Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Reddit"I believe any partisanship ends at the water's edge," John McCain said when he visited Colombia in early July.
At least that's what McCain believes when he's across the water.
Since Obama departed overseas--on a trip McCain baited him to take--the McCain campaign has sent out a barrage of emails, statements and press clips attacking Obama. I counted five attacks this morning alone, ridiculing Obama for opposing the "surge" in Iraq and supporting a timetable to withdraw combat troops.
The McCain campaign, as my colleague John Nichols noted this morning, is getting desperate.
Obama's brilliantly orchestrated trip abroad has undermined the best rationale for McCain's candidacy: that he'd be the strongest commander-in-chief in a time of war. But now the leader of the country that McCain calls "the central battleground in the war in the struggle against al-Qaeda" has practically endorsed Obama. The Europeans have already made their preference mighty clear.
The world is desperate for a new face of America, one that can rebuild historic alliances, defuse potential enemies and threats, and begin to transcend barriers of race and class. Just like he does at home, Obama signals something new and different and fascinating abroad. His popularity, whether in Baghdad or Berlin--and the McCain campaign's predictably negative response--is refreshing, but not surprising.
To our friends abroad, McCain represents the policies of the past, while Obama embodies what America should--or could--be.
Convention News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
>>>To our friends abroad, McCain represents the policies of the past, while Obama embodies what America should--or could--be.<<<
Well said, Ari!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/22/2008 @ 11:15am
BERMAN: "The McCain campaign,.....is getting desperate......The world is desperate for a new face of America, one that can rebuild historic alliances, defuse potential enemies and threats, and begin to transcend barriers of race and class."
IF "getting desperate" means McCain is now running neck and neck with Magic......let's let him have more room to get "desperate"! Also, credit must also be given to Magic's RUSHing to the middle.....even, daire I say, to the Right of McCain.....heheheheh!!!
IF "The world is desperate" means they are electing right-of-center gov'ts over the Bush 43 years, then let's let them have more room to get even more "desperate"....just so you Loonies have forgotten: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan, Columbia,........
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:19am
Obama is a celebrety, not a leader...the press is not reporting news on the candidates, but providing PR service for Obama as part of his entourage..only thing they are not selling is T-shirts and posters with pics of their "personal interview" with the star..
Our MSM is embarassing to watch as they complete the marriage with the Democrat Party... the National Enquirer has set the standard and the MSM has sunk down to embrace it..
And the likes of the Nation rag revel in the circus.
If McCain win the election(first he has to beat the MSM, then Obama..a tough job), will the public find out or will the headlines wonder if Obie will run against Hillary again...
The MSM is determined to bring Obama into the White House..and if they do..we will pay a heavy price..heavier than the Bush years...
The MSM Obama worship feast has turned the Obama campaign into another "reality" show on MTV.
Now wonder the world is begining to laugh at us...Obama campaigned in Europe for Gods sake..the dems and the press have turned this election into Entertainment Tonight.
And we wonder why so many people do not vote..I am begining to understand...when the article states "Obama under attack when over seas"..one has to wonder how that is possible when one can't find anything in the MSM anywhere reagarding McCain..and the rag here worries that Obama is under attack, as if that is a problem...the left attacks any republican President during time of war anywhere with impunity while he IS a President..continuiously,... but now is upset during a campaign about attacks on the lefty in a campaign trip on a European vacation movie set?
This is ridiculous.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 11:31am
.....This is ridiculous.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 11:31am
It's OK.....I actually like the severe INbalance of coverage....and continued `fawning' by the MSM! By being blatantly one-sided.......not much different than Madison Ave. selling Frosty Flakes or Viagra.......thinking people will realize, why is the Media trying to cram Magic down everyones' throat.....hmmmmmmm.....
This will be remembered as a watershed year for the MSM....NOT in a good way for their job security nor trustworthiness in the eyes of their `suckers/customers'!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:43am
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:43am
I find the MSM offensive to my intelligence..
Are you in the path of the hurricane in Houston area?
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 11:48am
Does this make him a "Global Organoiser'?
I can see the college campii opening up a new major area of study..
Community Organisation 101..taught by Big Al and the follow up semester run by Ol'Jesse..
a complete 140 day program with degree that now qualifies one to lead a nation...
we are screwed.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 11:51am
I find the MSM offensive to my intelligence..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 11:48am
And vice versa I'm sure...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 11:58am
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 11:58am
"And vice versa I'm sure..."
At least we agree on something. The MSM makes it abundantly clear everyday that they have nothing but contempt for half their audience. This is why most newspapers are failing and should be, thankfully, gone in a couple of years. When one forgets that ones' business is there to serve customers, not 'educate', indoctrinate, or blatantly lie to them (e.g., Dan Rather), extinction is not far away. Polls already show that most Americans realize the MSM is biased in favor of Democrats, wants to show the economy as worse than it is, and is solidly behind Obama, and rates its trustworthiness as below that of Congress (which is already far below Bush's ratings).
Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 12:09pm
Well, yeah-- considering that all the "serge" really is is a 're- un- re- anti- re- semi- re- dis- re- a- resurge' that actually started from the very beginning. Only follows that McCave's entire premise for being 'right about the wrong' would collapse so easily due to it's on vacuity.
Sunday, September 14, 2003
MR. RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you're going to get into a debate here about--talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that's a non-starter. I don't think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don't think it's necessary to do that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 12:11pm
er, due to it's 'own' vacuity. (see 'W's MIA)
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 12:11pm
This last post of yours appears to have lapsed completely into utterly incomprehensible pointlessness.
Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 12:15pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:19am
No, HAPP...he's getting desperate because HIS PLAN (getting Obama to go to Iraq and getting the networks to cover it)....blew up in his face.
The plan WAS to either embarass Obama, by his refusal to go with McCain to Iraq...or get him to go with McCain and pump up Maverick John while dissing Obama overseas.
Problem was...Obama went WITHOUT McCain and the network anchors went WITHOUT McCain...
and it is turning into a nightmare for him because it's cutting into the ONE issue that he lays claim to...foreign policy.
Plus al-Maliki ONCE AGAIN "hinted" that he supports Obama's plan for withdrawal....and not McCain's "we'll win it someday as long as we stay until way after I get elected for my 2nd term" plan.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 12:15pm
The "conservatives" are already whining about a media conspiracy. "Conservatives" should stop. Let them expect their candidate to compete effectively. On foreign policy, so far, he hasn't done much except make repeated geography mistakes while speaking in front of cameras and demand that he knows "how to win wars". This is probably not going to go over well in a country that is domestically "fatigued by war" or with foreign countries that have seen nearly 8 years of extremely militaristic US rule wreak havoc.
It is not surprising that foreign leaders would warm to Obama rapidly. For one thing, they expect he will win, and they want to immediately curry favor with the expected victor. For another thing, frankly, McCain has demonstrated so far that he is a boob on foreign policy - he has no policy except maintaining the disastrous status quo under Bush, and, again, he doesn't even seem to know the basic geography of the regions he speaks of.
Posted by Zero at 07/22/2008 @ 12:15pm
er, 'its'
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 12:16pm
er, 'its'
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 12:16pm
Monty Python's Flying Circus! (cue music)
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 12:19pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 12:15pm
Speaking of pointlessness, how about Obama's foreign policy? The only thing he has had the courage to make any firm stand at all about (opposition to the Surge) has been shown to be utterly, completely wrong. In response, he says he doesn't care whether he's wrong or not. How does anyone take this guy seriously? Well, I mean, among non-Kool-Aid drinkers.
Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 12:22pm
Look, there are consequences for demonstrating massive leadership failures in front of powerful people such as foreign heads-of-state or even the brass of your own military. American generals in charge of the Iraq disaster are probably desperately hoping for competent civilian leadership in the next presidential administration. They are probably amongst the most desperate figures for "change" as they are faced with a lethal, unwinnable conflict that has broken their military (according to them) and that needs to be brought to closure and the responsibility for that lies with civilian political leaders not generals. So yes, they are happy to photo op with Obama, who is widely seen as more likely to end the disaster than McCain, who is in a straight jacket imposed by his party and affilations that would prevent him from ending the conflict. The consequences of the failure of Bush and the Republicans for McCain.
Posted by Zero at 07/22/2008 @ 12:22pm
Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 12:22pm
Sorry, PONTI, but MCCAIN is the one who is slowly shifting towards Obama's position of out in 16 months.
Remember first he was "100 year 'presence'" (Oh sure "if the killings and woundings had ended"...but then...if they DIDN'T end, we'd STILL have to stay...so whether we "won" or "kept going with the Surge"...we stay)
Then he was "I'll have won Iraq by January 2013". Problem was he couldn't explain HOW he would "win"...or what EXACTLY "win" meant.
NOW, he's down to saying "I could see us out by then", referring to 2010.
AND he's watching al-Maliki "hint" that he supports the Obama position, while McCain is saying HE knows better what the Iraqis want than they do.
So for a guy so wrong about foreign policy...seems both international leaders AND a Republican candidate aare sure moving in his direction, huh?
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 12:26pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 12:26pm
"Sorry, PONTI, but MCCAIN is the one who is slowly shifting towards Obama's position of out in 16 months."
MASK, you really are hilarious.
