Remember this point from the debates? Mr. McCain posited that Mr. Obama did not understand the difference between tactics and strategy. I assume it's the first thing they talk about in officer school, because its the first thing you talk about in chess. Two days before this election, McCain seems to be the one suffering from lack of strategic cohesion, despite having enjoyed some short term tactical rewards (the boost from choosing Palin, for instance). Obama, on the other hand, has employed diverse tactics in the service of an overarching long term strategy, and enjoys the advantage of having had a clear and cohesive campaign that stays on message. There is no guarantee that Obama's strategy will prove successful, but which do you want for a president? Someone who can think long term, and lead effectively and rationally, or an ineffective, erratic, bumbling blowhard who was only grudgingly accepted by his party because they could not decide which religious right whackjob they could vote for: the baptist, or the mormon? Obama fought his way through an ugly primary by employing a disciplined and unprecedentedly large and organized ground operation. He used innovative methods to raise unprecedented amounts of money from small donations by an unprecedented amount of people. McCain got the nomination by not being Mormon and being so behind that he was everybody's second choice. Republicans have a choice today. Do they want to follow Ron Paul back to the land of conscious thought, or follow Sarah Palin into oblivion?
