It's not uncommon for candidates' views to shift a bit, between the primary contests and the general election.  Switching from a partisan to a national audience requires moderation of perspective.  Sometimes this takes the form of a flip-flop, either to cater to independents and moderates or to mend a breach among party factions.  On the other hand, it might be a shift in views necessitated by some significant new development.  Or it might be an adjustment in position because a candidate has actually learned something over time, and must square his or her views with this updated perception of reality.

Much of the information on this page is duplicated elsewhere.  Here, however, it is arranged in a format that permits convenient side-by-side comparison of presidential tickets and candidates issue-by-issue.

Personal Background

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in 1942.

Sarah L. Heath Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho, in 1964.

Biden is a Roman Catholic.

Palin is associated with Assemblies of God.

Qualifications

Biden holds BA's in History and Political Science from Delaware, and a JD from Syracuse.

Palin has a BA in Journalism from U. of Idaho.

Though a bit short on field experience in foreign affairs and military maneuvers, Obama has demonstrated knowledge of current world affairs.  But more important, he has the wisdom to surround himself with experts in fields in which his own experience might be less than optimum, the intelligence and humility to draw upon that superior expertise, and the ingenuity to mold and apply it to the problems at hand. 

Biden is both a worldly and a common man, being personally acquainted with both world leaders and commuter-train crewmembers.  He has worked as an attorney and as an educator.  Biden has been U.S. Senator from Delaware since 1973, and serves on the Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees.

Palin has been a beauty queen and a sportscaster, and served as town mayor of Wasilla, AK, before becoming governor of Alaska in 2006.

Both Republican candidates have reputations as reformers and mavericks, having at times opposed lobbies and their own party leadership when they felt these interests conflicted with those of ordinary citizens.  However, both currently appear to be running on essentially the same ideologies as the Bush administration.

Whether McCain's military background makes him more qualified than his opponent to be Commander in Chief is debatable, since his experience was in combat (and as a prisoner of war), not in strategic planning.  That he has exhibited courage under fire is praiseworthy, but the matter important to the presidency is whether one can muster sustained cool reasoning under pressure.  It's perhaps noteworthy that several retired generals and admirals have chosen to support Obama.

As a governor,  Palin is the only candidate who can technically claim "executive experience."  However, she has managed at most a staff of a few dozen, whereas each of the other candidates has coordinated groups of hundreds or thousands.

While Obama currently lacks much experience that might be desirable in a president, he exhibits impressive knowledge and understanding of government, law, social issues, economics, and foreign cultures.  He's repeatedly demonstrated himself a complex thinker, a voracious learner, and a quick study.  He's taken on many challenges in life and learned to deal effectively with them.  Granted, he's made a few mistakes along the way as we all do, but he's learned from those mistakes and refined his thinking with a speed and thoroughness seemingly superior to any of his rivals in either party.

Granted, methodical thinking is more time-consuming than simply parroting a preset ideology, and so gives the false impression that such thinkers are "indecisive," when in fact they're being comprehensive.  It's a relatively laborious way to think, and thus not the way most people choose to make decisions.  If you tried to think this way while flying a fighter plane in combat, you'd probably die very quickly.

However, the Oval Office isn't a fighter plane.  Given sufficient time and concentration, a thoroughgoing thought process yields a far better chance of getting complex issues right on the first or second try, and stands to limit "collateral damage" to a considerable degree.  It's the sort of careful, strategic deliberation we need when millions of people's lives, liberty, and livelihoods hang in the balance.

In some ways, Palin seems even more the willing slave of ideology—blissfully disengaged from a leader's responsibility to observe and deal with reality and facts as they are, not as she'd prefer them to be.

Moreover, when she isn't giving a prepared speech, but has to provide an extemporaneous answer or explanation, it's typically either completely off-topic or hopelessly incoherent, or both.  If such a scatterbrain stands even a small chance of becoming President of the United States, then we have grounds for grave concern, not only about that specific possibility, but about the judgment of the person who chose her for such a job.

