Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Sunday Telegraph has an interesting article about poker players and the presidential candidates. It turns out that McCain likes to play craps while Obama plays poker:
Their support has drawn attention to the fact that this year's presidential election features seasoned gamblers for the first time since the days of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.While Mr Obama regards poker as one of his hidden talents, his Republican rival John McCain is a dedicated gambler who enjoys few things more than a 14 hour session at the craps table.
Mr McCain has enjoyed the camaraderie and the thrill of chance in the dice game, where players bet on the outcome of the throw, since his days as a tearaway pilot in the Navy. He is reputed to wager several thousand dollars a session, and had to be prevented from gambling when a campaign trip took him through Las Vegas earlier this year.
By contrast, Mr Obama used his love of poker to get to know rivals during his days as an Illinois state senator, where he developed a reputation for playing to win - usually doing so with strong cards, and rarely bluffing. Terry Link, a fellow state senator at the time, told Time magazine: "If he runs his presidency the way he plays poker, I'll sleep good at night."
A British writer uses those facts to psychoanalyze the two candidates:
Anthony Holden, the British poker player and writer, whose book Big Deal did much to popularise the game in the UK, said Obama is following in a long tradition of poker playing presidents, from Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Warren Harding to Harry Truman..."Barack Obama, like Lyndon Johnson, used poker to make political connections. He seems not to be much of a bluffer. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a giant bluff by JFK, which was not called by Khruschev. I don't think we'll get those kind of geopolitical gambles from Obama."
Both men are concerned by the details of Mr McCain's Craps habit. "You're always at a disadvantage at craps," said Mr Bloch. "It's a problem, if you have a leader who believes they can beat the odds. You don't want him shooting dice with the economy." Mr Holden added: "We poker players don't call poker gambling. It is a game of skill. Craps is an absurd game of luck. You may have thrilling short term wins but only madmen play craps."
And Doyle Brunson has endorsed Obama:
Announcing his support for Mr Obama, Mr Brunson, twice a winner of the world championship, said he could not back Mr McCain because the Republicans support the current US ban on internet gaming. Mr Obama has said he would like to regulate online poker and gambling, rather than criminalise it."Poker players have to support Obama," he said. "God help the internet gambling business if McCain does happen to win."
Very interesting.
Politics
Comments
Attached is an article from Time Magazine on this subject.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819898-2,00.html
It would appear that Senator McCain may have a serious gambling addiction which, because his wife is very wealthy, doesn't affect his personal finances. However, I would argue that his predilection for gambling may reflect his outlook and hence his actions if he were to become president. That is, his personality, as reflected in his big time gambling, may also presage his approach to the presidency in that he may have a tendency toward big time gambles.
As an example, consider the case of golfer Phil Michelson, probably the most talented golfer of this generation this side of Tiger Woods. Mr. Michelson in the past was a big time gambler, betting heavily on football and other sports (presumably excluding golf) and a frequent visitor to the gaming tables in Las Vegas. Like McCain, his personal finances were such that he could afford this diversion. However, it is the contention of many observers that Mr. Michelsons' gambling personality had an adverse affect on his golf game in that he was noted for taking very high risk shots which often led to big numbers on individual holes. Many commentators considered this approach to the game responsible for his inability to win any of the major tournaments and his reputation as a serious underachiever, given his talent. It wasn't until a few years ago that he changed his attitude toward the game which has since resulted in victory at three major events.
Posted by: SLC | July 9, 2008 10:13 AM
So Obama's a Rock, whereas McCain a Maniac. Sounds about right.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 9, 2008 10:37 AM
Yes, that's fine for gamblers, or skill-using poker players, or whatever, but petless Obama should be judged for his lack of pets, unlike John McCain, who has a menagerie, which you can be sure he tends to everyday.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 9, 2008 11:33 AM
I don't understand why some poker players delude themselves into thinking it's not gambling. Yes, it's partly a game of skill (one I thoroughly enjoy whenever I can). But if two chess players were to bet on their game, they would be gambling. The fact that it's a game of skill doesn't change that.
That said, that Obama is apparently a decent and tight poker player is a small tick in his favor, as is his stance on internet poker. But I'm not going to read much into either of their gambling habits and decimalizing internet gambling is pretty low on my list of important issues.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 9, 2008 12:20 PM
"But I'm not going to read much into either of their gambling habits and decimalizing internet gambling is pretty low on my list of important issues."
Huh? They don't use old money where I play online.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 9, 2008 12:54 PM
Obama's in favor of letting you use real money if you want to (for some types of gambling), which is currently illegal in the US. McCain is in favor of continuing the ban. That's what I'm referring to by decimalizing. Or am I missing the point?
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 9, 2008 1:04 PM
I agree with those who say it's a bit of a stretch to reach conclusions about a candidate's personality from only this. I also think it's unwarranted to conclude that McCain has a serious gambling problem. All we know, from aides, is that he gambles for a few thousand dollars at a time; for a man of his wealth, that is hardly a problem. The amount you gamble for is not a measure of addiction or of whether it's unhealthy for you; the amount you gamble relative to the amount you can afford is far more relevant. Michael Jordan gambles for very large amounts of money, but he's worth half a billion dollars. I'm sure there are some who think playing poker for a few hundred dollars at a time indicates a problem, but I do that every week and it's not at all unhealthy for me.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 9, 2008 1:24 PM
My rule of thunb is, if I'm not prepared to lose it, I'm not prepared to gamble with it.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 9, 2008 1:41 PM
Doh! I just caught it, decriminalize not decimalizing. Man I feel dumb. Still, compared to that email I sent to my company's entire field sales group where I apologized for the incontinence (inconvenience), I don't feel too bad. Lysdexics untie!
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 9, 2008 1:43 PM
Isn't McCain required to release his tax forms -- I don't recall if Senators have to or not, but the Presidential candidates always seem to.
Since both Obama and McCain almost certainly itemize their taxes, their yearly gambling wins/losses should be there.
Since Obama doesn't seem to play poker outside of the buddy network, he's probably got nothing. McCain, on the other hand -- he's playing in real casinos, and while no one says he has to claim his losses (And with his wife that rich, why would he?) but he certainly has to claim his wins.
Posted by: Morat20 | July 9, 2008 2:02 PM
I would like to offer the following, largely fictional comment on judging people by their choice of gambling game:
James Bond's game of choice was traditionally baccarat. In most versions of baccarat, the house has a very narrow edge that really can't be changed by anything the player does. I think that makes it the perfect game for a spy, who needs to focus at least as much on his surroundings as the gaming table itself; in that regard, I think Daniel Craig's Bond's love of Texas hold'em (which is, if you'll pardon the pun, is a rather "all-in" kind of game as far as attention goes) seems wildly inappropriate for his line of work.
I don't pretend that directly proves anything; however, it might be a useful thing to keep in mind that a person's choice of game very likely says a lot about their way of engaging life in general.
Posted by: Brian X | July 9, 2008 5:12 PM
Short article on a poker-playing computer:
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208802992
Posted by: anon | July 10, 2008 10:57 AM
Well that seals it. I love craps, can't do poker for nothin'. Guess I have to vote for McCain.
Posted by: Andrea | July 10, 2008 4:39 PM