Do you think the reason for 'shifting' is the fact that it has, in recent months, become clearly apparent that we have won in Iraq? That the surge that Obama opposed, and STILL opposes, has done the trick? Thus making a 16 month withdrawal feasible, finally? That to have withdrawn based on Obama's purely political timetable, accompanied by his disastroustly poor judgement to oppose the Surge, would have led to catastrophe in Iraq?
And now that we've succeeded, in spite of Obama, it all redounds to his credit after all? Bizarre.
My only question is, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE the stuff you write? Or is that unnecessary, given that it comes, primarily, straight from the propaganda of the NYT?
Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 12:35pm
McCain represents the policies of delusional thinking. Bush has disenfranchised his party, and disenchanted the world... even bringing to the fore the cornerstones of conservative economics shows this administration to be woefully shy of efficient management and compulsively anathematic to the public sector.
That these traits of governing must be curtailed is obvious...
Kool-aid is what the Neo-Cons drink... and it's about time they spent a little 'time' in rehab.
Posted by ttr at 07/22/2008 @ 12:46pm
I have alaways believed that we would withdraw combat force, not with draw from Iraq, but rather re stage our troops there when a couple of things happen..
1. The people have confidence in their govt to protect them.
2. The insurgence is decimated and has lost the support from the locals.
3. The security of the locals can be delivered by their own army.
4. The govt starts pushing back on us to let them run their own show..demostrating it can stand under its own strength now..(meetoing the 18 or whatever points Congress set).
Once these "symptons" arise, then the shape and structure of our presence will morph.
That is not a "new "position but rather the goal all along...Obamas "PLAN" seems to be a recycled, repackaged plan of what Bush and Co have stated in the years past...
and once the conditions on the ground has taken on the shape of the above points, then one can look toward a withdrawl option...but to announce a timetable to those you have vanquished seems to me would give AQ something they have been losing on the battle field ..hope.....an to give the enemy hope is a betrayal to our troops who have died.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 12:55pm
"The only thing he has had the courage to make any firm stand at all about (opposition to the Surge) has been shown to be utterly, completely wrong"
there is no evidence to support the above claim. and, please, don't waste your precious time trying to find any.
"Obamas "PLAN" seems to be a recycled, repackaged plan of what Bush and Co have stated in the years past..."
oh boy....
can someone please educate us as to how bush had a plan? 50 billion dollar war? oil will pay for it? surge will guarantee it?
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 1:07pm
"Do you think the reason for 'shifting' is the fact that it has, in recent months, become clearly apparent that we have won in Iraq?"
"won"?
all i remember is the united states army blanketing an empty space with enormous penises, ransacking the facilities and infrastructure, and allowing our "enemies" (i.e. more men with enormous penises) to come in and fill that precious vulva, er, void. thank you.
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 1:11pm
IF "getting desperate" means McCain is now running neck and neck with Magic......let's let him have more room to get "desperate"! Also, credit must also be given to Magic's RUSHing to the middle.....even, daire I say, to the Right of McCain.....heheheheh!!! IF "The world is desperate" means they are electing right-of-center gov'ts over the Bush 43 years, then let's let them have more room to get even more "desperate"....just so you Loonies have forgotten: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan, Columbia,........ Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:19am
Wow you must be getting really desperate for something to say if you are trying to make out Obama to be to the right of McCain. Does this mean he will have your vote Happy?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:14pm
can one claim, with any assurance, that obama was "utterly wrong" in opposing the so-called 'surge'?
i would really, really love to see evidence of said claim.
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 1:15pm
This is ridiculous. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 11:31am
You know what you sound like Jom? A liberal 2 years ago. When liberals were criticizing the media for NOT criticizing Bush. The MSM is not loyal to a party. The MSM is loyal to profits. They blow with the wind. They are not married to any party. Show me examples from the MSM of negative coverage of McCain. I would like to see where that is. I don't mean here at the Nation. I mean the MSM.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:16pm
Well, yeah-- OK, rewrite.
Lets consider that all McCave's big RIGHT about the "surge" really is is a 're- un- re- anti- re- semi- re- dis- re- a- resurge' that had started, ebbed and flowed from the very beginning.
Sunday, September 14, 2003
MR. RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you're going to get into a debate here about--talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that's a non-starter. I don't think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don't think it's necessary to do that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
Only follows that McCave's entire premise for being 'right about the wrong' Iraqi war and its once again another countlessly repeated round the corner victory surges would collapse so easily due to its own vacuity.
