judged McCain too negative in those encounters and Obama more favorably.

Second, Obama connected with voters. Within the first five minutes of the debate he said "[W]e've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street," and "[U]nless we are holding ourselves accountable day in, day out, not just when there's a crisis for folks who have power and influence and can hire lobbyists, but for the nurse, the teacher, the police officer, who, frankly, at the end of each month, they've got a little financial crisis going on. They're having to take out extra debt just to make their mortgage payments. We haven't been paying attention to them."

That's Obama's version of Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" and George W. Bush's "I'm a regular guy." More professorial to be sure for Obama, but the words hit home. It's been an approach that has flummoxed Obama for some time, but he seems to have found a new voice since the Wall Street crisis hit.

In Fox News' focus group, two Nevadans interviewed on-camera who were impressed by Obama said this: "He cared about the average person and he got to me," and "He seemed to care about everyone in America." In the television age, the ability to convey empathy is the single most-important attribute in presidential debates - one that is far more important than the exhibition of knowledge, something that Republicans have known for years but Democrats have tended to ignore.

James Fallows of The Atlantic, and former editor of U.S. News & World Report, puts it this way: "Emotional messages, which are variants on 'how do I feel about this person?', are all that matter in presidential debates. Issues discussions are significant mainly to the extent they shape these impressions."

In its post-debate poll, CNN asked which candidate "was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you?" Fully 62 percent said Obama, compared to 32 percent for McCain. And Time's focus group showed this: "Both candidates saw their net favorability ratings rise over the course of the evening. McCain started off with a 22-point net and gained 9 points. But Obama went from a 6-point net favorability to plus-45, a shift of 39 points that placed him higher than McCain at the end of the debate (69 percent versus 62 percent."

Plus-39 favorability in one night? It looks like maybe Obama did learn something in that much-publicized meeting with Bill Clinton a couple weeks ago.

David Domke, a former newspaper journalist, is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. Domke also has worked with Democratic Party leaders in the Northwest to understand the dynamics of modern political campaigns. His latest book, "The God Strategy: How Religion Became A Political Weapon in America," was published in January. He can be reached at domke@u.washington.edu.

We asked the Seattle Times Political Caucus: What do you need to hear from the two presidential candidates that would convince you they have the ability and a plan to tackle the nation's current economic crisis? Have you heard anything yet from the candidates that assures you they are prepared to tackle this problem?

Read all of their answers here.

Many caucus members aren't convinced that either candidate has the answers -- and neither has addressed the issue in an honest and refreshing way.

Dave Hamilton of Bellevue "would find it convincing if one would step up and admit that the economy is complex and its problems are complex and so too are the fixes. Then I want to hear that he has put a team together and that he and his team will spend much of the first 100 days working with the opposition to come up with a plan to fix our economic troubles."

Hamilton continues: "The fix must include a reasonable amount regulation and oversight -- certainly more than we have had for the last 8 years. If taxpayers are running the risk of having to step in and bail out private companies then we have the right to insist on certain regulations and oversight that minimize our exposure."

Paul Graves of Queen Anne is also looking for a specific message. "I will trust the candidate who says this: 'When the government puts up taxpayer money to bail out companies, we will treat it like a bank failure. We will wipe out the equity holders (who have earned a higher rate of return in exchange for their higher risk), fire the board of directors and top managers, pay off bondholders and creditors, and then sell whatever assets remain as quickly and profitably as possible.'"

And Graves thinks neither man seems like he's yet up to the task. "John McCain sounded like yesterday was the first time he heard the phrase 'mortgage backed securities,' " Graves wrote. "And Barack Obama essentially admitted he had never heard of the Laffer Curve when George Stephonopolous asked him about marginal tax rates on investment income last year. It's safe to say that if I were put in charge of finding one person to head a national fix the economy group, neither Senator would make it on my short list."

Megan Gustafson of Redmond is also looking for the candidates to acknowledge that the economy is complex, and many players are involved. "The candidate admitting that much is beyond their control would be honest," she wrote. "Then explaining how they will approach the economy during their Presidency as we would believe they will need to surround themselves with people who do study the economy, work with all the players and evaluate the options as they come. We have to trust their judgment and ability to work well with others for them to help the economy."

David Wakeman of New York is also not convinced that either candidate has the right answers, although he finds Obama's words more reassuring: "It seems that John McCain is completely at a loss. I don't trust his opinion because earlier in the campaign, he said he didn't really have a good grasp on economic issues and that he needed to read Alan Greenspan's book to catch up on economic issues. Now he is coming out, pointing fingers at what went wrong as opposed to laying out some type of plan that might be beneficial to getting the economy back on firm footing.

