PeterDavid.net

Fully agreed. I think Sen. Obama's going to have to be a lot more careful in general, especially now that it's looking more and more definite that he'll nab the Democratic nomination. Really, he should have been more preemptive with the Rev. Wright nonsense, and apparently, he needs to learn Michelle a few things.

On a totally different note, I just saw in Marvel's solicitations for this summer that Larry Stroman is coming back to X-Factor. Is this a one-issue deal, or is he on for a while? You two make a brilliant pair.

"it is frankly naive of him to think that that can, or even should, happen"

Why are people realizing just now, when the primaries are almost over, that his naivete and inexperience will be a problem for him when facing off against the Republicans? Sigh.

Why are people realizing just now, when the primaries are almost over, that his naivete and inexperience will be a problem for him when facing off against the Republicans? Sigh.

I've been saying that for a while. I think Hillary is unelectable because she's going to galvanize the GOP base against her, but I remain unconvinced that Obama is going to look anything but callow and naive compared to McCain.

PAD

But they'll manage to galvanize the base against anyone. Whether it's turning Al Gore's home state against him, or turning John Kerry into a wind-surfing, war-storytelling flip-flopper, or Barack Obama into a radical black separatist, they know how to do this to anybody. The fact that Hillary was still in the running after 15+ years of those kind of attacks on her should have been seen as a proof of strength, not baggage.

Honestly, I read Obama's statement as something almost like a threat of retaliation. I just looked up his exact words (emphasis mine).

"If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family. Whoever is in charge of the Tennessee GOP needs to think long and hard about the kind of campaign they want to run, and I think that's true for everybody, Democrat or Republican. These folks should lay off my wife."

And, indeed, opening themselves to character attacks on the candidate's wife is probably something the Republicans should consider carefully. Offhand, there's the fact that John McCain courted Cindy McCain while he was still married to his first wife (the one who, you know, raised his children while he was in a POW camp). Not to mention the period where she was addicted to painkillers and resorted to stealing them from the medical relief charity she started.

Any sufficiently motivated (and unethical) individual could craft quite the attack ad campaign using just those two pieces of information, and knowing John McCain's temper, he'd probably make a scene about it once it aired. I'd say the Republicans are more vulnerable to this type of cheap shot than the Democrats are. I'm sure they're just still used to having open season on the opposition, and think that Obama's going use the same "ignore them and they'll go away" strategy that let the Swiftbull Veterans get away with their attacks on Kerry. It doesn't look like Obama is going to repeat that mistake.

I'm not sure Barack actually believes what his wife is out of bounds in that context, the problem is if he says nothing or fails to respond, the next step is Barack obama fails to stand up for his wife, why do you expect he'll stand up for you.

Obviously they won't be that blatant about it, but it's not something he can just ignore without comment.

btw I see you're scheduled for Toronto's fan Expo in August. There's no expected issues unlike some of the other places that said you were going is there?

What's a little frustrating about the hoo-haa about what she said is the quote is often gotten wrong. What she said was "For the first time, I am really proud of my country." which could just as easily imply that she was proud of her country before, but even more proud of it now.

Even the full quote is damning. The notion that in all these years, this is the first occasion she has to be REALLY proud of her country, still doesn't show her in the best light.

PAD

PAD,

It might now show her in the best light as far as some people are concerned but with all the crap the U.S. Gov. has pulled since 1960 .. it may very well have just been her being honest.

Her comment doesn't bother me at all .. it's like saying one has to be proud of everything a parent does or does not do. It's simply unrealistic.

It also doesn't help matters any that she said it in two different speeches.

Anyhow... I agree with Obama that his wife should be out of bounds in some areas, but anything that she says while stumping for his campaign or speaking on behalf of his campaign is fair game in the same way that any other person working for his campaign would have their statements open for criticism.

It was either this, or pull a Michael-Dukakis- sentencing- the-hypothetical-rapists- of-his-wife to-yoga-therapy.

I remain unconvinced that Obama is going to look anything but callow and naive compared to McCain.

Yeah, but not because McCain isn't callow and naive himself, with McCain's friends in the press pool covering for him, volunteering he "misspoke," when he has to be publicly corrected there's no evidence of a link between Iran and the insurgency against the Iran-friendly Iraqi goverment.

The press keeps chewing McCain's food for him, and he keeps chirping with his beak open like he's a baby bird.

Okay, I don't get this. I really don't.

Yes, Michelle Obama is stumping for her husband. Yes, the things she says ABOUT HER HUSBAND should be subject to analysis. But even if we take her statement -- "for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country" -- in the most negative light possible (discounting the word "really"), she's expressing HER PERSONAL OPINION, which has nothing to do with Barack.

If she'd said, "my husband told me that, for the first time in his adult life, he is proud of his country," then yes. Fair game. Because her HUSBAND is the one running for office. Whether Michelle Obama is proud of her country or not has no bearing on Barack Obama's position on the same issue.

And finally, the "crime" she committed is trivial even if we interpret her comment in the worst way. So let's say she wasn't proud of her country until recently. So what? I know many people who aren't proud of their country right now. Do we no longer tolerate dissent? Is a presidential candidate no longer allowed to associate with people who don't march in lockstep with him (or her)? Is that really what we want?

(In the interests of fair disclosure, I am a Democrat. But I'd also defend Cindy McCain's refusal to release her tax returns on the same grounds. She's not the one running for President.)

My forty-three cents (adjusted for inflation)...

--- Scott

I have the same opinion as PAD about Michelle's comments. If she's making herself a political figure, then she's a legitimate target for political attacks.

Scott, I can see what you mean about her stating her personal opinion and not the opinion of her husband. However, she stated that opinion while stumping for her husband. Once she has started asking for people to listen to her opinion about politics, she can't really pick and choose what they respond to. She's either in the political game or out.

However, I don't agree with PAD that this is a sign of problems to come for Obama. He's sticking up for his wife, something that makes him look good even if he's technically in the wrong. I don't think Obama is going to look naive compared to McCain. In the last few days I think he's actually done a pretty good job of putting the debate on his terms and looking strong against McCain.

I used to think that Obama was unelectable in November. Now I'm starting to think that he might actually win it. I think Mitt Romney probably would have launched the kind of slash and burn campaign that would have beaten Obama, but I don't think McCain will do that kind of campaign.

What i'm afraid of in regard to Obama being/not being electable - Jimmy Carter was electable.

I happen to think that Carter was, in some ways, too good a man to be President successfully.

But whether that is true or not, he was naive about what he could exect in Washington, and he had no real grip on the levers of power.

And we got two terms of Ronald Reagan.

What do we get after Obama's one ineffectual term?

I get the feeling some posters would prefer that women shut up and stay in the kitchen. THAT would have really helped fight WWII. If not for the women taking jobs in the factories, a lot of munitions might not have made it to the troops overseas.

Peter:
You've always been someone I admire and respect deeply and will continue to think of in high regard. But I think you're wrong.
Here's a video that was posted on Obama's web site, please watch it and tell me he's naive
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/newforeignpolicy?source=20080519_NFP_LP_DB_G
Second, do we really want this to be a debate about what Mrs. Obama said or meant to say and then it become an endless bashing of Cindy McCain?
I don't want that!
I want Obama and McCain to debate the issues and let the people of this country decide who is the better leader, not beat up on each other's wives!
But McCain thinks he can hit Mrs. Obama and not pay a price for it, Obama can hit him back with:
1. The fact that not only are Cathloics evil, but all Jews should go to Israil so they can die in a coming war between Jesus and and Anti-Christ.
2. McCain ditched his handicapped wife to marry ahot beer heiress.
3. McCain has been heard to refer to his current wife as something that ryhmes with 'punt'!
Last I'd like to ask Matt soemthing: Matt, you keep saying that Obama is naive, but where is all this experince Hillary is supposed to have? Since she's been in the senate, she has enacted less substantive legislation than Obama, instead just playing it safe for almost 8 years in the senate waiting to be president.
She has shown worse judgement than most sentors and as far as foigen policy experence, do any of you think the prince of Saudi Arabia will be seen negociating with a woman in or out of Saudia Arabia? Worst of all, all the world leaders she knew when she was frist lady are dead or out of office.
If she were the front runner and the nominee, I would support her. But she's not! So we need to support Obama this year and change the debate to something positive. Otherwise we will not last as a people much longer!

Alan Coil,

So... You couldn't come up with a sensible argument and you just decided to try and insult everyone who disagreed with you? Nice.

Josh Pritchett,

I don't know what you've been reading or where, but it hasn't been here. No one is saying that the trivial stuff should be the center of the debate, but most of us think that it is reasonable to assume that anyone who opens their mouths as an official member of the Obama campaign staff or when stumping on his behalf is fair game. Obama's response and the way he chose to phrase it made him look very clumsy and naïve in these matters. And it's not the first time that Obama has displayed how green he is in the political arena.

It's also odd that you're telling us that we have to support Obama. Other than the conservative voters here; most every one from the host down does support Obama at this point. I'm probably the most critical of the left of center crew when it comes to Obama and even I have more or less said, both here and on my on blog, that Hillary needs to drop out and get the hell out of the way of the clear and rightful front runner and the party's need to actually start the official Obama v. McCain campaign.

"1. The fact that not only are Cathloics evil, but all Jews should go to Israil so they can die in a coming war between Jesus and and Anti-Christ."

I'm going to assume that you meant to say "The fact that his spiritual advisor and supporter said that not only are Catholics evil..." If not, that would be one hell of a weird argument for Obama to try and score points with. Anyhow...

Where have you been? That's been getting play in the media. That's been all over the media chat shows and even pops up on Fox News through the odd liberal host or guest. Old news and in the debate cycle already. As for the other two, one won't mean much with 90% of the voters out there and the other is hearsay. And what would the Democrats really do to the obvious counter of your #2 by the Republicans?

"What? He married a rich heiress? Say, didn't your last Presidential nominee do the same thing as well as several current members of the Democratic majority?"

Yeah, killer weapon that one is.

Alan Coil: "I get the feeling some posters would prefer that women shut up and stay in the kitchen."

Eh? Alan, who are you talking about? I don't see anything like that in this thread.