What else does McCave got?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 1:23pm
This is ridiculous. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 11:31am
By the way have you forgotten, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Rezko, inexperienced, seceret Muslim, Terrorist love him, terrorist fist jabs, flip flopper, wife is secretly racist, Obama is secretly racist, bitterness, Michelle has never been proud of her country. Each one of those has had a cycle in the MSM. To the point that people actually believe that Obama IS a secret Muslim. That he goes home every night and prays to Allah and prepares his transmissions to his terrorist leaders. Okay that last part might be an exaggeration. What has been said that is negative about McCain? That he might be too old for the role of Presidency? What have they said negative about his service in the MSM? Most people know nothing about McCain's service. That he is similar to Bush? This is true for one and for two why is that considered negative publicity by the people who LIKE Bush.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:24pm
Show me examples from the MSM of negative coverage of McCain. I would like to see where that is. I don't mean here at the Nation. I mean the MSM.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:16pm
My evidence is ther fact that every media outlet is following Obie into his World Tour 2008, including the MSM news anchors, and McCain has been to Iraq..how many times? Any coverage other than statement with archive footage right before a commercial break?
NO COVERAGE is worse than negative coverage....for in negative coverage one gets mentioned...
whats is a worse insult to you as a person..my disagreeing and having a dialog, even a brutal one, or my treatment of you as if you did not exist and ignored you despite the fact I am standing in front of you..
When McCain was criticizing Bush he couldn't use a pay toilet without passing through the herd of MSM reporters...now...he could use the facility without a door and no one would know...
THATS the evidence, and many see it...on both sides.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 1:30pm
i would really, really love to see evidence of said claim. Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 1:15pm
No one can because we can't see the alternate future of no surge. We don't know what would have happened had we not done it. So the claims of the Republicans that the surge is the only thing that reduced violence is about as good as they claim other people acceptance that there is a correlation between carbon emissions and global warming.
People rarely if ever understand that correlation is not causation. You have to be able to PROVE it's the cause.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:32pm
Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 12:35pm
PONTI, if we've "won" in Iraq and Obama's plan for withdrawal in 16 months is "now feasible"...
why is McCain still opposing it?
(But, hey, glad to see you no longer oppose it!)
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 1:32pm
CC,
"...Each one of those has had a cycle in the MSM. To the point that people actually believe that Obama IS a secret Muslim. .."
And dismissed by the same MSM..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 1:34pm
People rarely if ever understand that correlation is not causation. You have to be able to PROVE it's the cause.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:32pm
Yup,
And that alone kills off ALGORE and his fraud.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 1:36pm
The NYT article Berman links to actually attempts to be a little more even handed (although Ari's anchor text claims that it references some kind of Maliki "endorsement" of Obama and his "plan"). It's not likely the blog-readers at The Nation bother to click through (although it's important to vet the claims of bloggers like Berman, who are liable to link to any old thing whether or not it supports their point). I'll try to fill in the gap with some of that article's quotes:
*After a weekend of dispute about precisely what Mr. Maliki was suggesting, his spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told reporters in Baghdad, "We cannot give any timetables or dates, but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal." *
This doesn't quite mesh with Obama's plan, which quotes anonymous "military experts" in support of his formula to "safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010...." This plan offers both a firm timetable and a date, supported by vacuous sentiment only (and certainly not informed by named experts, or any personal experience Obama can claim for himself). It takes no account of future developments and our responsibilities in the region. Let's also not forget that it's Obama's "plan B," filed in his campaign script as "What to say if I'm ridiculously wrong about the troop surge." Since a firm 16 doesn't equal a tentative 22, even the math doesn't work for a "Maliki endorsement."
I'd like to hear some rational arguments against this McCain quote (from the NYT article):
*"The fact is, if we had done what Senator Obama wanted to do, we would have lost," Mr. McCain told reporters in Kennebunkport, Me. "And we would have faced a wider war. And we would have had greater problems in Afghanistan and the entire region. And Iran would have increased their influence."*
Obama gets it wrong on the troop surge. Who wants to bet on his "firm" 16-month guess? Not me, and I'm not lonely in this opinion (ibid):
*American military commanders have also expressed qualms about setting a specific timetable for withdrawal, suggesting that to do so could risk reversing the progress made in Iraq since the United States increased its troop presence last year. On Sunday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Michael Mullen, told Fox News that the consequences of setting a two-year timeline for removing American combat troops "could be very dangerous."*
(At this point, a bit weary of the subject, NTY injects McCain's border flub, and contrasting the pictures of golf-cart McCain and helicopter Obama, after which they feel safe to proceed with realism.)
*"I think it is very important we build on this progress and recognize Iraqi sovereignty," (Obama) said shortly after meeting with Mr. Maliki and as he was starting a meeting with one of Iraq's vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni.
The talk of a strict timetable appeared to worry Mr. Hashimi. Sunni Muslims fear that a rapid withdrawal would leave them vulnerable to Shiite Muslim efforts to further diminish their power. Rather, he said the emphasis should be on the Iraqi army's readiness.*
Unless you think NYT gave you the literal translation of al-Hashimi's remarks, you probably should interpret this as his opposition to Obama's plan B.
