Well, the cospiricy theory holds more weight than I think Bob is giving it credit for. Microsoft was a business throws money at both parties so it will be owed favors no matter who wins. Since it can't control the outcome, it tries to play both sides. That said if you read back on what Obama has been saying about video games:
http://www.myce.com/news/pres-obama-continues-anti-video-game-crusade-20004/
It's pretty obvious what side a company like Microsoft is going to be on. While superficially there is nothing terrible in that article (I picked a fairly tame one to prevent de-railing the thread, but do some searches and Obama being a whack-a-doo on this subject is and understatement), he does use the video games as a scapegoat to avoid having to address other issues. After all it's easy to blame video games for youth problems, as opposed to dealing with the problems with society that prevent kids from going outside in many places (leading to them playing the video games) which run counter to his position as a social liberal. After all with the streets of today being an unsafe place for children to roam, compared to decades ago, it's not like he can exactly profess to want to start rounding up all the whackos and problem groups that have lead to the current situation, never mind addressing simple questions like liability that in some places has basically made it illegal or impractical for kids to roam neighborhoods unattended. A simple trip down to the playground creates questions of liability if the kid is injured there, or on the way, so the parents are required to be present, and if they aren't it's considered neglectful. This is to say nothing of the entire issue of society now revolving aroud TWO working parents meaning that there isn't generally a well-rested parent to wander around with the kids constantly, contributing to the whole "in the home" position, something that can't be really addressed without coming bloody close to a lot of the right wing "family values" position. Basically Obama DOES jump up there and when dealing with issues like health, violence, or whatever else, pulls out the Cat O' Nine Tails and starts flogging away at video games to create the illusion of him doing something.
This is to say nothing of the Obama/Clinton alliance with Hillary being a big part of what drove the entire "Hot Coffee" scandal
http://www.gamespot.com/news/hillary-clinton-to-take-on-rockstar-over-hot-coffee-6129021
Just one of many links, but people tend to forget about that. Given how much business Microsoft has done with Rock Star, including buying all that temporarily exclusive content for "GTA IV", it's not surprising that they might have a grudge not only about this, but the general precedent, which has continued since then. Basically Obama's administration comes with Hillary in an appointed position, doing exactly the same kind of crap.
Also don't forget that it was under Obama's watch that we had the whole issue of game censorship brought before The Supreme Court even if many Republicans were involved. It's a cross party issue (both sides use it) but one that got that far due to so much general support.
Right now it probably hasn't gone unnoticed that under Obama more inroads have been made against video games, and free speech in general, than we've seen before. In general Conservatives talk a lot of smack and try and get things banned, but they generally oppose the idea of big goverment and rely on those same speech protections to the point where they don't make moves for sweeping legislation. Interestingly the 80s under guys like Reagan were probably one of the big heydays of extreme media (for it's time), with the US actually holding the torch of free expression while europe was banning things during their whole video nasties censorship campaign:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Nasties
Now, for those who read this far (There must be some), I will say that I am not presenting Mitt bloody Romney as some paragon of free speech or anything. He is however a first term President if elected and the damage he can do is minimal. Obama gets a second term he can pretty much do whatever he wants without having to worry so much about re-election. On or off this front Obama has been suggesting some pretty crazy stuff as his legacy:
Unrelated to free speech, but well...
http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/kfidideyidey/rss2/
It shows Obama is at least considering pushing for some rather insane things once his position is secure as a two term president and he doesn't need to care anymore. If he's considering cutting missles/missle defense and similar things (that's just one article, there are a lot of them) god knows what he might wind up supporting on a censorship front especially with people like Hillary in his administration.
So yeah, I can see a business like Microsoft trying this, they have some pretty solid motives. That doesn't mean that it was planned that way, but if it was, they are exactly the guys I'd expect to do it.
That said, it's liable to be another razor's edge vote, so every little bit helps. Despite left wing claims of a clear majority in either sense, they really don't have one (that's just what the media they control generally says). That's why your seeing things like the florida recounts, and Obama being touted as a "major success" with like a 7% lead at his absolute best. That said, Bob is right that the country is polarized, and being pretty much 50-50 with the left wing generally being unwilling to compromise on a number of major issues (and vice versa, but it's usually the left wing accepting no compromise on social issues) and it's going to probably come down to "X factors" rather than one side or the other being swayed.
That said, I'm pretty much in the "not Obama" camp. Honestly I didn't want Romney running for the right, but really I have no real viable option other than to note vote or support Obama. Obama failed to convince me he's the right guy for the job. Given this year's freak show of cantidates, I was going to support Gingrich because at least he supports the space program.... but nope, just like with Giuliani I won't be able to vote for the guy I actually think would be best for the country right now.