With all the reasonably knowledgeable and competent possibilities available to serve as his running mate—and potential successor to the oldest person ever to run for a first term as president—McCain has chosen instead a "Dan Quayle with lipstick" to pander to his party's fanatical base.  Our old war hero of the 1960s is now evidently prepared to risk the welfare of the nation just to win an election.  Well, so much for "Country First!".

Positions on Issues

Ironically, as I was assembling this section, a Republican conventioneer announced that the 2008 election will not be about issues, but rather about personalities.  A look at the GOP's stand on issues reveals why.  According to their party platform, they're anti-progress, anti-solvency, anti-peace, anti-research, anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-retiree, anti-middle class, and anti-mainstream—not in so many words, of course, but in effect, whether intentional or not.  Radically conservative ideologies have made it impossible for Republican candidates to run on the issues even if they wanted to, because their positions on these are contrary to the interests of most Americans.  So it appears they're stuck with trying to win votes in three possible ways: (1) by posing as the most heroic warrior, the sweetest grandpa, the most enthusiastic hockey mom, or the most pious Christian; (2) by promising more tax cuts for rich folks and a Bible in every schoolroom; and (3) by slandering the Democratic opposition, an opposition committed to running on the issues.  Issues that matter to real families with their own values, groceries to buy, bills to pay, mortgages and loans to pay off, and their real income sagging.  So it looks as though Carl Rove will still be drawing a paycheck, at least until November.

> Change

The soberly thoughtful Obama might seem "weak" to those who love "tough-talk" rhetoric on matters of national defense and security, as embodied in the "cowboy" and "old soldier" personae of Bush and McCain, respectively.  But if history is any indicator, Obama's reasoned approach to such issues stands a far better chance of addressing them more thoroughly and successfully in the real world than any degree of macho posturing.

A the increasingly desperate Republican campaign becomes ever more negative, we might expect the Democrats to counter more frequently with comments about McCain's "erratic behavior," "long record of mistakes and poor judgment," and "flip-flops on his former 'maverick' positions."  But we hope they will keep their main emphasis on real issues that matter to real people, which Democrats can benefit from discussing openly, even if the Republicans cannot.  Going excessively negative would simply cloud the very real differences between the two major parties, and rekindle the popular cynical notion that no such differences exist.

The Republicans are desperate to avoid discussion of specific economic and domestic issues.  After all, what they espouse differs very little from the policies that have led to ruin over the past eight years.  When asked about the economy, education, energy, environment, or health care, McCain's pat answer is a "market-based approach."  In other areas, he typically begins, "Barack Obama doesn't understand...," followed by such a distortion of his opponent's view that would indicate it is McCain himself who is deficient in understanding.

Palin's coaches have apparently given up trying to educate her on facts and issues, and are instead advising her simply to divert discussion from questions she doesn't like.  During the televised vice-presidential debate, her response to questions of substance was is simply to reject them, and switch to a topic she prefers—like unspecified "fresh and new ideas" or staring down the specter of Putin across the Bering Strait.  (This tactic serves her well on the campaign trail, but doesn't speak well of her ability as a serious negotiator or diplomat if she should actually be elected to office.)

It seems the Republicans have few issues for which they can advance a credible and positive position.  In their desperation, they're resorting to the same sort of negativity that doomed the Clinton bid for the Democratic nomination.

The change from "blind ideology" to "intelligent rationality" is indeed a radical one.  But considering where the former has led us over the past eight years, the latter could hardly help but be an improvement.

A notion of "change" that ends up advocating perpetuation of the status quo is a curious one indeed.

> Diplomacy
> War

Biden's service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gives him credibility in the field, both as an adviser to Obama and as a diplomat in his own right.

Some Republican partisans (including Palin herself) have claimed that the mere proximity of Alaska to Russia constitutes "foreign affairs experience" for Governor Palin.  (Now, that's beyond even grasping at straws.  That's sheer desperation!)