*In an interview with ABC News on Monday in Baghdad, Mr. Obama said he would not be locked into a false choice between a rigid timetable for withdrawal that ignored changing conditions in Iraq and "completely deferring" to the recommendations of military commanders.*
I read into this that Obama Iraq plan B is headed for an exit, being yet another example of his poor judgment and inexperience. Of course, I think it's laudable to change positions based on changing facts, but the quality of one's judgment overall is harmed when one takes strong positions out of sheer ignorance, especially when one gets it totally wrong. Thankfully, Obama wasn't president during his Iraq plan A, but thankfully we all have a chance to review his record before electing him and his flawed judgment to that office.
*Before meeting with Mr. Hashimi, Mr. Obama said he was "pleased with the progress taking place" and said it was his impression that among Iraqis there was "more optimism about what is happening."
He spoke of more "activity taking place, the people in the shops, the traffic on the streets" and said, "Clearly, there's been an enormous improvement."*
Kudos to Obama for not trying to spin the plain facts on the ground. Shame on him for not admitting how wrong he has been. But one doesn't expect that from him, being a fine example of "politics as usual."
Posted by man00ver at 07/22/2008 @ 1:39pm
And that alone kills off ALGORE and his fraud.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 1:36pm
Ha Ha Ha, and all those thousands of stupid scientists...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 1:46pm
" Shame on him for not admitting how wrong he has been."
but props to mr. bush for sending us in?
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 1:47pm
that the political debate over iraq has now morphed from the Right saying, "We were right all along! And now we must Begin the Glorious Surge!" to, "Victory is Near, and Obama doesn't Taste it!" is so absurd, so ridiculous, so patently insulting!
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 1:49pm
When the 1st surge had already started:
Sunday, September 14, 2003
MR. RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you're going to get into a debate here about--talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that's a non-starter. I don't think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don't think it's necessary to do that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
-- only 320 US troops had died.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 1:54pm
But wait, if left to the new con repubs-- we'd still be in Vietnam too!
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 1:57pm
bush, and his dwindling band of thugs, er, supporters, have stepped up an enormous propaganda campaign to erase from our memories the role they have played in eviscerating our constitution AND illegally invading and occupying a sovereign country.
it's abundantly clear that many have already been effected by the campaign.
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 2:02pm
if people are soooooo upset about the MSM's obsessive coverage of obama, then how did you feel about the MSM's abysmal coverage during the pre-iraq war days?
care to comment on that coverage?
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 2:07pm
while Obama embodies what America should--or could--be.
those are forceful words.
could, should, may, might, ought.
comforting.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:09pm
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 1:49pm
"is so absurd, so ridiculous, so patently insulting!"
You left out 'clearly obvious'.
Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 2:09pm
now, once the iraqis are all good, can they come and invade and occupy our country? and blog all day in their air-conditioned offices about how best to pull out of our fair cities, once security is back to "normal"?
manover + jommamma = arrogant imperialists of the very highest order
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 2:09pm
I understand he had a news conference in Jordan, which I haven't seen yet, but he seems to have handled himself well and acted with discretion in Iraq and Afghanistan. No "Axis of Evil " type comments sprang from his lips. Lets hope he is a fast learner!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/22/2008 @ 2:10pm
As opposed to:
New con repubs
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 2:11pm
just so you Loonies have forgotten: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan, Columbia,........
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:19am
thanks for reminding me that canadians are just as dumb as americans :+}
looks like you're gonna get some rain:
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_loop.php
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:13pm
I really don't get this cognitive dissonance amongst you fevered lefties. Obama was wrong in his opposition to the Surge, we all know that, seems to me to be best for your own self-respect and for the sake of your own fundamental intellectual integrity to simply admit the error and move on. Certainly, it should be more satisfying to yourselves than trying to re-define what victory means (hint: it's what happens when the terrorists are defeated) or some other song and dance.
Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 2:16pm
Frosty Flakes or Viagra.......
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:43am
them's frosted flakes, flake.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:16pm
all i remember is the united states army blanketing an empty space with enormous penises, ransacking the facilities and infrastructure, and allowing our "enemies" (i.e. more men with enormous penises) to come in and fill that precious vulva, er, void. thank you.
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 1:11pm
i sure hope condoms were used.
somehow i doubt it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:19pm
"Obama was wrong in his opposition to the Surge, we all know that"
pontificus, i'm not sure you took a course in logic, but you cannot make the above claim without evidence.
since the so-called 'anti-surge' never took place, there is no way of knowing what would have happened had it did.
this is simple logic.