"Senator Obama seems to have a better grasp," Wakeman wrote, "if only because he isn't making radical statements and seems to be gathering his advisors to get the best advice that he can."

Among those who thought Obama gave the best answers this week, Jon Smith of Tacoma wrote that the country's financial policies have benefited the wealthiest Americans for decades. "What I need to hear is that they will reject most of the economic thinking we've engaged in for not just the last eight years, but twenty eight years, when Ronald Reagan began the neo-con revolution and the "ownership economy." Obama has it right -- that turn took us into the woods, where unions were busted, the corporate interests destroyed collective bargaining and then shifted their source of labor overseas."

Dan Rosson of Seattle "would like to hear Obama get very specific. If he can pull that off I believe the election is his. As dire as the economy is I believe it is going to be a gift to Obama's presidential hopes."

Bob Clark of Monroe thinks McCain's experience makes him best prepared to deal with the issues: "McCain was deeply involved in the Savings and Loan crisis some years ago and he was one of the sponsors of the establishment of the Resolution Trust Corporation. I am firmly committed to vote for John McCain for President because, after hearing his thoughts, I believe we need someone with maturity, experience and ability to deal with these very serious matters."

Anita Willemse of Seattle also likes McCain's approach. "I believe Senator McCain has already proposed a bipartisan commission to investigate and then move forward based on recommendations of the commission. He had a bit of foresight with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2006 when he co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act. "

And Woodrow Alford of Sedro-Woolley also looks to McCain to solve the issues. "McCain has the experience of dealing with the Washington inner circle and has demonstrated the ability to work with the Democrats to solve problems. Obama does not have that experience nor has he demonstrated an ability to solve complex problems."

By David Domke

The Republican Party celebrated a homecoming at its national convention in St. Paul last week, triggered by John McCain's selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as a VP running mate. Palin is a pro-life, pro-creationism, anti-global warming, gun-toting mother of five who has declared the U.S. war in Iraq "a task that is from God."

Suddenly, the Religious Right was breaking bread anew with McCain and his presidential campaign. Old rifts - such as McCain's characterization of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" in the 2000 campaign - were forgotten.

The political and religious right offer a familiar alliance for the GOP, and the post-convention bounce McCain and Palin are receiving in presidential daily tracking polls suggests so far, so good. But history also indicates that the GOP campaign is in precarious territory.

Beginning with Richard Nixon's victory in 1968, the Republicans have won seven of the past 10 presidential elections, in significant part by embracing evangelicals. Nixon, for example, famously was close pals with evangelist Billy Graham, even becoming the only president to speak at a Graham crusade in 1970 in Tennessee. Nixon's invocation of a "Silent Majority" played well with these voters, who felt on the fringes of American politics.

Nixon set into motion a love affair that has grown over time. Today, evangelicals have become the GOP electoral base, and it's impossible for Republican presidential candidates to win without their support. Fully a third of the delegates to the Republican convention in St. Paul self-identified as evangelicals or "born-again Christians," and my research with colleague Kevin Coe shows these voters to have become the key bloc in the GOP electoral coalition.

But Republican candidates have to be careful in how they embrace these voters, particularly close to election day when many citizens are paying attention. Anything too overtly religious runs the risk of turning off moderates.

Consider the presidential election of 1992, which is a close and recent parallel to 2008. Democratic nominee Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama, was running on a message of hope and change. Republican nominee George H. W. Bush was hamstrung with a tanking economy and facing a bloc of religious conservatives who were perpetually skeptical of him - just like McCain.

In 1992 when Republicans gathered in Houston for their convention, Bush was trailing Clinton in the polls and faced a choice: Bush could reach out to political moderates, whom he had secured in 1988, or he could seek to mobilize the base of religious conservatives. Bush took the latter approach.

When Jerry Falwell needed a place to sit in the convention hall, a seat with the Bush family was provided. In the party platform, Republicans took what many felt were their most socially conservative stances in decades - including, for the first time, explicit opposition to same-sex marriage. And most important, religious conservative favorites Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan were given prime slots in the speaking line up, with Buchanan delivering a take-no-prisoners address in which he declared, "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."

