Its been a few months since I wrote the initial piece which swept the internet and got lots people chattering over World of Warcraft servers regarding what class and spec politicians might be. I promised then to classify presidential candidates and today I deliver the goods.

I believe the class that best represents Senator Obama is the Death Knight.

For those who dont know much about this new class or follow World of Warcraft much understand that the Death Knight is a new “hero class” which Blizzard Entertainment is unveiling in the release of its expansion back this coming November 13th.

The Death Knight shares many traits with Senator Obama in that it is a complete change in the typical play style for the average user. Instead of picking one spec, the user can super impose themselves and style onto the character, just as voters can project their desires and styles upon Sentor Obama.

Like the Senator Obama, the Death Knight is new and “cool” with many features untested and in many ways unexplored, and will remain so until implemented.

Similarly Senator Obama can call in legions of minions in the media, like the Death Knight can summon help, when things turn ugly in a fight.

For John McCain there can be but one class and spec which fits, prot - warrior.

A protection spec warrior is at the game’s core and while unflashy, gets the job done when needed.

Like the prot - warrior, McCain is unflashy and in most cases is uninspiring at best.

Another common trait McCain and the warrior class in general share is how they garner their ability fight. With a warrior the more it is hit, the more “rage” it recieves and is able to dish back out. This describes John McCain to the letter. The more backed into the corner and hits he recieves, the more he is energized.

I would urge everyone to watch the video. It is the best down to earth explanation of the choices we have in front of us I have seen all year.

hat tip NRO campaign spot.

My computer died yesterday, so I am in a bit of a scramble to reload everything. In the mean time I wanted to post a few stories which got my attention.

I am Joe advertisement by the McCain campaign: This should have been done a long time ago. Michael Steele pointed out a couple of days ago that this line of attack is far more important than Ayres. I would agree. People need to understand the  core principles at Obama’s plan is wealth redistribution, not tax cuts.

Are the Polls Accurate?: This piece by Michael Barone is a must read. Remember that Barone is an authority on elections and makes several good points on the way polls were changed this year and weighted differently.

Not Learning to Love Big Government: This is another must read piece by Ramesh Ponnuru which discusses and proves a point that while Obama might be leading in the polls, they have not grown to love big government. Of course I am hopeful of what he is preaching, but that begs the question why are people voting for Obama. The man is preaching and will implement the diameteric opposite of what this nation was founded upon and what made it successful - and of course that is freedom, liberty and limited government.

Perhaps I should be more concerned that a friend and fellow business owner who votes Democrat told me yesterday he would be glad to give up some freedoms for a more stable economy.

In the same viegn I would argue that Neil Bortz was right during yesterday’s program when he pointed out the possibility of Democrats driving wages and income down to the point where they can argue that under any Republican candidate their taxes would increase. He might have a point.

K-Lo on CNN lying about a Byron York piece on the Palin’s media coverage.

Who is John Galt? A Powerline reader tries a little experiment with Barack Obama’s on line fund raising system and proves that you too can donate using a false alias and a potentially stolen credit card. Think this is far stretched? Think again.

Eigth grade text book dedicates large chunk of text on Barack Obama: I first read about this story at Gateway Pundit, but thought it was nuts. The Chicago Sun-Times did a follow up story and for me, the implications are frieghteningly close to outright endoctrination. Perhaps this is a sign of things to come?

John McCain made several remarks today, which I echo, regarding the Obama campaign (and media) attacks on Joe  Wurzelbacher.

In my mind, we know more about Wurzelbacher’s life and his mistakes in the past twenty four hours than Senator Obama after two years of exposure during a presidential campaign. The implied message: Dont you dare ask “the messiah” any sort of question which makes him look unflattering.

McCain took this attitude to task, and rightfully so. I commend the Senator. Here are a few of the highlights:

“The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe. People are digging through his personal life and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn’t ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn’t recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.

The question Joe asked about our economy is important, because Senator Obama’s plan would raise taxes on small businesses that employ 16 million Americans. Senator Obama’s plan will kill those jobs at just the time when we need to be creating more jobs. My plan will create jobs, and that’s what America needs.

Senator Obama says that he wanted to spread your wealth around. When politicians talk about taking your money and spreading it around, you’d better hold onto your wallet. Senator Obama claims that wants to give a tax break to the middle class, but not only did he vote for higher taxes on the middle class in the Senate, his plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes.

That’s not a tax cut, that’s welfare. America didn’t become the greatest nation on earth by redistributing wealth; we became the greatest nation by creating new wealth.”

The NRA put aside its differences with John McCain and decided to actively endorse him for President of the United States. As Jim Geraghty states, this is no small thing. Usually, when the NRA endorses a candidate for President, they win.

There’s a pretty straightforward correlation between NRA endorsements and Republican presidential victories. Since 1980, they endorsed Reagan twice, George H.W. Bush the first time but not the second, and George W. Bush twice.

Most importantly, though, it adds significant fire power in swing states such as here in Missouri, Ohio and other places were gun rights are viewed as sacred. Of course interestingly enough, the topic is not being discussed. Rest assured, though, people care.

Let me keep this short. The debate was a snore.

McCain won on substance, but Obama was a tad more polished.

Obama still acted like the whinney student who had to get the last word in.

I think the debate was a draw and thats about it.

I will be posting more, tomorrow, on a story printed on NRO and forwarded to me by a friend which is very damning to Barack Obama - and is why you will never see it being researched or talked about in the media.

Anywho, time to get back to Northrend and play some more Wrath of the Lich King Beta and then get some sleep.

Senator Barack Obama remarked tonight that Henry Kissinger backed his view that our President should meet with the Iranian president without precondition. Senator John McCain called him on this issue to which Barack Obama laughed.

