Another myth. Prove what you say with a point by point comparison.
What do you mean "fresh"? This is a meaningless term that libs throw around to avoid substantive debate.
ways mccain has changed in the last several years to fall more in line with the bush administration:
in 2000, mccain ran as a moderate who would not seek to overturn roe vs. wade. mccain now supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother.
in 2001, mccain claimed he "could not support" the bush tax cuts because they benefited wealthier individuals disproportionately. now he wants to make them permanent.
mccain called jerry falwell and his ilk "agents of intolerance" in 2002. he has since reversed his course on falwell and actively sought endorsements from rod parsely and john hagee, among other intolerant, bigoted, pig evangelical bobbleheads.
mccain was tortured in vietnam by his captors and held a firm anti-torture stance at the outset of the war on terror. earlier this year he voted against the ban on waterboarding.
mccain has totally abandoned his previous signature issue, campaign finance reform.
he previously WROTE legislation seeking to provide amnesty to some illegal immigrants, and now says he would not even vote for his own bills.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
mccain claimed in the run-up to the iraq war that we would have an easy time, that we would be "greeted as liberators," and that there was indisputable evidence that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
now that we know none of those things were ever true, mccain talks incessantly about how his record of service makes him uniquely qualified to extricate us from a 'tough' situation in iraq, even though he has made no overtures as to his specific ideas on how to do it, apart from following the bush doctrine of 'no diplomacy. EVER.'
as far as "fresh:"
fresh means that obama doesn't have the stink of a career politician on him, at least not yet, and therefore doesn't seem to be driven solely by ambition and lust for power. he talks about things like transparency in government and actually acts on them, which is certainly different, even from ultramaverick campaign finance reform guru john mccain, who in this primary season has broken rules he once sought to pass into law.
most people who vote, ON BOTH SIDES, have zero comprehension of real issues. for the rest of us, it is very easy to access a candidate's ideas and policies via the good ol' intertubez. it's no more accurate to call obama an empty suit because if his "change" and "hope" ideas, than it was to call bush the same for his "compassionate conservative" and "uniter not divider" rhetoric.
right now, obama is offering what i (and many others) want, and yes i understand the implications of his actual positions, in addition to the fact that he's actually inspirational, can speak eloquently, and is not another stodgy old idiot white man. if he were to do a crappy job in his first term, i'd vote against him in 2012, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
finally, on cancer:
you keep claiming that mccain is in perfect health and anyone who claims his cancer will likely recur knows nothing about medicine. i think that's you, dude. having one skin cancer makes you over three times more likely to get another-- he's had at least three, so he's about ten times more likely than another 72-year-old man with a history of extensive sun exposure to get cancer (again). given that melanomas in the face and upper torso can relatively easily metastasize to the lymph nodes, it is a totally reasonable concern. that said, he would be the president and would be receiving the best medical care in the world, so i wouldn't say i expect it to happen, but it's not as outlandish as you claim.
... sorry for the giant post.