Jerry, it doesn't mater how mater how many times they've talked about it on FOX or..
Wait your getting news from FOX???
Okay, if I stepped on anyone's toes. But I feel very strongly here.
Jerry, everyone has said for the last few months that BILL CLINTON has been trying to stick up for his wife and most people have cut him some slack for that when he has put his foot in his mouth. Are we to expect Obama to do anything less?
I think the point here is, and Peter this is for you. Obama was in essence channeling David Banner: "GOP, don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry"
If they want to see a fight and they want to test his metal. Obama is saying tread lightly, or you will be picking a fight you don't want.
I don't want it to go that way! I just don't think it's okay because everyone else has done it before. That's the same logic as: Well, if your freinds jump off the the bridge would you jump too?
Like Mrs. Obama, I am proud of my country for the first time in a long time when there is a change a good man like Barrack Obama can be president.
Jerry, Peter, everyone else; you're right. We can't make them go away, we can't make them stop slandering the Obama family. But we can do like my dad used to say: Consider the source (No I don't mean the one from the New Gods comics)
If all they have are attacks, slander and out of context commets, then they don't have a case or ideas or a better way to lead this country and deserve to lose. So I'm on the side of the guy who has the better case, ideas, etc, and I hope you all will be too.

Perhaps I should have used the word 'people' instead of 'posters'. That would have gotten my point across better.

Okay Alan, what 'people' are you talking about?

Josh Pritchett,

"Jerry, it doesn't mater how mater how many times they've talked about it on FOX or..
Wait your getting news from FOX???"

No, I get my news from the local paper, several national papers, the net, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, BBC News, CNN, Fox News and POTUS 08 (it's an XM thing) to name a few. But nice way to start out with a straw dog.

"Jerry, everyone has said for the last few months that BILL CLINTON has been trying to stick up for his wife and most people have cut him some slack for that when he has put his foot in his mouth. Are we to expect Obama to do anything less?"

And just as many other people have pointed out that Bill should know better and not be so clumsy in the way he defends her and that he's actually hurting her at times by rushing out to defend some things that the candidate should be defending. In cases like this you have to learn to take your lumps and respond in ways that don't make you look weak, whiney, clumsy or naïve.

"Obama was in essence channeling David Banner: "GOP, don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry" If they want to see a fight and they want to test his metal. Obama is saying tread lightly, or you will be picking a fight you don't want."

Well, there's a definite reference to his being green in this, but it isn't a Hulk reference and it has nothing to do with the environment.

"I don't want it to go that way! I just don't think it's okay because everyone else has done it before. That's the same logic as: Well, if your friends jump off the the bridge would you jump too?"

There's a difference between not doing something foolish just because someone else did it and not recognizing the reality of a situation. Obama is about to enter into one of the nastiest games in politics. He's about to run for the office of the POTUS. He should know that the tricks are going to get dirty and the tactics are going to go low. He can respond to that in several ways that don't involve going that route himself and that don't show off how green he is at this game.

He also needs to better learn when to let a member of his staff reply to something rather than replying himself. A staffer could have come out, stated that it's kind of funny that the GOP wants to run attacks based on his wife's two slips of the tongue when the Republicans nominee has had numerous slips about far more serious issues, referenced the multiple Iran/insurgents gaffs and then left it at that. Obama wouldn't end up looking as green as he does and the counter to the GOP attack plan would be in the news cycle and in the spin machine to counter their attack.

"Like Mrs. Obama, I am proud of my country for the first time in a long time when there is a change a good man like Barrack Obama can be president."

See, and it's stuff like that that's going to trip up Obama and any of his very vocal supporters. I'm proud of my country and have been for as long as I can remember. I've had moments when I wasn't to proud of the leadership and moments when I wasn't to proud of my fellow countrymen, but I've always been proud of my country. What you and Michelle Obama are saying can be, basically, broken down into saying that you're only proud of your country when you get what you want. You may not mean it that way, but it's going to be read like that by many when looking at your comment or hers.

"But we can do like my dad used to say: Consider the source (No I don't mean the one from the New Gods comics)
If all they have are attacks, slander and out of context comments, then they don't have a case or ideas or a better way to lead this country and deserve to lose. So I'm on the side of the guy who has the better case, ideas, etc, and I hope you all will be too."

Which has nothing to do with what's being discussed really. You can say consider the source all you want, but in this case the source for this discussion was Obama and the discussion was around his actions making him look unneccissarily green, naïve and politically clumsy.

If you mean that we should consider the source of the attacks on her, then you should be emailing Obama. He's the one making foolish statements that look like hollow threats. Most of us are just pointing out that he said a very foolish thing in a very foolish manner and that anyone who is set up as a representative of his campaign is fair game when they're speaking on behalf of that campaign. And if you think that the GOP is going to change their playbook just because you and obama said so... Well, then Obama ain't the only naïve member of this debate.

Alan Coil,

Still doesn't really ring true.

Just got back from a surprise party for my Dad's 70th birthday and missed all this!!!

PAD-- This is why even if I disagree with 75% of your politics (rough estimate, numbers subject to change) I always have to weigh your opinions carefully--you have an inherent sense of fairness that will always keep you from swigging the partisan kool aid.

for the record though, I disagree that Obama won't win. Have you seen those crowds? McCain's supporters like him. Obama's love him. Hell, some worship him. This is Dole/Clinton all over again

David Gian-Cursio--If Obama, or, more likely, some of Obama's nuttier followers, try to play that kind of hardball against Cindy McCain they will do Obama incalculable harm. McCain has already been confronted by a heckler who tried to embarrass him and he came off looking way better for it. Imagine the scenario--someone criticizes Michelle over something she said and they respond with "yeah...well your wife took drugs!!! Do we want someone in the White House who admits they took...wait. Nevermind."

Obama's too smart for that and if he had that kind of go for the jugular mindset he would have used it against Hillary by now.

Scott-- Sure you can say whatever you want. And you have to be willing to take your lumps for it.

And I think that Cindy should release her tax returns. Her husband is running for president. He would have the power of life and death for the freaking human race. It's not asking for too much in return that we be aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. I appreciate that she is not running and she has had a life before McCain but I still think she should release them. (For that matter I think anyone who doesn't release their full medical records should not ever be considered for president)

Alan- I get the feeling some posters would prefer that women shut up and stay in the kitchen. THAT would have really helped fight WWII. If not for the women taking jobs in the factories, a lot of munitions might not have made it to the troops overseas.

Um, was that joke? You really think that PAD and others thinking that Michelle Obama having to take responsibility for her own words is the same as wanting her to shut up and stay in the kitchen? At best that's incredibly patronizing to her and the worst kind of strawman argument. C'mon now.

Jerry- I don't think Hagee can accurately be considered a "spiritual advisor" and any attempt by the Obama side to label him as such will backfire and bring up more questions about Obama and Wright. And anyway, at least Hagee has admitted he was wrong, which I would not hold my breath for in the case of Wright.

Jerry, it doesn't mater how mater how many times they've talked about it on FOX or..
Wait your getting news from FOX???,/i.

Jeeeze Josh, he said "even pops up on Fox". He's saying that even Fox had to talk about it. Believe me, Jerry shares your poor opinion of Fox.

Anyway, as I said, Obama would be a fool to bring up Hagee, unless he really wants to open up the Wright wounds just as they are healing. I may or may not vote for him but it would seem I have a higher opinion of his intelligence than some of his supporters.

Just got back from a surprise party for my Dad's 70th birthday and missed all this!!!

PAD-- This is why even if I disagree with 75% of your politics (rough estimate, numbers subject to change) I always have to weigh your opinions carefully--you have an inherent sense of fairness that will always keep you from swigging the partisan kool aid.

for the record though, I disagree that Obama won't win. Have you seen those crowds? McCain's supporters like him. Obama's love him. Hell, some worship him. This is Dole/Clinton all over again

David Gian-Cursio--If Obama, or, more likely, some of Obama's nuttier followers, try to play that kind of hardball against Cindy McCain they will do Obama incalculable harm. McCain has already been confronted by a heckler who tried to embarrass him and he came off looking way better for it. Imagine the scenario--someone criticizes Michelle over something she said and they respond with "yeah...well your wife took drugs!!! Do we want someone in the White House who admits they took...wait. Nevermind."

Obama's too smart for that and if he had that kind of go for the jugular mindset he would have used it against Hillary by now.

Scott-- Sure you can say whatever you want. And you have to be willing to take your lumps for it.

And I think that Cindy should release her tax returns. Her husband is running for president. He would have the power of life and death for the freaking human race. It's not asking for too much in return that we be aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. I appreciate that she is not running and she has had a life before McCain but I still think she should release them. (For that matter I think anyone who doesn't release their full medical records should not ever be considered for president)

Alan- I get the feeling some posters would prefer that women shut up and stay in the kitchen. THAT would have really helped fight WWII. If not for the women taking jobs in the factories, a lot of munitions might not have made it to the troops overseas.

Um, was that joke? You really think that PAD and others thinking that Michelle Obama having to take responsibility for her own words is the same as wanting her to shut up and stay in the kitchen? At best that's incredibly patronizing to her and the worst kind of strawman argument. C'mon now.

Jerry- I don't think Hagee can accurately be considered a "spiritual advisor" and any attempt by the Obama side to label him as such will backfire and bring up more questions about Obama and Wright. And anyway, at least Hagee has admitted he was wrong, which I would not hold my breath for in the case of Wright.

Jerry, it doesn't mater how mater how many times they've talked about it on FOX or..
Wait your getting news from FOX???,/i.

Jeeeze Josh, he said "even pops up on Fox". He's saying that even Fox had to talk about it. Believe me, Jerry shares your poor opinion of Fox.

Anyway, as I said, Obama would be a fool to bring up Hagee, unless he really wants to open up the Wright wounds just as they are healing. I may or may not vote for him but it would seem I have a higher opinion of his intelligence than some of his supporters.

Sorry for the double post. twitchy fingers, too much airline coffee.

"Jerry- I don't think Hagee can accurately be considered a "spiritual advisor" and any attempt by the Obama side to label him as such will backfire and bring up more questions about Obama and Wright. And anyway, at least Hagee has admitted he was wrong, which I would not hold my breath for in the case of Wright."

