Reasoning Reason

Both McCain's and Palin's speeches were very good. They were carefully worded and very effective--however they were only effective because they covered specific talking points that highlighted strengths and avoided weaknesses. This is only to be expected in a pep-rally-esqe arena like a convention and Obama was no different.

The election is a marketing war. If people act in the interests of their country, Obama is the better candidate when you look at his stances on the issues. The key issue is that when everything is broken down to underlying motives, people act in their self-interests. Therefore, people view lowering taxes as a good thing because it puts more money in their pockets; oil-drilling becomes good because they don't care if far-away Alaska gets ripped to shreds to fuel their hair-dryer; and people don't care if al Qaeda thrives in Afghanistan and Pakistan as long as its terrorists don't hurt our troops in Iraq.

Obama is at an intrinsic disadvantage because those who support him transcend their self-interests to put their (to steal a McCain catch-phrase) country first. McCain, in contrast, appeals to people's selfish sensibilities: more money? sure! win the war? yeah! more energy? of course!...

...as though Obama supporters want the US to crumble.

It may sound stupid to some, but the Republicans--and I guarantee this is mastermind Karl Rove's doing--have framed the argument brilliantly. They tell people to vote for McCain because McCain helps them achieve their selfish goals while convincing them that in doing so they are putting their country first.

Brilliant. And why I say McCain and Palin's speeches were very successful.