Overall, it's Obama's aim to restore the international credibility and trustworthiness of the United States, among not only our adversaries, but also our currently disillusioned allies.  While he agrees that democracy is a wonderful thing, he does not subscribe to the Bush notion that it ought to be spread by invading countries whose leaders we don't happen to like.

> Economy and taxes
> Budget
> Planning
> Credit Crisis 2008

Click here for an explanation of the credit crisis!

Both Obama and McCain attended the White House meeting to which they were invited on 25 September, during which each candidate was asked for input.  Obama offered the specific conditions he would expect to be added to ensure responsible oversight and review, to restrict "golden parachutes" for errant CEOs, and to protect taxpayers.  McCain spoke for a few minutes about how important the issue was, but provided no substantive ideas to resolve it.  He deferred to House Republican Leader John Boehner, who deferred to his partisan colleagues in the House of Representatives.  These, in turn, rejected the solution to which all other factions (Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, House Democrats, and White House) had tentatively agreed.  They then presented a counterproposal for an "insurance" scheme, which Treasury Secretary Paulson promptly deemed "unworkable."

Over the next couple of weeks, foreign governments decided instead to buy stock in banks—temporarily—as a more prudent and efficacious tack than a full-scale bailout.  Despite some grumbling about "socialism," the White House evidently saw some merit in that approach, and decided to modify its plan accordingly.

After a couple of false starts, on 14 October McCain belatedly put forth his own plan to remedy the credit crisis.  Some parts of it, such as suspending the requirement for retirees to take distributions from an IRA even if they must sell into a down market, was good.  Other parts, such as having government buy up bad debt at its original value and stick taxpayers with the bill, was perhaps a great deal for banks, but not so good for anyone else.

*McCain's bolt to Washington on 25 September turned out to be an empty gesture with destructive fallout, unraveling days of hard work by the Senate and House Banking Committees.  Subsequently, McCain worked desperately to obtain his party's coalescence around some version of the bailout bill.  Though he had hoped to be seen as a decisive leader among "all hands on deck," the fiasco left him cast instead as a "loose cannon on deck."

> Education
> Employment
> Energy, environment
> Health care
> Stem-cell research
> Social security

McCain, fortunately, has not (yet) bought into the notion of government-sponsored religious indoctrination.  But we'll see how desperate he gets as election day approaches.

McCain's plan to fund health care is to offer a $5,000 tax credit for individuals to buy whatever insurance they want (or can afford).  But he also proposes to tax that $5,000 credit as personal income, thus reversing the traditional policy of holding health care as a tax-exempt benefit.

Palin is categorically opposed to stem-cell research, regardless of its disease-curing and life-saving potential..

> Abortion
> Marriage
> Censorship

Palin opposes abortion for any reason except to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Both Republicans believe that politicians' ideologies should overrule individual conscience and circumstances, family decisions, and personal physicians' and counselors' judgment.  And they wish to compel the majority of Americans who do not share this belief to abide by it nonetheless.  To this end, they favor Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Apparently, even residents of rural Alaska aren't conservative enough to take kindly to a government official's telling them what they may and may not read.

Liabilities
Let the smears commence!

The Weather Underground non-connection
Obama (among many others) once lectured at a university where William Ayers served on the faculty.  Ayers had been a member of the Weather Underground domestic terrorism organization in the 1960s (when Obama was eight years old).  That Obama and Ayers once lived a few blocks from one another, both taught at the same university, and both served on a board to help the poor, does not make them "pals," or Obama a "terrorist," any more than serving in the Senate with his rival McCain makes Obama a Republican.

Trooper-gate
Palin has been under investigation for possible abuse of power as governor, regarding her firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, allegedly for his refusal to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper.  On 10 October, a bipartisan investigative panel concluded that Palin had "unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper (AP)."  The panel found that Palin had violated an ethics statute by allowing a family grudge to influence her actions in office.