Oh, I agree. They don't want to stir that hornets nest up again by their own actions. However, you are in error about two things. It's not just Hagee. There's another fellow (can't remember his name off the top of my mind right now) with McCain now that also says the same garbage and right after Hagee "admitted he was wrong" he did two radio interviews where he went right back to saying exactly what he said before about NO and other topics. But the point still holds that Obama's people do not want to resurrect that garbage again by their own doing.

Obama's too smart for that and if he had that kind of go for the jugular mindset he would have used it against Hillary by now.

Well, that's the balance Obama has to strike. If he tries to give as good as he gets, there's no guarantee it would work (democrats just don't seem to have had much luck with demonization in the last few elections) but, more importantly, he'd lose a big chunk of what makes him attractive. On the other hand, if he just lets the opposition tar him with the same sort of stuff that was used to such effect on Kerry, Gore, and McCain himself, he'll just be slandered into oblivion.

He'll need to run a kung-fu campaign, deflecting negativity without actually going negative himself, while simultaneously counteracting the weak-willed, naive child meme by projecting the impression that he's perfectly capable of executing a bare-knuckle, mud-slinging negative campaign, but doesn't want to or consider it necessary. That second part is the real trick, since Obama can't seem to find fault in any aspect of the campaign without people accusing him of running crying to mommy. Compare that to Clinton, for instance, who has complained in the middle of a debate about being picked on, but is still seen in some quarters as the more durable candidate.

PAD,

You can relax. While McCain could win, I find it unlikely for him to beat Obama for two reasons:

1.) McCain doesn't inspire like Obama does. While not everyone "worships" him as one person suggested, there is a devotion for him like many of us had for Reagan back in the day. Living here in Iowa, what he did in the caucus was impressive.

2.) McCain seems to go out of is way to thumb his nose at conservatives. If the conservative base doesn't turn out, it is unlikely he can win.

Besides, if McCain does win, other than perhaps the war, I doubt he will do much that would offend you anyways.

Iowa Jim

Here he is. Rod Parsley:

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3548250.ece

I'd link more stuff, but I keep getting stuck in the spam filter when I do that. The upgrades the site's filters have seemingly gone through are nice, but a pain.

What i'm afraid of in regard to Obama being/not being electable - Jimmy Carter was electable.

I happen to think that Carter was, in some ways, too good a man to be President successfully.

But whether that is true or not, he was naive about what he could exect in Washington, and he had no real grip on the levers of power.

And we got two terms of Ronald Reagan.

What do we get after Obama's one ineffectual term?

Carter got lucky in that the party bosses hadn't yet realized that dominating the early primaries counterbalanced their favor. He didn't have to make beating Senator Hillary Clinton look easy. If he runs his administration half as well as he's been running his campaign, Obama's going to keep the wave that carries him into the white house.

Sorry, but I don't feel in the least for Barack's "pain" over the GOP's "unfairness". Especially not after the past 5 months of Barack (and nearly everyone in the mainstream media) doing absolutely nothing to stop all the anti-woman attacks on Hillary (whether the "Citizens United" logo--which I won't list beyond that--or the "shrill voice" or the "ex-wife" comments or, most notably, Olberman's superdelegate suggestion to "take her in a room and only HE comes out") nor did Obama (or many of his supporters/fans) condemn the "pimping Chelsea" comment (for which Hillary was lambasted when SHE talked tough about demanding the reporter's being punished--who wants to think how fast the guy would've been fired if Barack had been described as "pimping" his daughters?). Nor has Michelle herself earned any sympathy. She has been every bit as anti-Hillary with her comments from the outset and now she and Barack feel that THEY should somehow be exempt from "attack ads"? Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Michelle Obama has redefined "ambitious" (and that had already been redefined by Barack's very candidacy).
Also, considering how Barack has been so eager to attack BILL CLINTON's participation during the primary season, I find it highly amusing that NOW, all of a sudden, a spouse should be "off-limits" to criticism.
Sorry, Barack, but you AND Michelle brought this all upon yourselves. After all, all's fair in love and politics. If you thought the campaign against Hillary was hell, you ain't seen nothin' yet. The GOP has barely scratched the surface in their campaign and, don't forget, we still have all the 527s to hear from (if you thought the attacks on Kerry were bad, after the attacks on Obama, we'll look back on the anti-Kerry ads as "the good ol' days").

Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2008 06:50 PM

I remain unconvinced that Obama is going to look anything but callow and naive compared to McCain.
Yeah, but not because McCain isn't callow and naive himself, with McCain's friends in the press pool covering for him, volunteering he "misspoke," when he has to be publicly corrected there's no evidence of a link between Iran and the insurgency against the Iran-friendly Iraqi goverment.

The press keeps chewing McCain's food for him, and he keeps chirping with his beak open like he's a baby bird.

Um, exactly how have the press been hard on Obama? Who asked Obama when the Great Lakes got moved (his campaign noted how they were so important to the people of OREGON)? Who challenged Obama on his recent comment about the expanded US (he made a comment about 57 states)? Who corrected Obama when he explained Hillary's win in West Virginia as due to the state's proximity to Arkansas? Who asked him why he isn't worried too much about Kentucky (again, because of its proximity to Arkansas--as opposed to its being right across the Ohio River from Illinois and at least one full state separated from Arkansas)?
Where have all these anti-Obama media personalities been (other than FoxNews)? MSNBC and CNN have been in the Obama pocket since January (at least). The punditocracy have COMPLETELY failed to do their jobs in reporting the Democratic primaries (witness all the calls from the pundits for Hillary to drop out while completely forgetting that: Reagan challenged Ford all the way to the 1976 GOP Convention; Ted Kennedy challenged Carter all the way to the 1980 Democratic Convention; and, Jesse Jackson challenged Dukakis all the way to the 1988 Dem Convention) because they've all fallen for the Obama Rockstar Campaign.
Hell, I thought it was funny when some "progressives" screamed their outrage over the internet when Hillary met with Scaife yet Barack's claim that he wanted to meet Ahmadinejad "without preconditions" and his claims to "cross the aisle" didn't create any murmurs of disapproval. Barack's fans make such a big deal over his "anti-war" stance, yet one of his strongest supporters has been John Kerry (the guy who was "for the war, before he was against it) and Barack has done NOTHING different from Hillary since his election to the Senate with regards to the war (check the actual voting records--their records match so closely that you *might* find 5 actual differences; as he's been in the Senate for 3 1/2 years, that's not a substantial difference and ESPECIALLY given all his TALK of "change").
Honestly, I thought (a couple of months ago) that I would be able to vote for whichever Democrat emerged from the Convention with the nomination. Now, though, I cannot find myself voting for Barack Obama as the nominee. (This doesn't mean I plan to vote for McCain. I intend to check out the alternatives.) Where Obama killed his chances with me is his supporters' overenthusiasm at playing the race card (if you're white and you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist). I live in Alabama and I HAVE voted for more than a few African-American candidates over the years so I don't need some snot-nosed punk (and his rabid fans) trying to guilt me. Why should "racism" be stronger to overcome than "sexism"? We could say that people voting for Obama over Clinton are STILL voting for a MAN, instead of a woman, and it would be just as accurate. (Hell, there was some African-American pundit on CNN this past weekend who had the gall to say that whites who could enjoy watching Black athletes or enjoy Black entertainers, then they shouldn't have a problem with electing a Black President. Naturally, the host didn't turn that around replacing "Black" with "woman" because that would suggest that Hillary is still campaigning for the nomination. The punditocracy on MSNBC and CNN have already decided that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. That's also a bit funny. The same "progressives" who have slammed the mainstream media throughout the Bush era haven't said a word regarding the veritable Obama lovefest. Maybe they secretly worry that once Obama is the Democratic nominee then the media will show their true colors, pardon the expression, and become the "dyed-in-the-wool Republicans" they always are.)

Last I'd like to ask Matt soemthing: Matt, you keep saying that Obama is naive, but where is all this experince Hillary is supposed to have?

As a resident of New York, I disagree with your claims that Hillary has done nothing with her time in the Senate, but even putting that aside, the experience that is most relevant in this discussion is political experience; she's been through the grinder. She's dealt with 15+ years of right-wing attacks and she's still coming out strong in head-to-head match-ups with the Republicans' most well-liked national figure. Obama hasn't ever had a serious contest before (Alan Keyes?!) and if he thinks the primary slap-fight was tough, wait'll the general election. I prefer a candidate who's already been battle-tested.

do any of you think the prince of Saudi Arabia will be seen negociating with a woman in or out of Saudia Arabia?

Considering one of Saudi Arabia's closest allies, Pakistan, has already had a female prime minister, I think she'd get by.

So we need to support Obama this year and change the debate to something positive. Otherwise we will not last as a people much longer!

It's not me, or most of the people on this blog, you need to convince; it's the vast number of voters out there for whom negative campaigning is designed, those who vote with their "guts" rather than their heads. It's a sad reality, but those are the people who decide elections, not the far smaller number who can sort through spin and political manipulation on their own.

And it is for those people that a campaign needs to learn how to anticipate negative attacks and deal with them effectively. Unfortunately, that's not a skill you can pick up in a few months.

Jerry, Peter:
How does Obama come off as weak or naive for defending his wife? I mean Bill Clinton has defended his wife and no one called him weak or naive. If someone critized my wife harshly, then I don't wait for someone to defend her honor like some modern King Arthur waiting for Lancealot to defend her honor. I do it myself!
Second, why should we not consider the source? After all what I was saying was that the fact that they are weak on the issues and can only attack Obama's family shows how weak they know their position to be. Like some school yard bully trying to hide their shortcomings, the GOP has taken a shove at Obama and called his family bad names.
All Obama has done is stood up to the bully. If he had not said anything he would have looked weak. But we're debating whither or not he looks weak FOR standing up to the bully. I think that shouldn't be the point; the point is, bullies back down when they see you'll push back or if enough people gang up them.
One of the points Obama has made in the campaigne is trying new approches to politics, trying something new that might or might not work, like FDR's new deal: Somethings worked, others didn't. The point was, we had to try.
I think Obama is fine with attacks on himself, after all he met the Rev. Wright buisness with grace under fire. But it's late in the race and it's just never right to go after a man's wife even if she speaks up for him in public or in a presidental race and shows a lack of that old time gentlemenship and honor we used to cheerish in this nation.
Also, Jerry, I was just having a laugh at you over FOX, okay! Don't take it the wrong way, man. I'm forced to watch it too at least once a week too. I'm just having one over on you, man.