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 2:19pm
Community Organisation 101..taught by Big Al and the follow up semester run by Ol'Jesse..
a complete 140 day program with degree that now qualifies one to lead a nation...
we are screwed.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 11:51am
egad!
the voodoo loving darkies is gonna take over.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:22pm
"(hint: it's what happens when the terrorists are defeated)"
where were the "terrorists" prior to the invasion, to which, as you claim, obama was unwisely opposed?
and that obama had unwisely opposed an escalation to the war, as per the wishes of vast majorities of iraqis and americans, to where have the terrorists fled?
and now that obama supports a 16 month timetable, where will the terrorists go?
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 2:22pm
there is a very obvious reason why "terrorists" want to kill: we have been f*cking with them for decades, and in a way which would infuriate even the dalai lama.
can you imagine if iran had invaded canada? and formed military bases in juneau, victoria, labrador islands, baffin island, key largo, san diego, etc? had started pumping oil in alaska, northern canada? had chosen our leaders and our constitution for us? had unrelentingly supported mexico in their fight against us?
just put yourself in their shoes for a minute: the most mighty empire on earth, in your backyard, telling you what to do, killing innocent people, etc, et.....
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 2:25pm
just put yourself in their shoes for a minute: the most mighty empire on earth, in your backyard, telling you what to do, killing innocent people, etc, et.....
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 2:25pm
but darla,
those are FEELINGS.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:29pm
splurge for the surge, global gas buyers.
splurge for the surge, global food eaters.
yeah!
a success.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:30pm
I really don't get this...
Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 2:16pm
Yep, that's about right...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 2:30pm
i would really, really love to see evidence of said claim. Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 1:15pm
http://icasualties.org/oif/
If you actually look at the numbers, violence now is at rates that was between 2003 to early 2004 at the start of the war. There have been rates of violence that match the current period which is why I hesitate to claim the surge has worked.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
If you'll notice. Iraqi civilian deaths are higher now than they were in 2003- mid 2005. Sure overall there is a reduction in violence compared to the high points that came in 2006-2007 but is that because of he surge or because AQ has shifted the front of the fight from Iraq to Afghanistan? Evidence points to that being the more likely case. It is an odd coincidence that violence in Afghanistan has spiked when things are getting quieter in Iraq. Correlation is not causation but if the Republican pro-war crowd is willing to accept that because violence has ebbed that means the surge is working then they must also be willing to accept that because of the slow down in violence in Iraq and the increase in violence in Afghanistan it is more likely a shifting of fronts and not a war won.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:33pm
My evidence is ther fact that every media outlet is following Obie into his World Tour 2008, including the MSM news anchors, and McCain has been to Iraq..how many times? Any coverage other than statement with archive footage right before a commercial break? NO COVERAGE is worse than negative coverage....for in negative coverage one gets mentioned... whats is a worse insult to you as a person..my disagreeing and having a dialog, even a brutal one, or my treatment of you as if you did not exist and ignored you despite the fact I am standing in front of you.. When McCain was criticizing Bush he couldn't use a pay toilet without passing through the herd of MSM reporters...now...he could use the facility without a door and no one would know... THATS the evidence, and many see it...on both sides. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 1:30pm
Ahh but your point before was that Obama was being aided by the MSM because they refuse to give him negative coverage while they only cover McCain negatively. Face it. The reason they don't cover McCain is because they know he is going to lose. Obama is interesting to them because he is going to win. He is what people want to see and he is what will garner ratings. McCain is a known entity. Everyone knows where he stands on everything. At least anyone who pays two seconds of attention knows where he stands. McCain won't garner ratings where Obama will. It is not a media loyalty to Obama or the left. It is a media loyalty to profits.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:37pm
if people are soooooo upset about the MSM's obsessive coverage of obama, then how did you feel about the MSM's abysmal coverage during the pre-iraq war days?
care to comment on that coverage?
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 2:07pm
Darla--
Thanks for this one! I've been reading about the "biased" MSM all over the place for a couple of days now and have been wondering the exact same thing myself: How quickly have these screamers of "bias" forgotten the free pass given to Bush and co up until, well, pretty recently?! These same people had no problems being spoon-fed misinformation about the need for a war in Iraq, or any number of other events of the past decade (i.e., Clinton's White House escapades or Kerry's "exaggeration" of Vietnam experience) . Seems the MSM is only biased when it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. I can only roll my eyes.
BTW, how many have read McCain's rejected article? If I had an English 1101 student submit that, I'd have demanded a re-write as well!
Posted by Litz at 07/22/2008 @ 2:43pm
Sure overall there is a reduction in violence compared to the high points that came in 2006-2007 but is that because of he surge or because AQ has shifted the front of the fight from Iraq to Afghanistan?
by CCCCCCCCCCCC
hey, doodles.
i suggest dropping the AQ boogeyman from discussions as it really has never been a significant force in iraq.
the violence is down because most of the sunnis have been driven out of baghdad.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:49pm
if people are soooooo upset about the MSM's obsessive coverage of obama, then how did you feel about the MSM's abysmal coverage during the pre-iraq war days?
care to comment on that coverage?