Bush's strategy achieved its aim: It mobilized the Republican faithful. But it came with consequences. Clinton used these moments to paint Bush as beholden to out-of-the-mainstream religious zealots. True or not, it caught the attention of media and the general public. Sure enough, when Bush told a gathering that the Democratic platform had "left out three simple letters, G-O-D," the New York Times editorialized that Bush had "crossed a line" by "questioning the religious convictions of his opponents." Further media scrutiny followed.

Ultimately, Bush's highly visible embrace of the religious right so close to election day cost him moderates and, ultimately, the election. It's one thing to show love to the core of the party; it's another thing to do it when everyone is watching, which occurs in each presidential campaign beginning with the party conventions.

In the words of Doug Wead, who had run Bush's evangelical outreach in 1988 but wasn't on the campaign in 1992, to PBS' Frontline in 2004: "I'd have [had] Bush senior go ride horses with Pat Robertson on his private estates and say all kinds of things and kiss in secret, but not in public."

Wead added that there "is the great danger for a politician with the evangelical constituency. As a Republican, you can't win without them. But sometimes, you can lose with them, too, because of the backlash. ... [Y]ou have to be careful how and [in] what way you appeal to them."

It's much the same scenario in 2008. McCain needs both the evangelical base and moderates to win. It's clear that picking Palin has energized religious conservatives. But it's not clear yet how moderates are responding to his pick.

It's a delicate, fine line McCain must attempt to walk. The New York Times and The Washington Post have already run front-page stories about Palin's religious beliefs and how McCain is appealing to the party' s base. We can expect that Democrats will emphasize that McCain, the self-professed maverick, had his preferred VP choice - pro-abortion rights Democrat Joseph Lieberman - vetoed by evangelicals.

Ultimately, whether McCain can show his independence from these voters may be just as important as his ability to show independence from President George W. Bush.

David Domke, a former newspaper journalist, is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. Domke also has worked with Democratic Party leaders in the Northwest to understand the dynamics of modern political campaigns. His latest book, "The God Strategy: How Religion Became A Political Weapon in America," was published in January. He can be reached at domke@u.washington.edu.

Read all of the answers here.

We had a bit of a falloff in participation from Obama supporters for this question -- which makes us wonder if more voters are thinking like Scott Kastelitz of Bothell, who wrote: "I am still undecided but starting to lean more towards McCain. I am starting to believe that although Obama has positioned himself as the candidate for change, McCain is the one who truly may represent that."

Kastelitz thinks "McCain must continue to show that he is in fact a true reformer, someone that can get things done in Washington. Obama needs to figure out a strategy to convince voters that he can not only bring change to Washington, but that he can do it in bipartisan fashion, which he has not yet proven the ability to do."

Alexis Zolner of Seattle wants both campaigns to avoid making the race about religion, abortion and homosexual marriage. Rather, "I think the Republicans should pick a couple themes and go after them. I find talk about 'change' in the other Washington disingenuous and not specific enough. The straight talk express should be specific and include lowering taxes and curtailing spending; remove restrictions from offshore and Anwar drilling, advancing nuclear power, providing incentives to companies to develop other energy sources, providing means to people to find health insurance, solving illegal immigration, making the U.S. dollar stronger against the euro and the pound and removing impediments to global trade. The troops need to come home when the job is complete."

Carl Moll of Arlington, also a McCain/Palin supporter, had a lot of advice for the GOP, most of it centering on a focus on the economy. And he ended with these thoughts: "It has been said of this Congress, controlled by the Democrats, that it is a place where good ideas go to die. We need to change that. McCain and Palin should emphasize that good ideas are welcome and will be acted on. That is the way to reform America. Good ideas are our most important asset."

Paul Cox, vacationing in Vietnam, supports Obama/Biden and thinks the Democratic ticket needs "to clearly deliniate how and why they are different than Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin. They need to show themselves to be strong leaders on the issues that are on the people's minds- the war in Iraq, the economy, getting the government back under control, the housing problems.

"They also need to not fall into any of the traps that lured in Kerry or Gore," Cox continued. "If/when an issue comes up (and they probably will) they need to deal with it quickly, bluntly, and then drive onward."

Finally, Morgan Barney of Newcastle, who still counts herself as undecided, wants the next two months to be a serious discussion of the issues. "I would like to see continued communication from each of the campaigns about (1) their position on the main issues: the Economy, Education, Foreign Policy, War on Terror, Environment, Energy Independence, Social Issues, etc. and (2) their plans for the first year in office.

"What I do NOT want to hear are (1) more partisan attacks, (2) negative commercials (they all do it), and (3) what the "other" candidate thinks (I'll get that from the "other" candidate!!!)."