Uh, Mike I would point out that the press has been hard on Obama because they beat the Rev. Wright story over and over again, he's gun comment over and over and his connection to some guy who was in an alleged terroist group hardly anyone remembers for weeks.
The press gave McCain a pass for weeks over his connections Rev. Hagey, avoided his connections to big lobbists, and don't mention or explain the Keating five.
Also the press covered Hillary snipper fire thing for less than 3 days and has never once brought up her connections to the health insurance industry.
Also I don't know of any Obama supporter who has played the race card. the only person I see playing the race card is Bill Clinton. Just because you've been around politics all your life doesn't make you a great president, like at W!
Oh, Matt, the lady PM of Pakestain was over thrown in a military coup with Saudia Arabia's blessing. I guess they didn't like her that much!

David - Agreed. One thing Obama could have done is to point out that "the Republicans could have campaigned on their record, or on their policies, but instead chose personal attacks. Work it out for yourselves." And left it at that.

Obama can't seem to find fault in any aspect of the campaign without people accusing him of running crying to mommy. Compare that to Clinton, for instance, who has complained in the middle of a debate about being picked on, but is still seen in some quarters as the more durable candidate.

A good point--had Obama choked up during a bad time in the campaign he'd be this year's Muskie. There is a double standard. Complaining about the way the game is played doesn't reflect well on a man, to most people. But hey, it isn't like he wasn't able to win anyway.

Never? Never ever? But Hillary is a man's wife...are you suggesting Obama should have rolled over and taken her attacks?

Also the press covered Hillary snipper fire thing for less than 3 days

In what universe??? Type in "Hillary" and "sniper" into google news and you get thousands of stories from just the past month. 3 day story? Hell, it was more than a 3 day story when Bill Clinton stupidly brought it back to the forefront with a few more additional lies of his own.

I think you'd have a hard case to make arguing that the press has gone easy on Hillary. Not that they are entirely to blame for that--one of her many mistakes was to needlessly antagonize the press and set up a situation where they were ready willing and eager to see her fall.

You've always been someone I admire and respect deeply and will continue to think of in high regard. But I think you're wrong.
Here's a video that was posted on Obama's web site, please watch it and tell me he's naive

I don't care if he IS naive. I care how he comes across, particularly in terms of how he stacks up against McCain. Politics is perception. When he tries to remove from the table comments that his wife made repeatedly in public forums while stumping for him, that comes across as naive. To make such demands makes it seem as if he hasn't been paying the least bit of attention to the way presidential politics works.

Obama's problem is that he comes across like someone who believes he can change the world purely on the force of personality. And if this is an example of how he's going to do it--by demanding and expecting to be treated differently. just because he says so--that's going to be a problem. There are ways to go about it. His initial speech during the Wright stupidity, talking to American voters in a forthright manner about race relations, was brilliant. But that's because he managed to transcend self-interest and speak to broader concepts. In this case, basically he's saying that the GOP is being mean to his wife. My response is, where the hell has he been? They ganged up on John Edwards' wife and her biggest sin was that she has cancer, for God's sake. Asserting that family aren't the ones running for office and therefore shouldn't be subject to attack ads is a viable contention. But his wife was the wrong person and the wrong example to defend. If she's going to publicly stump for her husband, then she has to expect the results of those endeavors to be held to the same scrutiny as anyone else with whom Obama is associated. He has to expect that to. Not to do so comes across as...well...naive.

PAD

How does Obama come off as weak or naive for defending his wife? I mean Bill Clinton has defended his wife and no one called him weak or naive.

I never said he was weak, or came off that way, and I'm unsure why you're putting that word in my mouth.

There are any number of ways that he could have defended his wife that would not have come across as naive. But the bottom line is that, while she's out stumping for him, he can't be thinking of her as his wife. He has to think of her as simply another voice speaking on his behalf. His words and his sentiments have to stand on their own, because it is upon those words that he will be judged, not his personal outrage as a husband.

Let me put it this way: If Oprah Winfrey had been the one who spoke several times about being "really proud" of her country for the first time, and she was the one who was the subject of the attack ad, and Obama demanded that Oprah's comments be off limits, we'd think he was out of his mind. By the same token, if the way he had responded to the Wright comments was to say, "He's my minister and because of that we should just leave him alone," that would have been seen as ridiculous.

Is it possible to take dispassion too far? Sure. Dukakis showed that when faced with the famous question about the death penalty if it was his wife who had been raped and murdered. But Obama needs to focus on the issues being raised rather than his sense of personal outrage. He succeeded in that spectacularly with Wright, at least initially, and failed to apply that same standard to his wife.

PAD

I remain unconvinced that Obama is going to look anything but callow and naive compared to McCain.

Yeah, but not because McCain isn't callow and naive himself, with McCain's friends in the press pool covering for him, volunteering he "misspoke," when he has to be publicly corrected there's no evidence of a link between Iran and the insurgency against the Iran-friendly Iraqi goverment.

The press keeps chewing McCain's food for him, and he keeps chirping with his beak open like he's a baby bird.

Um, exactly how have the press been hard on Obama?

The press doesn't have to have been particularly hard on Obama for my observation to be true. He hasn't given them much of an opportunity.

I would point out that the press has been hard on Obama because they beat the Rev. Wright story over and over again.

In contrast to Kerry's handling the swiftboaters -- which was to simply back off of his superior hold of the position of hero-candidate -- Obama handling of the Wright story was masterful. At the very least, he can call playing the Wright card what it is.

For once we have a decent, smart, accessible candidate who doesn't owe his success against the- Engine-of-Destruction- We-Call-Hillary to special interests. If you aren't ovulating over how Obama is handling his campaign, I think the glorious times we are living in are wasted on you.

Yeah, but not because McCain isn't callow and naive himself, with McCain's friends in the press pool covering for him, volunteering he "misspoke," when he has to be publicly corrected there's no evidence of a link between Iran and the insurgency against the Iran-friendly Iraqi goverment.

Um, exactly how have the press been hard on Obama? Who asked Obama when the Great Lakes got moved (his campaign noted how they were so important to the people of OREGON)? Who challenged Obama on his recent comment about the expanded US (he made a comment about 57 states)? Who corrected Obama when he explained Hillary's win in West Virginia as due to the state's proximity to Arkansas? Who asked him why he isn't worried too much about Kentucky (again, because of its proximity to Arkansas--as opposed to its being right across the Ohio River from Illinois and at least one full state separated from Arkansas)?

Has Obama needed to be corrected more than once for any of these mistakes?

Have you gotten in line to be called Iranian by John McCain?

no offense PAD, but you talk about the perception, but defending your wife is the all the perception he needs. Republicans label the word "liberal" as something to be ashamed of yet most people attend liberal arts schools and want other countries to be more liberal in their government. Yeah there probably were more nuanced ways but all they grey crap is why Democrats are preceived as wimps. Sometimes you have to be a little black and white Republicans.

Besides, that ad looks like the stereotypical hillbilly that people think the South is made of. Perception.

Frankly, I think any candidate (male or female) would be naive to think that their spouse is "off limits" In the case of any world leader, their spouse is usually expected to take part and/or represent our country in social functions - weddings, funerals, diplomatic summits, etc.

While, of course, the candidate should be our primary focus; I think it is important that we are confident that his/her spouse is thoughtful and articulate.

Should we do a deep probe to discover if they cheated on a math exam in 8th grade? Of course not. However, if they have had alcohol or substance abuse problems in the recent past... that's another story.

Argh. I need an early morning editor. The first "our" above should have been "their."

no offense PAD, but you talk about the perception, but defending your wife is the all the perception he needs.

Except he didn't really "defend" her. Instead he angrily said that it was "low-class" to attack her. Except she wasn't attacked; the things she said were attacked. That's a subtle but important difference.

The perception--accurate, in this case--is that he has no problem putting his wife out there to stump on his behalf, but does have a problem when the things she says are held to the same scrutiny as anything anyone else says. He wants a double standard, and that's both dangerous and, ultimately, condescending. As if his wife is incapable of defending the things she says herself.

PAD

PAD, there's one other reason why Obama's comments could work well.

It's an umbrage-off. The Democratic Primaries have been full of either Obama or Clinton saying "shame on you" for something said by the other side. Whether it was the "monster" comment by one of Obama's people or racially insensitive stuff said by a Clinton supporter, the result was the offending person leaving the campaign. So yelling, "We're better than that, stop it," has worked in the Democratic umbrage-off.

Now the same thing is starting up for the general election. John McCain has said he wants to run a respectful campaign. He objected to a TV commercial that used Reverend Wright. He lost that one, but there are other cases where his people have toned things down because of McCain's wishes. So when Obama says, "Whoever is in charge of the Tennessee GOP needs to think long and hard about the kind of campaign they want to run," he's actually claiming that they're not living up to McCain's stated standard.

If Mitt Romney had won the nomination you'd be right, this would be a terrible tactic on Obama's part. However, it is much more likely to be effective with John McCain as the opponent. His campaign has done their share of whining, too. Obama can't even say the phrase, "losing his bearings," without a McCain representative accusing him of ageism. So this is all part of the new umbrage-off.

One of the most significant things about Obama's statement is that he seems to think he can determine what can and can't be said about his wife. There are things being said about her that he has every right to deplore, but so what? Comparisons with PAD's distaste for criticism of his family are not very apt, because this, right here, is PAD's own property, and he really does have the option of silencing offensive posters. That he hasn't done so to me, and to a few others, is purely a matter of his own restraint, rather than something out of his power. Senator Obama is faced with a reality he can't alter.

One of the most significant things about Obama's statement is that he seems to think he can determine what can and can't be said about his wife.