Dubious or Irrational Claims and Innuendo

While it's true McCain and Palin have reputations as mavericks and reformers, since they've been on the presidential campaign trail, the only change we've noticed has been their own metamorphosis, from fiercely independent mavericks to compliant mouthpieces for the GOP's neo-conservative factions.  The shift is most dramatic in McCain's case.  He now embraces bankrupt Bush-Cheney and party-line policies he'd valiantly fought against until only recently.  It's increasingly hard to fathom that the once scrupulous, conscientious, dogma-challenging, honorable Arizona senator, and the pandering, reactionary, issue-evading, partisan smear tactician running for president, are indeed the same person.

This might be a change that some welcome, but I frankly find his Jekyll-Hyde degeneration not only saddening, but downright alarming.  If trading soul-searching for selling one's soul is what is necessary to run as a Republican, then it's time for the conscientious candidate to find a different party.

In early October, McCain finally mustered the courage to challenge an absurd assertion by one of his own supporters, that Obama was "an Arab."  McCain admonished the supporter that that notion was false, that Obama is actually "a decent family man, a citizen," and that we must remain respectful of our opponents.  For that, some of McCain's supporters booed him.  Kudos to McCain for standing up to the kooks and liars within his own ranks!  Now, if he would only demand the same level of civility and truth from his running mate, and from the producers of his attack ads, then he might salvage some shred of his now tattered claim to honor and leadership.

Obama asks why oil companies haven't drilled federal land and waters already available to them, and proposes a "use it or lose it" policy to spur them on.  He favors nuclear generation of power, but only if and when we can ensure the processes of supply, generation, and waste management are acceptably safe in the long term.  (For example, there's the nagging little problem of storing nuclear waste, which remains deadly radioactive for millions of years, in containers that begin to leak in only a few decades, releasing their contents into the ground and aquifers.)

McCain has said he plans to "get out of the [people's] way (09/06/08)" and let market forces (presumably between pharmaceutical and insurance industries, the biggest market players in that arena) shape the health care system.

According to news reports, Palin initially supported such funding, but changed her mind only when the project started drawing unfavorable attention in the national press.  Still, she accepted the federal money—our taxes—to spend on other local projects.  The state of Alaska, by the way, ranks highest in the nation in federal dollars spent per capita population.

McCain's plan, to switch Social Security from a purely government program to at least some private investing, would affect only those who become eligible for SS benefits after the proposed change takes effect, not those who already rely on the system for income.  (Of course, in today's extremely volatile market environment, such a scheme is probably beginning to sound more than a little scary to those who'd be affected.)

The claim is true only if "your" annual income is over $250,000.  True, Obama plans to rescind the Bush tax cuts that were supposed to generate prosperity—a prosperity that's been conspicuously absent for most Americans for most of the past eight years.

What McCain chooses not to mention is that Obama proposes tax relief for low- and middle-income taxpayers—those with incomes of less than $150,000 per year—the 80-90 percent of Americans who received less than 10 percent of the total tax cut package under the Bush-Cheney scheme.  McCain's plan for additional cuts is similarly skewed to benefit the super-wealthy while offering little more than pocket-change to the average wage-earner, and virtually nothing to those below poverty level.  Obama's tax cut offers thousands of dollars more than McCain's does for the ordinary wage-earner.

Obama has publicly acknowledged that, contrary to his expectations, the surge did in fact work.  (Whether all progress can be attributed to the surge is another matter.  Enlistment of Sunni leaders in the fight against insurgency had already been in progress long before the surge.  As CNN's Iraq correspondent Michael Wade assessed it, the surge was "just the icing on the cake.")

We're no longer fighting the Saddam Hussein regime; that war effectively ended with the execution of the dictator.  Violence in Iraq since then represents mainly (1) factional squabbling and (2) resentment of "infidel occupiers"—us.  The first of these can be addressed only by the Iraqis themselves.  The second will be resolved only by our departure, once the new regime is competent and equipped to handle its affairs.