He sent this latest post on Thursday afternoon.

By Sam Nelson

I'm on the light rail right now on my way to the Mall of America.

Last night there was a riot outside my hotel and we weren't allowed into the hotel until late, and of course I went down to see what was going on once we actually got there. Apparently there was a "Rage Against the Machine" concert and a couple hundred people wanted to do some raging. It ended up being a bad machine to rage against because by the time I got there I saw at least one hundred people zip tied and more police than I thought existed in the entire city. So it ended up being a late night and I was too tired to write anything.

But I have to write something about yesterday; the convention was amazing. The speakers were kind of boring until Michaels Steele spoke. When he said "Drill baby, drill baby drill" and the entire convention hall chanted: "Drill baby drill!" over and over...I don't know. Something about that was really funny. I was really looking forward to Mitt Romney -- my personal hero -- and Rudy Giuliani's keynote speech. They both did a great job and made me feel proud to be a Republican. But of course, Sarah Palin's speech trumped everything.

I think I kind of have a crush on her...

I've been to quite a few college rivalry games, bowl games, even world-series games, and I have never felt so much excitement in a room. It's hard to describe. Everyone just loved her. She came off sincere, confident and passionate... and very normal. The women in our delegation thought: "She defined Republican women." Another said: "She is tough, and strong, and powerful, and totally feminine." Her speech was all anyone could talk about yesterday and the entire delegation was in the hospitality suite to watch the repeat of it on Fox news.

Everyone laughed and cheered just like they did at the convention.

Palin is just what our party needed and I'm so thrilled McCain picked her for VP.

Sam Nelson

The shuttle is about to leave, so I better go. Big day ahead of me today!

By Nathan Johnson

There are no words profound enough to describe what happened here in St. Paul, Minn., on Wednesday night. Never before have I ever seen a Republican crowd in such a frenzy for a candidate and so passionate about the message.

Governor Sarah Palin delivered at a level that exceeded our already high expectations. In Joe Biden's own words, "incredible," but in reality so much more.

Governor Palin addressed small town America in a way that only she could while reminding all 37 million viewers across the country that she was a "community organizer" that actually had responsibilities. The crowd went wild over that one.

Republicans showed their true colors on Wednesday night. We believe in progress and are excited for what the future holds. The delegates here are thrilled to be elevating Governor Sarah Palin to national prominence and significance.

Her message was compelling and her strongest rhetoric came with a smile. For all doubters, it was a wake-up call. For all believers, it was a revival meeting. For all liberal Democrats, it was the worst imaginable nightmare.

We are truly blessed to have Governor Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket.

By Brendan Woodward

Sarah Palin: Which is it, Hockey Mom or Pit-bull with Lipstick?

The base is united, finally. Sarah Palin's single speech before the RNC has given new energy to the John McCain Campaign that will carry us through Election Day. On the floor and in the galleries of the Excel Energy Center, Republican delegates let lose a cannon of enthusiasm during their third convention session that will be difficult to beat tonight when they drop the balloons. Men were crying, women were roaring and Baptists were dancing in the aisles as the glass ceiling was broken by a veritable tomahawk missile from the State of Alaska. Sarah Palin has been launched.

Like a well heeled political pit-bull, Sarah Palin has the brains, beauty and bite to bury Joe Bidden in the backyard of national politics. He will have to watch out for her in two ways now. First, he will have to restrain himself from attacking her provincial roots as a small town mother of five. She is simply too likable on this account and any attempt to paint her as a political douce will make him seem like a chauvinist blue blood. Second, he will have to begin practicing for the vice presidential debates. After Sarah Palin's shock and awe performance last night it is clear that she will not be intimidated by the national stage that Joe Bidden has basked in for 30 years.

Barak Obama's hope in a new kind of politics has just been fulfilled by Sarah Palin, and the media has been put on notice. During the past six months network outlets have favored Senator Obama in the race for president and have gone as far as talking about what he will do in a second term - as if his first is all but locked up. For a Republican activist like me it has been an admittedly demoralizing bias to endure. But last night during Sarah Palin's speech, the political talking heads were put on-guard when she criticized the Washington elite and members of the media in her speech.

What the cameras did not show were the fists and fingers that we raised and pointed toward the press boxes surrounding the stage, especially NBC. We are fired up, we are not going to take it, and we are going to fight for every vote and put John McCain and Sarah Palin in the Whitehouse.