You seem to be the best proof Obama isn't going to lose any support for indulging in the behavior you're referring to. Family-interaction -- and outer-action, if you get my meaning -- involves hypocrisies that are more than tolerated, and we'll take it and we'll like it.

Mike: The Senator is free to desire whatever he wants, but he has serious problems if he thinks he can have it.

Which people? The same people who thought Hillary should just keep her big, fat yap shut about national health care when she was Bill's First Lady. Them people. The ones who apparently think she should keep her big, fat yap shut now, even though SHE is the candidate this time, and Bill is merely her spousal support. I pretty much detest those people.

Josh Pritchett, Jr: "How does Obama come off as weak or naive for defending his wife? I mean Bill Clinton has defended his wife and no one called him weak or naive."

He comes off naïve not because he did it, but in how he did it. Look, I'm a cop out here in the surreal world. There are things that I know are going to be said to me or about me within earshot of me when I'm in uniform that just comes with the job. I don't respond to those things when on the job in the same manner that I would as a civilian. One of the things that you have to teach new guys is that crap rolls off your back if you let it and you don't have to respond to every little insult or you should respond in a manner that intelligently neutralizes the issue.

It's the same with politics. Obama could very easily have defended his wife in a manner that would have been far more effective, less clumsy and not shown the appearance of being as naïve as his defense did. Look at how it was done.

Obama warned that the Tennessee GOP “should be careful” and said he finds it “unacceptable” for them to use his wife in a video.
“The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family….

“Whoever is in charge of the Tennessee GOP needs to think long and hard about the kind of campaign they want to run, and I think that’s true for everybody, Democrat or Republican….

“But I also think these folks should lay off my wife,”

His comments were basically, "how dare they use something my wife said at a campaign event." He had his wife speak for him and she was supposed to be expressing the things that he believed and why he was the guy to vote for. She either said a dumb thing or she said something in a dumb way. it was something said at a campaign speech, it was by someone representing the campaign and it's, wife or not, fair game. For him to put forward the idea that it's not fair game makes him look politically naïve.

There's also the manner in which he did it. It was clumsy and came off almost like a hollow, whiney threat. Had I been on his staff and knew that he wanted to reply to that ad, I would have suggested another approach.

"The Tennessee GOP wants to make a big deal out of my wife's slip of the tongue on a campaign stop? (laughs) Sure, if they want to play that game they can. But they should be aware of the messages it sends. First, it tells everyone that they've just got the same old playbook of mudslinging and can't challenge us on the ideas and issues. Second, my wife, who is not running for office and isn't a "professional" speaker, phrased something poorly. If that's supposed to be their major issue, what does it say about their candidate for the presidency when he's repeatedly made errors about Iran's involvement with Iraq and other key issues, been publicly corrected and admitted his errors and then gone on to make the same mistaken remarks a day later?

"They can say whatever they want about Michelle's poorly phrased comments. It's just displaying their desperation for everyone to see and it shows that they obviously don't realize how bad that game bounces back on their nominee or how badly it makes his multiple gaffs come off by comparison."

Now, I'm not a political speech writer and I did that in one, stream of conscious shot without stops, hesitation or (other than spell check) corrections and I guarantee you that this would have played a hell of a lot better than Obama's statements. If I can come up with something as a first draft that would likely have played better than what the man running for the presidency said then, yeah, it his green is showing.

Obama cannot do that. He cannot make too many slips that show he's inexperienced or that he's the amateur politician. There are a lot of swing voters and undecideds out there that, when push comes to shove, are going to pull the lever for the guy who, as chaotic as the world seems right now, looks like he knows what he's doing rather than the guy who says "change" but looks like he doesn't know how to drive the car to get to "change" without crashing it several times along the way.

And as much as Obama cannot do that, we cannot afford to have him do that.

The Senator is free to desire whatever he wants, but he has serious problems if he thinks he can have it.

Obama cannot do that. He cannot make too many slips that show he's inexperienced or that he's the amateur politician. There are a lot of swing voters and undecideds out there that, when push comes to shove, are going to pull the lever for the guy who, as chaotic as the world seems right now, looks like he knows what he's doing rather than the guy who says "change" but looks like he doesn't know how to drive the car to get to "change" without crashing it several times along the way.

And as much as Obama cannot do that, we cannot afford to have him do that.

No. Sit back, enjoy Obama's masterful campaign, and maybe you'll learn something.

Look at how Chelsea got away with stupidly playing the "My Family Is None Of Your Business" card* when she was legitimately asked about addressing what the voters should make of her father's infidelity. Of course the voters' are entitled to their own account of any candidate's family interactions. But it's a hypocrisy anyone with any fidelity to observable reality knows only a fool would refuse to tip-toe around, if tread there at all.

*demonstrating the classic pimping of a candidate's daughter

Alan: "The ones who apparently think she should keep her big, fat yap shut now, even though SHE is the candidate this time, and Bill is merely her spousal support. I pretty much detest those people."

Again, which people would that be? I haven't seen anyone saying she should keep quiet. I've seen some people saying that both Democratic candidates should keep their campaigns respectful so they don't tear their party apart. I've seen those calls become focused on Clinton, but that was because of things she said, not because of her gender. I've definitely seen a lot of people saying that Bill should shut up. Many, many times I've heard people saying that they wish Bill would just shut up.

So who are you talking about Alan? Who have you heard saying that Hillary has no right to speak?

Do we have an exact quote somewhere? Did he say that going after his wife was low-class, or merely that this particular quote flap was low-class?

Me, I don't think it's wrong to go after a candidate's wife--so long as it's on a point relevant to the election. This point, however, like so many others in elections, was not.

As for naivete, I wonder what exactly are the criteria by which a candidate is perceived as "experienced" or "inexperienced and naive". Does U.S. Presidential history lack well-regarded Presidents who lacked experience in one relevant area or another? Was Truman experienced? Was Eisenhower experienced in matters of economics or constitutional law? (Hell, even McCain has amazingly admitted that economics is something on which he still needs to be educated). There seems to be a perception that being governor of a state makes one experienced. But does it? Did being a governor really make guys like Reagan or Clinton experienced in matters of international relations , foreign policy, war, etc.?

In general, I think Obama has shown that he is one of those people who can lead through the force of his personality, mostly because that personality is one that inspires people to follow. I don't know if this one flap proved the exception to this approach as Peter says, but even if it is, I think those who are captivated by the persona he projects are not going to be turned off by this one flap, any more than they are by any of the other pseudo-flaps that are fabricated in elections. Who exactly would be, who had any inclination to vote for him in the first place? I don't think Democrats are suddenly going to decide not to vote for him, and if God forbid there were any Republicans even thinking of it, I'd find it ironic (hypocritical, even) if they decided against voting for him on the basis of experience or naivete, given the guy they've had in the Oval Office since 2001.

Many people have a problem with two things, explaining themselves, and shutting up. They try rationalizing, and they babble on. Michelle Obama would do herself a world of good if she were to say simply that she erred in her original statement, and that she's sorry she made the mistake in the first place. Then keep her yap shut about it.

The more you try to explain yourself, the worse you make things for yourself.

(Oh, and Mike; when you find Iraqi militias using Iranian made weaponry, it's a safe bet somebody in Iran is providing it. When they're using a lot of Iranian made weaponry, then the Iranian government knows about it, and approves of the delivery. The Iranians are competent, never assume they aren't. They may be domineering loons, but they are competent domineering loons.)

"What you and Michelle Obama are saying can be, basically, broken down into saying that you're only proud of your country when you get what you want. "

I, for one, never understood how anyone can be proud of their country at all. My own sense of pride primarly stems from things I have achieved or fulfilled, secondly from things those closest to me have achieved or fulfilled. To be proud of a whole nation, city, generation, extended family, race, gender, profession or sports team has always been a strange concept to me.

Which doesn't mean that I want to take away your pride from you (as if I could). I don't take anybody's national pride as an insult. Maybe you shouldn't take the lack of it as an insult either.

Alan,

1. Then why did McCain take the corrections?
2. Does it then go without saying that when KBR tries to coerce their contractors in Iraq who've been raped to their contracts to not file criminal reports, they are following official US policy? Are you going to stand by a tie to Iran by using their weapons, but deny the tie of the no-bid government contract?

PAD wrote:

"but I remain unconvinced that Obama is going to look anything but callow and naive compared to McCain."

When Joe Biden and James Baker echo what he says about talking to our enemies, how is that so?

When McCain can't tell fact from fiction, how is that so?

When someone offers you a new script idea, and you know in your heart it's going to be a blockbuster, but they have "not enough experience", how is that so?

Alan Kellogg,

The error in question is not whether or not Iran is doing anything at all in Iraq. The remarks that McCain botched and then corrected and then botched again and then etc. were from when he said that Al Qaeda was leaving Iraq to go to Iran, Iran was training Al Qaeda and then Iran was sending Al Qaeda back into Iraq. That's not true and there's no proof of it.

The correction was that Iran has some involvement with some of the insurgent groups and that there's some evidence that they may be doing this. McCain actually got corrected on that point by Joe Lieberman during a live press conference, McCain rushed to correct the gaff and then went on to repeat the same gaff several times over the next several weeks.

Alan Kellogg: "... when you find Iraqi militias using Iranian made weaponry, it's a safe bet somebody in Iran is providing it."

Not always. The issue that you can run into with that logic is the same one that we run into when we find American made weaponry in the hands of people in the Middle East that we never sold them to. The fun of the Middle East Merry-Go-Round is that you can sell arms to a group you 100% support, they may sell them as part of a deal to another group they support, they may trade them to yet another group for something they want more than the arms, they could then sell those arms to yet another group and six months later your bitter enemy is shooting at you with your own guns and ammo. You could also start that nutty daisy chain by saying that the first group stole your arms from you or someone you supplied.

That convoluted example is somewhat true everywhere, but it often seems to be a bit more true with the various tribes and factions in that area of the world.

Hellstone: "Which doesn't mean that I want to take away your pride from you (as if I could). I don't take anybody's national pride as an insult. Maybe you shouldn't take the lack of it as an insult either."