Obama's proposal for phased withdrawal is not only welcomed by the Iraqi people and echoed by the Maliki government, but is also now even grudgingly acknowledged by Bush-Cheney as the least objectionable exit from the quagmire into which they bungled more than five years ago.

But where's our glorious victory?  Who'll surrender to us? cries our old soldier McCain.

Someone needs to break the news to him: There's no glory in an unjustified war.  (There were no weapons of mass destruction, no terrorist links in Iraq—until after we invaded.  And although the world has been rid of a few bad guys, it is not now a safer place.)  Though our troops have served honorably, the Bush-Cheney contrived decision to send them into an unnecessary war was anything but honorable.

What we've accomplished, at enormous cost, is the overthrow of an annoying but not particularly threatening regime,  without serious forethought about what would replace it.  So now our task is to baby-sit the new one until it's competent to deal with its own problems.  If we needlessly prolong this episode in a vain hope for some spectacle of "victory," it will be at the cost of still more American lives, treasure, and whatever shreds of credibility remain.  Sorry, John.  They didn't teach this model of war at the Naval Academy.

It takes McCain's views—not only on this, but on nearly everything, it seems—an inordinate span of time to catch up to current reality.  We've already seen the dangers of this sort of information lag and outdated thinking.

The so-called "sex education" to which the ad alludes is actually a program to teach small children how to protect themselves from predators.

A Spanish-language McCain ad (09/08) accuses Obama of an "anti-immigrant" record.

McCain's and Obama's Senate voting records on immigration have been identical.  Immigration reform has been stalled by a Republican filibuster.

Since Palin apparently cannot talk knowledgeably and coherently about real issues, she is trying instead to drum up fear about Obama, by claiming that he "pals around with terrorists."

Obama once lectured at a university whose faculty included William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization back in the 1960s, when Obama was eight years old.  Insinuating that this makes Obama a terrorist sympathizer is like claiming that serving in the Senate with John McCain makes Obama a Republican.

The truly worrisome thing is not that Palin uses fear-mongering to gain support she cannot hope to win through plain facts and clear reasoning, but that a substantial portion of the American public is so dull-witted as to be happily suckered in by her moronic insinuations.

If, even at a relatively early this stage, Republicans destroy their own credibility by resorting to such wild fear-mongering, it would appear the McCain camp is slipping into rabid desperation faster than anyone might have expected.  If they've already run out of issues they can discuss honestly, then it would seem, sadly, that lies and distortions are all we have left to look forward to from the so-called Grand Old Party.  Even this old liberal is surprised; I had previously respected John S. McCain, and truly expected far better of him.

As a congressional maverick, McCain once opposed Bush's tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy as unwise.  He now proposes making permanent those budget-busting tax breaks he once wisely opposed.

When the Great Depression hit in 1929, Hoover was president; Roosevelt didn't become president until 1933.  And, except for some experimental lab gear, there was no television at the time.

However, there were film newsreels, routinely shown as "shorts" before main features in movie theaters.  And after taking office, Roosevelt was noted for his "fireside chats" on radio.  Perhaps Biden was thinking of these when he misspoke.

Granted, neither side is perfect, and neither is without merit.  Each of these candidates honestly believes himself or herself to be a good and virtuous person, yet (if truly honest) admits to having flaws.  Each speaks with passionate rhetoric from his or her ideology, earnest belief, and heartfelt patriotism.  Yet at least one also speaks logically and coherently from reliable evidence and methodical reason, exhibiting a thoroughness to ponder all relevant sides of complex issues, an ability to think rationally, and a humble willingness to adjust his opinions to the facts.  As voters in a representative democracy, we ourselves needn't be knowledgeable and wise enough to deal competently with the myriad issues of state.  But in our search for someone who can, we must at least be smart enough to ask ourselves the following:

• Do we truly need to find real solutions to the many problems that America and Americans face?
• Do we recognize a demonstrated ability to reason clearly as indispensable to achieve that end?

If the answers are "yes," then we ought to consider that ability a primary qualification for the White House.