Writer argues Obama's choice of gambling game is better than McCain's

[The Buzz]

Jeff Shaw, a writer for CityPages blogs, has an interesting take on the presidential race. He says voters should look at the gambling game of choice of the two candidates. McCain - craps; Obama - poker.

For summary comparison purposes: Barack Obama plays one of the only games it's possible to win at; plays it in a way that avoids negative expected value; and by all accounts, plays it pretty well.

John McCain is intensely dedicated to a game that is expensive to play, consumes inordinate amounts of time, and is mathematically impossible to win over the long term. He takes this gamble, relying on superstition and hope, while the cold and brutal realities of inevitable collapse breathe chills down his unsuspecting back.

You may want to take this as a metaphor for his emphatic endorsement of Republican foreign policy towards Iraq. You may want to take this as an allegory for his decision-making processes generally. Or you may want to blow it off, figuring McCain is just a super-rich guy who doesn't mind dusting off a fat wad of cash playing a game it's impossible to win.
Which might even be true. But I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Full post here ... http://blogs.citypages.com/gop/2008/...n_is_a_cra.php

[bb1web]

a pretty lame comparison.

big deal. gambling is an entertainment. So what if one prefers an entertainment that costs more than the other.

Now if they both claimed to make a living on gambling and those were their choices ... THEN it would mean something. as is ... an incredibly stupid way to judge a candidate.

I really love election year. You see all kinds of reaches.

edit to add: and I'm no republican fan.

[The Buzz]

More on this from the Huffington Post, with long excerpts from a few stories on the subject ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-m..._b_111203.html