I could personally care less one way or the other most of the time. But we're discussing the average voter as a group and the more right of center voters as well. A lot of people aren't too swift on the idea of putting someone in office who says that their not proud of their country.

Peter, thanks for promoting this debate. But I think the bottom line is: The GOP has no issues they can win on, so they attack Obama's wife.
But Obama has to make a stand for his wife and show the American people he has a backbone and will fight. Because if he won't fight for his wife, how can he be trusted to fight for us?
Look what happened to Kerry: He failed to make a stand on his war record and the Swift-Boaters ate him for lunch. Obama knows this and has to fight.
So let's do this: Let's wait and see how the poles pan out. If he loses ground because of it, then it was a bad move; but if he gains ground he's a winner!

What's so wrong about saying this is the first time you're really proud of your country? Man...I wish *I* could say that...

I think attacks on family members of people running is low-class. Attacks on the canadiate, fine sure. Attacks on family members? STUPID, imo. Doesn't matter if she's supporting her husband. OF COURSE SHE'S GOING TO SUPPORT HIM. All the other candiates wives do. I hope Obama takes this to heart and does NOT attack any of the other candiates families. I hope he doesn't stoop to their level.

Oh and I think if Obama is nomated (which it looks like he will be), that he'll have a VERY VERY good chance of winning. I know I'll vote for him. I have to say that this is the first election I'll be voting in and the first one I'm actually interested in. Because there's a BIG choice to be made. A MAJOR choice. It is:

Do what more of what Bush is selling (which McCain would definitly give us) or do we want some hope for future (which it seems like either Hillary or especially Obama would give us).

Its more then just Republican or Demorat or Independent this time, imo. Its about the Future. Do we want these high gas prices to continue? Do we want the Iraq War to go on and on and on and on and on forever (McCain is a supporter of the war, so he'd keep us there)? Do we want yet another president who can't make an inspiring speech????

Ya, I know that last one isn't as important as the others, but man...it looks so AWFUL for us to have a President who doesn't know what he's talking about...

McCain is more of the same. Obama or even Hillary, could give us something different!

DF2506

The correction was that Iran has some involvement with some of the insurgent groups and that there's some evidence that they may be doing this.

Do you have a source handy? What would be the agenda of insurgents in Iraq who aren't al Qaeda and who aren't Sunni? Why would Shiites arm their own opposition or disassociate themselves from their own counter-insurgency efforts? If the Iranians are fighting al-Qaeda and Muqtada al-Sadr, what has that ever been to us except something that benefits the US-backed Iraqi government?

Josh Pritchett, Jr: "But Obama has to make a stand for his wife and show the American people he has a backbone and will fight. Because if he won't fight for his wife, how can he be trusted to fight for us?"

You seem to keep missing a huge point here. It's not always what you do or don't do. It's often in the way that you do it.

Obama may well have done the right thing, but he did it in the wrong way. Sometimes, that can be more damaging than doing nothing at all or even doing the wrong thing and politics is one of those arenas where that often holds true.

df2506 : "I think attacks on family members of people running is low-class. Attacks on the canadiate, fine sure. Attacks on family members? STUPID, imo."

If that family member is being placed into the spotlight and is speaking on behalf of the campaign then they're fair game.

"Its more then just Republican or Demorat or Independent this time, imo. Its about the Future."

Except that the line about it being about more than politics about about the future is used in every election cycle and it is pretty much equally true each time it's used.

"Ya, I know that last one isn't as important as the others, but man...it looks so AWFUL for us to have a President who doesn't know what he's talking about..."

Which would actually back Obama's detractors' arguments more than yours since one of the arguments they'll use is that Obama is green and inexperianced on top of being politically naïve.

Do we want these high gas prices to continue?

ZWe do if we want people to use less gasoline, which I thought was one of the things we had to do to stop global warming. There was a time when many progressive politicians wanted a high gasoline tax to reduce consumption. Well, the prices are high and consumption is going down.

As far as getting prices down...good luck. Supply and demand. You either have to get demand down--and with more and more of the world's population becoming wealthy enough to afford cars, with more countries becoming technological powerhouses, etc, that seems unlikely--or you have to increase supply. Which means drilling.

What exactly is Obama (or McCain or Hillary or Ron Paul) going to do to lower prices. I know Hillary said she'd do it by, I don't know, making scary faces at OPEC or something but I haven't heard any of the others offer new and exciting ideas (which might be because there really aren't any new and excting ideas to be had. maybe massive spending on research for a technological breakthrough?)

The alleged interference of Iran in the Iraq insurgency seems to be a not-very-well-thought-out white house talking point:

Standing with two of his Senate colleagues at the Citadel, a set of ancient ruins in downtown Amman, McCain told reporters that he is concerned about Iran's influence in Iraq and cited a recently discovered cache of weapons that he said could be particularly lethal in being used to target Americans in the country.

"We continue to be concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back," he said in comments after meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah II on Tuesday afternoon.
ad_icon

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it is "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran; that's well known. And it's unfortunate."

A few moments later, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in his ear. McCain then said, "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

They're citing the insurgents' use of Iranian weapons as their evidence the Iranians are nurturing the guerrilla war against a government of their own faith. These assholes can't even keep straight the area's Hatfields from their McCoys.

Jeez...

And the main issues in any of this are just going to get pushed back even more.

Kentucky just went Clinton in a huge way. Obama better win Oregon and win it big tonight or Clinton is going to drag this out too long for sure.

Kentucky just went Clinton in a huge way. Obama better win Oregon and win it big tonight or Clinton is going to drag this out too long for sure.

I'm still fuzzy on this whole "too long" thing, considering that two candidates going all the way to the convention is hardly unprecedented. As I recall, Reagan did it. So did Carter. Neither were, to my recollection, vilified to the degree that Clinton has been.

PAD

Also, Clinton, the projected loser, is still receiving more in donations than republican-nominee McCain. The bulk of McCain's donations are still gathered at public appearances of George W Bush, the most unpopular president in modern polling. Each half of the split democratic party still clobbers the remaining republican party. It's hysterical.

I doubt this will go to the convention. Obama has been getting about 4 superdelegates a day. If that rate keeps up, he'll either hit 2026 on June 1st or be very close to it.

The Rules Committee meets on the 31st and will probably give some portion of the delegates back to Florida and Michigan. This won't raise the number to 2210 like the Clintons want, but it will put it somewhere in between there and 2026. With the extra votes that will give Clinton, Obama won't have the new number by June 1st, but he'll either have it by June 3rd or close after.

At that point there is no good reason for Hillary to keep fighting. Up until now it made sense to keep fighting because there were still battles she could win. After Puerto Rico votes there will be absolutely no victories left for her. There's nothing to be gained if there are no more chances to point to something and say, "See, that's something new to think about."

She still might not drop out. She still might talk about contesting the Rules Committee's decision on Florida and Michigan and demand that the full delegations be seated. But even if she does that it will be very half hearted. She's run her last negative ad. She's not go to make things messy at the convention.

My problem is that:
1: The reps already have their nominee, he can build his strength and his base while Obama and Clinton continue to beat themselves to pulps.
2: This has become so divisive and bitter with large numbers of Hillary voters vowing not to support Obama if she loses; even if that mean losing their reproductive freedoms, draging the war out longer, incressing gas prices, forclosers, declinging dollar and on and on...
3: If it goes to the convetion and the super delegates get cold feet and give it to Hillary or decide that they will count Florida and Michigan the way Hillary wants after all after all, this will say to millons of Obama supporters: "Hey, I know Obama told you, you matter, but you don't. Please vote for us in November!"
By the way, anyone know who came up with the rule to unseat delegates if they move up their primary's? That would be Terry McCuliff, former DNC chairperson and member of the Hillary Clinton's campaigne. He bragged about it in his book "What a Party". If anyone is responsible for Michigan and Florida, the Clinton's don't have to look very far!
Last of all, the party needs to start healing! Hillary is not going to win this cleanly, she needs to go out and tell her supports to get behind Obama and beat McCain.

"So did Carter. Neither were, to my recollection, vilified to the degree that Clinton has been."

Actually, Carter *is* part of the reason that people are worried about Clinton. I've read more than one article talking about how Carter and Ted Kenedey's convention fight weakened Carter to the point that he lost even though he was the incumbent. Maybe he would have lost anyway, but the perception is that he lost partly because of a convention battle, so that has people worrying about another convention battle.

But like I said in my last post, there isn't going to be a convention battle. Hillary doesn't want to go down in history as the reason Obama loses the General.

From Mike:

1. Then why did McCain take the corrections? 2. Does it then go without saying that when KBR tries to coerce their contractors in Iraq who've been raped to their contracts to not file criminal reports, they are following official US policy? Are you going to stand by a tie to Iran by using their weapons, but deny the tie of the no-bid government contract?

How is this relevant? How does a man's errors and corporate behavior make intelligence inaccurate? People on the ground, American and Iraqi, have noted Iranian made weaponry. Not only the weaponry, but Iranian agents (volunteers of course) engaged in supply the weapons, training militiamen in their use, even handling the weapons in combat.

From Jerry Chandler:

The issue that you can run into with that logic is the same one that we run into when we find American made weaponry in the hands of people in the Middle East that we never sold them to.

Non-starter. Purchases from Iranian agents. Training by Iranian agents. At a volume that speaks of Iranian government involvement.

But that doesn't matter to you, you have your bete noir and you aint letting him go. The years will go by, memories will fade, and new, deadlier conflicts will take Iraq's place. But the two of you will be cackling triumphantly over your imaginary victory against the evil Dubya. Meanwhile become more and more impotently outraged when your heroes admit to being wrong, or are revealed as being willing accomplices to lies and misrepresentation.

You see what you want to see, believe what you want to believe. You pounce on the slightest misstep your enemies make, and inflate it into a crime against humanity. The vaguest anti-war rumor becomes the Word of God. Unimpeachable evidence vague rumors of half-heard hints or things seen out of the corner of the eye on an overcast night during a power outage. Truth pains you, lies are comforting; so as a frightened cat seeks out the comfort of human arms and a human voice, you seek out the comfort of lies.

You are become enemies of hope, and society shall one day learn that you offer nothing.