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 2:07pm
The media coverage was based on what they saw during the combat...after that they never left the coumpound and saw nothing...so they took the whatever the military on the ground said, reversed it 180 degrees and added the dem talking points
and PRESTO!!!!!!!!!
You have the position by Reid...
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 2:54pm
BOUNCE - Obama, McCave downward spiral:
Gallup Poll daily tracking. Three-day rolling average. N=approx. 2,600 registers voters nationwide. MoE ± 2. June 7, 2008, & earlier: Based on a five-day rolling average. N=approx. 4,400 registers voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.
General Election Trial Heat:
Date____McCain_Obama_Other_Neither_Unsure
7/20/08___41____47____1_____6_____6
7/19/08___42____45____1_____6_____5
7/18/08___43____45____1_____5_____5
7/17/08___44____45____1_____4_____6
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 2:56pm
PONTI,
"pontificus, i'm not sure you took a course in logic, but you cannot make the above claim without evidence.
since the so-called 'anti-surge' never took place, there is no way of knowing what would have happened had it did.
this is simple logic.
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ "2:19pm
Ponti,,
.. the reason you have flawed logic as far as DARALOON is concerned...you have not been properly STONED TO THE GILLS in order to see things as they REALLY are...and as all know, when surrounded in pollution, er, pot smoke, everything becomes more clear...
See?
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 2:56pm
Let's not get to cocky folks. If the American voter gets the impression the foreign countries are choosing our president we will have some serious work to do. So far this trip has worked in Obama's favor, but any hint of arrogance could really make our job of getting this man elected really hard. Remember that we are all preaching to the choir on this site.
Please, a little humility.
Posted by julien38 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:57pm
Come on, give me a break, we've had one buffoon in office for the last 7 1/2 years, do we need another one for the next 4 years? Where is this leadership quality that I keep hearing John McCain has? What does getting shot down over Vietnam have to do with leadership? He is a hero, but not necessarily a leader. This guy gets confused if he has to converse on more than one topic at a time. After all, this joker can't keep the difference between the Shia and Sunnis straight. He forgets that there is no longer a country named Czechoslovakia. He jokes about a woman getting raped by a gorilla and enjoying it. He sings about "Bomb Bomb Iran. He doesn't remember which way he has voted in the past on relevant issues such as health care and reproductive issues. He goes to Florida and promises that he will fund the restoration of the Everglades and doesn't remember that he has consistently voted against that type of funding over the years. His economy czar quits as campaign co-chair, not because he was responsible for the former Enron crisis or the current mortgage meltdown and high gas prices but because he was not "politically correct" by calling Americans "whiners". He even ran his campaign out of money during the primaries and his wife had to bail him out. By the way, how many of McCain's original campaign committee members are still there? If John McCain were to run the country like he has run his campaign, he would make George Bush look like a genius. John McCain is so out of touch with Americans it is truly sad. We have already had a "good ole boy" in office for the last 7 1/2 years and look what it got us. These are serious times and calls for a serious leader. This nation and the world cannot afford another underachieving party boy in the Oval Office. I would much rather have an intelligent charismatic leader that can lead this nation out of the serious problems facing us than someone who can't even lead his own campaign.
Posted by Veteran1 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:57pm
Remember that we are all preaching to the choir on this site.
Please, a little humility.
Posted by julien38 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:57pm
Not me...
I am in the back bench shouting to the "devil" in charge...:)
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 2:58pm
especially considering that hopefully within a decade we will be fast retooling our energy infrastructure to get off the oil anyway.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/22/2008 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person
a decade?
go america!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 3:01pm
CC,
"...Ahh but your point before was that Obama was being aided by the MSM because they refuse to give him negative coverage while they only cover McCain negatively..."
Wrong..
They cover him completely and in every sense of the word...thats my issuue, not a refusal to cover anything negative on Obama...they never "found" any...is my point....and McCain can't get ANY coverage..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 3:02pm
.. the reason you have flawed logic as far as DARALOON is concerned...you have not been properly STONED TO THE GILLS in order to see things as they REALLY are...and as all know, when surrounded in pollution, er, pot smoke, everything becomes more clear...
See?
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 2:56pm
a very accurate assessment, brewmeister.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 3:03pm
Al Al Al Al Al
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 3:03pm
He is a hero,
Posted by Veteran1 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:57pm
no, he isn't.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 3:04pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 3:01pm |
Frosty,
for you..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
Check it out..long, but worth a discussion afterwards..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 3:04pm
....and McCain can't get ANY coverage..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 3:02pm
Oh McCave got coverage, but:
News, when you do bad things-- can be bad.