I suppose he who laughs last, laughs best.

Henry Kissinger is not happy about Senator Obama’s mischaracterization of his comment.

“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”

I would say this is a bit of a surprise, but it is not.

My honest guess is that some staff writer watched the Sarah Palin interview where Katie Couric tried to pull the same stunt. Unfortunately for Palin, she had not seen the context which Henry Kissinger made the statement.

Hat tip the Weekly Standard.

For me, the night was summerized when Barack Obama called the surge strategy a tactic, to which Sentor John McCain absolutely drilled him for.

At the opening salvos Obama certainly was able to dig in and repeat his psuedo communist style of government while beating the class warfare mantra. While McCain failed to directly counter on this point, he was able to hammer home what it meant - more government spending and corruption in Washington.

From that point on Senator McCain took the offensive and kept Obama on his heals for the rest of the evening.

McCain spoke in specifics and spoke with ease on a number of issues, including hammering Obama for ear marks and his lack of experience in foriegn policy.

To be sure, McCain could have landed a number of knock out blows on the matters, but failed to do so.

At the same time, however, Obama did stick to his talking points on a few issues - but spoke in rather larger generics while trying to defend himself.

Then there were the nonverbals.

While McCain was relax and smiling, Obama spent most of the evening visibly annoyed and trying deseperate to cut off his opponent multiple times.

They say a large portion of our communication is nonverbal. There was no truer case in this situation.

Of course this happens frequently with Barack Obama when he is challenged on any issue. Instead of answering the question directly he gets flustered and tries to shrug the question off. McCain was able to use those openings to hammer home why Senator Obama is not ready.

Dont think most Americans who watched the debate didnt notice. My wife who isnt exactly what you call politically attuned did, and I doubt she was alone.

My personal thoughts this morning revolve around Senator Obama’s failed ability to lead given the situation he is in. For all the talk about bringing people together and striking a bipartisan tone, Barack Obama failed miserably yesterday.

The Paulson package failed miserably not because of any “stunt” pulled by  John McCain or the House Republican conference, but because Democrats failed to listen.

It is true that Senate Republicans agreed to an outline of principles in a meeting with Democrats. However no one cared to listen to many Republicans in the House of Representatives who are absolutely livid about charging the tax payers with almost a trillion dollars to bail out failed companies.

The other important factor which many media outlets are not reporting, is that Nancy Pelosi wants one hundred House Republican votes before she will go along with the issue - which provides her political cover fire for what is a very unpopular proposal.

Enter Senator John McCain.

Contrary to what CNN and others are reporting - it was his presence at the meeting table which gave House Republicans a seat at the negotiations and allowed them to speak their mind.

Senator Obama on the other hand, apparently spoke for Democrats and played hard ball in what ended up being a shouting match.

This, of course, lead to Secretary Paulson litterally getting on his hands and kneeds before Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and begging for the deal to go through. Her response? Blame the House Republicans.

The truth is that Pelosi and Democrats could ram this through without any problem, as they have done on a number of occassion during the 110th Congress. The trick is that the legislation aint exactly popular and she is looking to bullet proof her caucus.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, is showing his ability (or lack there of) to work with Republicans in a bipartisan manner. In fact his latest decision as reported by Fox News is to fly back to Mississippi for the debate tonight instead of doing his job back in Washington, D.C. trying to hammer out a deal.

Crisis situations show character and defines people. Can it be no doubt that Senator Obama cares more about himself and his political party than the nation?

The Heritage Foundation posted a must read document regarding the proposed bail out of our financial institutions now being discussed in front of Congress.

It highlights the needs for limited government and pork add ons, but the ability to answer the needs of the current crisis.

I whole heartedly agree with this. The idea of giving the government a $700 billion dollar check  without any constraints is just dumb.

I should note that I mean someone watching over Congress as much as anyone else as they’re power has increased exponentially over the past two years under Democrat rule.

Here are a few of the highlights of what the bill does right.

Have strict oversight over all the new RTC’s activities: The new RTC should not operate without close and continuous oversight. While Treasury’s draft proposal would exempt the new RTC from judicial or other oversight, such a move would be a serious mistake and should not be approved. Instead, Congress should establish an independent council of financial professionals to provide regular oversight of the RTC. To assure its independence, the new oversight board should not include representatives of either Treasury or the Federal Reserve. This council would review the agency’s activities with specific firms and securities. This oversight should allow the RTC to act quickly and decisively. This oversight counsel would augment with professional expertise whatever oversight Congress chooses to perform on its own.

Allow asset sales over time to limit losses: In order to ensure that taxpayers receive the best value for the funds given to the new RTC, that entity should be allowed and encouraged to sell, restructure, or otherwise liquidate them over time. While the new RTC should be expected to liquidate its assets as rapidly as markets will bear consistent with the taxpayers’ interest, it should not be subject to an artificial time horizon. If it is forced to essentially dump securities into the market, this will force down prices, thus further destabilizing the market and increasing any costs that would be borne by the taxpayers.

Limit taxpayer exposure: While the new RTC must have flexibility to stabilize the financial markets, it must not be void of any limits whatsoever. The Treasury’s proposal included an authorization limit of $700 billion—an estimate of what it would take to have the markets functioning again—that limits the costs to the taxpayer.

Heritage also, rightfully, calls for severences packages to be at risk. This means criminal posecution should be looked at in a number of cases and their golden parachutes would be recovered and returned to the tax payer.

Above all, however, the bill should be clean without lobbyist attaching items to it. I firmly agree and would note to the presidential candidates this is your time to be walking your talk regarding reforms.

The article goes on to note what should be avoided and other issues with the bill which must be addressed. It is a must read which I highly recommend.