Agreed. I've been shooting down Hillary because of association with Big Willy... why can't Michelle be a target? Bush's daughters have been under attack! Bush Jr and Sr have been under attack... if you're going to associate yourself politically, then be prepared to get involved in the politics of it all.

Agreed. I've been shooting down Hillary because of association with Big Willy... why can't Michelle be a target? Bush's daughters have been under attack! Bush Jr and Sr have been under attack... if you're going to associate yourself politically, then be prepared to get involved in the politics of it all.

Agreed. I've been shooting down Hillary because of association with Big Willy... why can't Michelle be a target? Bush's daughters have been under attack! Bush Jr and Sr have been under attack... if you're going to associate yourself politically, then be prepared to get involved in the politics of it all.

...when you find Iraqi militias using Iranian made weaponry, it's a safe bet somebody in Iran is providing it. When they're using a lot of Iranian made weaponry, then the Iranian government knows about it, and approves of the delivery.

Alan,

1. Then why did McCain take the corrections?
2. Does it then go without saying that when KBR tries to [hold] their contractors in Iraq who've been raped to their contracts to not file criminal reports, they are following official US policy? Are you going to stand by a tie to Iran by using their weapons, but deny the tie of the no-bid government contract?

How is this relevant? How does a man's errors and corporate behavior make intelligence inaccurate?

The intelligence is that insurgents are fighting with Iranian weapons, and I ain't denying it.

What's inaccurate is the notion the insurgents preferring to fight with the weapons of their enemies over fighting unarmed means its done with the consent of the weapons source.

My analogy is relevant by definition of the word "analogy." Review your own words with the analogous objects inserted in it:

...when you find [no bid contractors obstructing rape prosecutions between their own employees], it's a safe bet somebody [handling the contract payment] is [sheltering] it. When they're [obstructing] a lot of [rape filings, as they are], then the [no-bid contractee] knows about it, and approves of the [obstruction]. [Republicans] are competent, never assume they aren't. They may be domineering loons, but they are competent domineering loons.

You heard it here, folks, obstructing a rape victim from filing a complaint is Corporate Behavior.™ It's not evil, it's an Error.™

You are become enemies of hope, and society shall one day learn that you offer nothing.

You cannot put down the protectionist sniveling anytime too soon.

Matt Adler,
McCain is the Republican candidate, but he is far from the Republicans' most-liked national figure. Heck, he was my third choice of the announced candidates behind Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. I know many Republicans McCain drives nuts. At this point, I'd say the most beloved Republican national figures are some of the pundits.
Not that they won't work hard for McCain. But he still has a lot of work to do to earn their love.

Joseph W.,
You really think the media are "dyed-in-the wool Republicans"? Then why the softball treatment of Obama? Why do the vast majority of them Democrat? There are plenty of other examples, but the biggest to me is..When the economy was growing, all we heard about was bad news about the Iraq War. Now that the Surge is working, it's all Economy, all the Time. (And even that is ridiculous. Judging by most news outlets, you would swear unemployment was at 25%.
One of the big problems is food prices, of which Ethanol mandates by the government have contributed mightily. Yet only McCain has called for elimination of subsidies to big farmers in this boom time for farming. He did it in IOWA, no less. saying it's wrong for the average taxpayer to be hit with a double whammy of paying taxes to support programs that result in higher prices.
Obama? he was quoted as saying he wants to "reduce" the # of MILLIONAIRES who receive government farm subsidies. Where are we at as a nation where a professed agent of CHANGE doesn't want to eliminate them completely?
And there are som many success stories in Iraq not being told it is disgusting. Disgusting to our troops and disgusting to our nation.

PAD: "I'm still fuzzy on this whole "too long" thing, considering that two candidates going all the way to the convention is hardly unprecedented. As I recall, Reagan did it. So did Carter. Neither were, to my recollection, vilified to the degree that Clinton has been."

My feeling on it, and I think the general feeling on it, is that it's a given that Hillary will not be given the nod. She's not getting it and she hasn't even a prayer of getting it. The party isn't going to stab Obama in the back for Hillary or risk the divisions and repercussions of even looking like they're going to do so. This is a waste of time and of money for Obama and the Democratic party as a whole.

And I'm not an Obama backer. I'm damn sure not for McCain and Hillary is rapidly spending any credit I may have once given her, but I'm not an Obama person and even I'm shaking my head and rolling my eyes each time Hillary opens her mouth and goes on about the possibility of her being given the nod. It's just not going to happen and it's not even a realistic idea at this point.

Honestly, the only two groups (for the most part) of people who really want her to keep going at this point are her most ardent supporters and the Republicans. One group because they're hoping for a last minute miracle play and the other because they want Obama as bloody and beaten as possible going into the actual race against McCain. When you look at that, you don't see a whole lot of reasons to be very supportive of her continuing her crusade and a whole lot of reasons to want her to drop out and go home.

Jason M. Bryant : "I doubt this will go to the convention."

It will if Clinton is true to her word and does what she said she's going to do just an hour ago.

"At that point there is no good reason for Hillary to keep fighting. Up until now it made sense to keep fighting because there were still battles she could win."

I actually think we hit that point about five to six weeks back. Hillary could have bowed out and then positioned herself as a powerful candidate for 2012 if Obama blows it in November. Now, she's burnt a lot of bridges and I think that many in the electorate, the media and even in the party will partly blame her for damaging Obama, distracting the party and delaying Obama's ability to start going after McCain. They may not be 100% justified, but when are groups of people ever 100% justified when looking for a scapegoat?

Josh Pritchett, Jr: "3: If it goes to the convetion and the super delegates get cold feet and give it to Hillary or decide that they will count Florida and Michigan the way Hillary wants after all after all, this will say to millons of Obama supporters: "Hey, I know Obama told you, you matter, but you don't. Please vote for us in November!""

Not gonna happen. They're not going to risk the fractures and the repercussions that they'll be facing by screwing over the first truly popularly elected black nominee for the Democratic party's presidential nomination. I don't see them stabbing him, his supporters and, basically, the voters in back for Hillary and risking the disenfranchisement of one of their most cherished voter blocks. And considering how poorly the last Clinton presidency did for the health of the party as a whole, I don't see them wanting to risk all of that for maybe a repeat of Bill's effect on the party's majority status.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alan Kellogg : "Yadda, yadda, yadda. Drivel. BS. More garbage. But the two of you will be cackling triumphantly over your imaginary victory against the evil Dubya. The vaguest anti-war rumor becomes the Word of God. You are become enemies of hope, and society shall one day learn that you offer nothing."

Actually, Tweedle-Dee the Wonder Dummy, I've been critical of Bush and crew, but I've also pointed out when they've been unfairly criticized or attacked over some issues. I know that it's likely that, from what you just wrote, you have your head too far up Bush, Rush, Cheney and Hannity's asses to see clearly and you never read anything without running through your Fox News decoder ring, but I did point out that there is some evidence of Iran playing dirty in Iraq in this very thread. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that there has yet to be conclusive proof that Iran's government is in full support of these actions or if it's being done by just a faction within that government. You know, how your likely heroes and idols of worship like Reagan and North sold weapons to Iran behind the backs of the rest of the law abiding US Government.

And if anyone in this country can be called an enemy of hope, it's the people who ran this country the last 7 1/2 years through continued use of the fear card, by stripping this country of it's moral compass, by misleading the people and by doing everything they could to destroy what this country should be standing for. That'd be Bush and crew by the by. The other group of people that are the enemy of hope? The mouth-breathing jackasses who who supported their every play no matter how badly it trashed everything that this country stands for.

Have a nice night.

Ben Rosenberg,
"Her comment doesn't bother me at all...it's like saying one has to be proud of everything a parent does or does not do"
No. It's not like that at all. It's like saying a parent (do you feel government is your parent?) hasn't done ANYTHING right in about 20 years or more. Big difference.

Josh Pritchett, Jr.,
"The press covered (the) Hillary sniper fire thing for less than 3 days"

In which country? Certainly not this one. Hillary deservedly got the crap kicked out of her by the media, vets, vets' groups, and everyday citizens on the news for over a week afterward. So much so this VERY pro-Clinton state, which I live in, was starting to slip away from her until Obama made his infamous "cling to religion and guns" statement". At which point mant voters apparently assumed a liar was better than someone who was that condescending to them and her poll numbers shot up again.

PAD,
"I'm still fuzzy on this whole 'too long' thing"

Me, too.

1.) The VOTERS are the ones who are still showing up. A lot of these states have not had relevant primaries in YEARS. This long primary has, I think, kept the Democrats and their issues and their Bush-bashing in the spotlight while pretty much drowning out McCain and registering loads of new voters EARLY. A incredible # of voters registerd Democrat or switched over to what they felt was a historic primary. For those without strong ideology or family tradition of party (or even with it) why would you register as Republican when there was all this excitement going on for the Democrats.

2.) The primaries and coverage of them have also helped spur a tremendous fundraising advantage for the Democrats so far.

3.) The superdelegates are going to ultimately decide it anyway, so why not have Obama toughen up a bit and see if he can take it? As W. Virginia and Kentucky, not to mention Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania - important staes those - is that there remains a huge bloc of voters over which Obama's majestic oratory has not connected. Why not see if that corrects itself in the few remaining contests? Why risk buyers' remorse?
You know, I kind of feel a grudging respect for Hillary for soldiering on when so much pressure is being brought upon her to quit.

Hey, Alan Kellogg, here's a quote for you. I've deleted the name to ask a question at the end.

Iran sends no weapon to Iraq

"Those who make such claims against Iran only express their personal views which don't reflect those of the Iraqi government," he said in interview with the Al-Arabiya TV on Friday.

"I, *********************, do not agree with such views," he added.

"Our Iranian brothers are ready for dialogue on any such issues," *********** said.

"As far as Iranian weapons are concerned it should be mentioned that during Saddam Hussein's rule Iran provided weapons for the Iraqi opposition groups," he added.

********* also called for enhanced ties between Iraq and Iran and said that "I strongly believe that the relations between Iran and Iraq in different fields could be further strengthened," IRNA quoted him as saying."

Who said that? Was it someone in Iran? Was it a member of Iran's government?

No.

www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=56077§ionid=351020201

That was form Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani.

Now, if he's on our side, that should be a factual statement. That means that Iran isn't doing what you claim they are doing. But if you say he can't be trusted and that he's telling lies, what does that say about Bush's "success" in Iraq and the situation he's created where two supposedly dangerous countries that damaged each other and nullified their overall ability to be a threat are now being best friends? What does that say about the conservatives boasting about how the war is making America safer if the government in Iraq that we helped put there is, unlike the last one, friendly towards Iran and Iran is, in the words of so many conservatives, a danger to us and is our enemy?

And if you want to talk about anything being taken as the word of god by someone, look no further than you believing everything you hear about Iran and weapons. Remember last month the conservative talk show hosts burbling on about the Iranian weapons that we'd recovered and now had as proof? Remember how that was the smoking gun.

And then people wanted to see the proof.

They were going to show off some of those alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists early this month in Karbala and then destroy them. The photo op was canceled after the United States "suddenly" realized that none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin.

But don't let that stop you from calling those weapons "Iranian" at your next meeting of conservative lunkheads are us.

Ok, the link got scuttled since this morning when I first saw it. Just Google portions of the speech. It'll come up with hits for several Middle East news channels. The only reason I used Press TV was that they did have a link to the video, so, even though they're based out of Iran, it would be hard to fake that.

Non-starter. Purchases from Iranian agents. Training by Iranian agents. At a volume that speaks of Iranian government involvement

*sigh*

Y'alls not using your head.

Iran. Next door. With munitions companies. Cheap shipping and transportation.

You don't NEED government intervention to have Iranian companies climbing all over themselves to sell stuff to a hot, nearby market and keep making money hand over fist. You just need a government not to say "No".

On the other hand...look at it from Iran's viewpoint...next door neighbor...occupied by an unfriendly power to you...you'd be STUPID not to try influence things. And...hey...they're not invading a country to make things go their way.

The position you seem to be taking doesn;t seem that well thought out...

Luigi Novi.
You know I always respect your articulate and well thought out opinions, but I have to disagree with your statement that Michelle Obama's statements are not relevant to this election.
What's the old saying that you can judge a person by the company he or she keeps? Obama's whole campaign is basically about the optimism he instills in people, how he makes people "feel". Which is fine. That's why many are calling him a Democratic Reagan and - given the prevailing mood and results in the recent special elections why he may actually turn some red states blue. That's his strength.
But if you have a mentor who seems to have some VERY negative views of Americsa and a wife who says she has NEVER been proud of America in her adult lifeuntil her husband starting doing well in the primaries, it does a few things:
1.) Dampens the optimistic aura of Obama
2.) Reinforces the idea that Democrats from Clinton to Edwards are negative about the country and Republicans are positive
3.) makes you wonder what the hell she is thinking and more importantly what he is thinking
I mean, really, from scientific, technological and medical advances; from entrpreneurs AND philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett; from relief efforts like Clinton and Bush 41 headed to all the other aid we have given the world throughout the years (heck, Bob Geldof even said Bush's efforts in Africa have been ignored and they are close to a miracle, which is a shame for both Bush and the Africans. he says aid there has saved milions of lives).
We have had space shuttles and our mayors and governorships grow from increasingly diverse America genes; we have recently had a woman Attorney general and a black National Security Advisor, who would become Secretary of State, becoming the second black to hold that position since the LAST Secretary of State.
We also had millions of Americans donate blood and put aside their differences in response to 9/11.
Is the country perfect? But someone who sees NOTHING to proud of when they look at it, think about it and live in it says something about that person. It also says something about the person who is (arguably?) closest to that person and knows them the best.

Iran is NOT sending arms to Iraq.

How do I know this?

The head of their country says it isn't happening.

The head of a country wouldn't lie to us, would he?

Hmmm?

On the other hand...look at it from Iran's viewpoint...next door neighbor...occupied by an unfriendly power to you...you'd be STUPID not to try influence things.

After Iraq's "purple thumb" election, Iraq became a Shiite-controlled government like Iran. Muqtada al Sadr agreed to a cease fire not after talking to any Iraqi officials, but after negotiating with Iran. Iran and Iraq are not unfriendly to each other.

You'd have to be STUPID to think Iran wants to destroy its own already substantial influence in Iraq.

What's the old saying that you can judge a person by the company he or she keeps?

Yeah, what's that old saying and -- with photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and Cheney taking $73m from Saddam to quadruple his oil revenues when he was offering a bounty to the families of suicide bombers -- why aren't you holding Bush's administration to it? And why aren't you holding McCain on his campaign to keed p the books closed on what Bush has done?

But if you have a mentor who seems to have some VERY negative views of Americsa and a wife who says she has NEVER been proud of America in her adult lifeuntil her husband starting doing well in the primaries...

Yeah, everyone's dad gets to have a mid-life crisis, the US gets to open its doors as the epitome of freedom while holding out its first century and a half before giving the vote to all its citizens, but if the civil rights movement needs the least bit of slack to go through an end of youth adjustment? Those bastards are just ungrateful.

Alan, I don't know how sarky you're being, but the quotes that I posted above where from President (of Iraq) Jalal Talabani speaking in a televised interview with the Al-Arabia TV of Iraq.

The two choices are that he's telling the truth or he's not. If he's telling the truth, then Iran's government is not behind the sales of arms to the insurgents in Iraq. Granted, this doesn't rule out a small faction in the government, but that's not the same as something being done with the full blessing of the official government.

Now, if he's a liar and he's not telling the truth... What does that mean? What does that say about the Iraq situation if the head of that country is siding with Iran over us? What does that mean when the head of that state is telling his own people that America is telling them lies about Iran and that Iran is a good country to create further and stronger bonds with? What does that say about our success in Iraq when Iraq is getting more and more buddy-buddy with a country that our government keeps declaring is evil and supporting terrorism?

To quote George Bush: Mission Accomplished.

"but if the civil rights movement needs the least bit of slack"

See. That's where you go wrong. By automatically making any statement like that part of the 'civil rights movement" and therefore forgivable. how convenient. And how condescending.
You know what? People like Jesse Owens and Jackie Robinson found plenty in this country to be proud about, despite never afforded the pleasures - and rights as you noted - Mrs. Obama has. As that conservative, pie-in-the-sky, America-is-always-right candidate/activist Al Sharpton points out in many speeches, Ray Charles, though blind and living through a lot of the injustice you allude to, became identified with singing a beautiful rendition of "America the Beautiful" because despite his disability and all the other crap he had been through he could SEE those "amber waves of grain"; he could see the "purple mountains majesties".
In short, he loved his country though it wasn't perfect and he could see the reality of America coming closer to the ideal.
And really, the reason Obama has been so successful is because he is not seen by many as the "black candidate". He is seen as the "change" candidate.
If he - or those close to him - becomes identified as another Angry/Oppressed Black Man/Woman blaming America for their ills and playing to White Guilt, they - swing voters and Reagan Democrates - will go to McCain in droves. People want an optimistic, realistic vision for the future right now. They don't want to say "here we go again". Saying there is nothing about America of which to be proud is like saying it has no faults. It is extremist thinking. And not very inspirational.

Well, as I've said, it's Obama's followers that are his biggest threat. But he's shown the ability to see this and act on it--some of the hard core Israel bashers have been purged from the campaign and he delivered the proper smack down to Wright when it became apparent that his act of kindness in his first speech in not cutting ties resulted in Wright thinking he had carte blanc to go hard core insane-o and claim that Obama secretly agreed with him.

He's made mistakes but the real test is whether he's learned from them and so far it seems he has. he has some potential problems with the embittered Hillary women and needs to watch out for any slights real or imagined on that front--no more "sweetie" when talking to female reporters.

Unfortunately, there isn't much he can do about the really nutty bloggers and media types who think they are helping somehow by calling the people who vote against him racist hillbillies, or trashing Hillary and her not inconsiderable following, but even here he can partially negate their toxicity by campaigning in states like KY and West Virginia. He will still lose those states but it will say something about his character that will help him across the country.

I think Al Gore put it best back in 1992 when the GOP was going after Hillary Clinton.

"It's like they're running for First Lady... and with your help, they'll lose that, too."

But if you have a mentor who seems to have some VERY negative views of Americsa and a wife who says she has NEVER been proud of America in her adult lifeuntil her husband starting doing well in the primaries...

Yeah, everyone's dad gets to have a mid-life crisis, the US gets to open its doors as the epitome of freedom while holding out its first century and a half before giving the vote to all its citizens, but if the civil rights movement needs the least bit of slack to go through an end of youth adjustment? Those bastards are just ungrateful.

See. That's where you go wrong. By automatically making any statement like that part of the 'civil rights movement" and therefore forgivable. how convenient. And how condescending.
You know what? People like Jesse Owens and Jackie Robinson found plenty in this country to be proud about, despite never afforded the pleasures - and rights as you noted - Mrs. Obama has. As that conservative, pie-in-the-sky, America-is-always-right candidate/activist Al Sharpton points out in many speeches, Ray Charles, though blind and living through a lot of the injustice you allude to, became identified with singing a beautiful rendition of "America the Beautiful" because despite his disability and all the other crap he had been through he could SEE those "amber waves of grain"; he could see the "purple mountains majesties".
In short, he loved his country though it wasn't perfect and he could see the reality of America coming closer to the ideal.

Jerome, feel free to introduce any observations challenging anything I've said anytime you're ready.

McCain is the Republican candidate, but he is far from the Republicans' most-liked national figure. Heck, he was my third choice of the announced candidates behind Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. I know many Republicans McCain drives nuts. At this point, I'd say the most beloved Republican national figures are some of the pundits.
Not that they won't work hard for McCain. But he still has a lot of work to do to earn their love.

I was talking about the public at large.

If it were virtually any other Republican this year, he wouldn't have a shot. Of course, the same things that made mainstream voters warm up to him are also the problems that the Republican base has with him. But he is attempting to do that "work" you mention, to get back in favor with the reactionary and xenophobic wing of his party, with his recent attacks on Obama regarding Hamas and "appeasement".

I'm still fuzzy on this whole "too long" thing, consider