News, when you do good things-- can be good.
So you think maybe McCave should stop messing up...
Can McCave stop messing up?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 3:08pm
Ponti,, .. the reason you have flawed logic as far as DARALOON is concerned...you have not been properly STONED TO THE GILLS in order to see things as they REALLY are...and as all know, when surrounded in pollution, er, pot smoke, everything becomes more clear... See? Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 2:56pm
No. The reason he has flawed logic is because he believe correlation is causation. I posted the numbers. Look at both civilian deaths and military deaths. Numbers are down but not much lower than they were pre-2006-2007 spikes. So what was causing the low violence rates in 2003, 2004 and up to mid 2005? The surge didn't exist then.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 3:10pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 3:08pm
Cover his mess ups...thats my point and lets see who feels it is a mess up...
Because YOU feel it is a mess up doesn't mean the guy next to you does, or in fact that it is a mess up in reality...and that guy should be able to make the determination himself..so give him the clear info...and not opinions as the MSM does ad nauseum,... which may be why they are slowly collapsing...this may boomerang on them and the Dems.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 3:13pm
BTW, how many have read McCain's rejected article? If I had an English 1101 student submit that, I'd have demanded a re-write as well!
Posted by Litz at 07/22/2008 @ 2:43pm
I actually hadn't seen that one, Litz. It looks largely grammatically and syntactically correct to me (other than CNN inexplicably substituting question marks where semicolons should be).
The message is pretty clear, too. Any guesses why NYT wouldn't run an opinion piece from a presidential candidate, or why CNN wouldn't clean up its presentation?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html
Posted by man00ver at 07/22/2008 @ 3:14pm
Al Al Al Al Al----Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 3:03pm
Throw in a few "impeachment, impeachment, impeachment"s...and that's the gist of every HSUB posts for the last 2 years!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 3:16pm
Iran dumps U.S. dollars in oil transactions
TEHRAN, April 30 (Xinhua) -- Iran had totally removed U.S. dollars in the country's oil transactions, an Oil Ministry official said on Wednesday.
"The dollar has completely been removed from our oil trade....Crude oil customers have agreed with us to use other currencies (in the trade)," Oil Ministry official Hojjatollah Ghanimifard was quoted as saying by the state television.
"We make our transactions with euros in Europe, but yen in Asia," he added.
¶•¶•¶•¶•¶¶¶••¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶•¶••¶
well, well.
never heard that one on the news.
nuclear, schmuclear.
iran has to go because they won't prop up the federal reserve house of credit cards.
¢∞¢∞¢∞¢∞¢¢¢∞¢¢∞¢∞¢¢¢¢∞¢& #8734;¢∞∞¢¢∞¢∞¢∞¢∞¢∞¢
JM,
the dude's a missionary, not a geologist.
oil companies spend millions on dry holes every year.
if there was easy oil to get, they'd get it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 3:20pm
Throw in a few "impeachment, impeachment, impeachment"s...and that's the gist of every HSUB posts for the last 2 years!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 3:16pm
well, god bless him for insisting that criminals be brought to trial.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 3:23pm
Because YOU feel it is a mess up doesn't mean the guy next to you does,
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 3:13pm
Ok, as V1 already listed, (and it may be a partial list BTW), so which of these would you consider SUCCESSES:
"(1) ...can't keep the difference between the Shia and Sunnis straight. (2) He forgets that there is no longer a country named Czechoslovakia. (3) He jokes about a woman getting raped by a gorilla and enjoying it. (4) He sings about "Bomb Bomb Iran. (5) He doesn't remember which way he has voted in the past on relevant issues such as health care and reproductive issues. (6) He goes to Florida and promises that he will fund the restoration of the Everglades and doesn't remember that he has consistently voted against that type of funding over the years. (7) His economy czar quits as campaign co-chair, not because he was responsible for the former Enron crisis or the current mortgage meltdown and high gas prices but because he was not "politically correct" by calling Americans "whiners". (8) He even ran his campaign out of money during the primaries and his wife had to bail him out. (9) By the way, how many of McCain's original campaign committee members are still there?"
(10) Goated Obama into going to Iraq...
Need we go on?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 3:24pm
It is such a slap across mcbush's face when foreign leaders all embrace all of Obama's policies....
how can mcbush say he thinks nuclear power is the answer and then advocate attacking another sovereign nation which is trying to use nuclear power without any foreign assistance since it obviously cannot trust the US under Bush???
it is ludicrous....one thing is clear, according to mcbush, muslims are all out to get us and americans are all delusional wimps.....mcbush is exciting only in that he changes his mind every time he speaks and you never know what insulting comment will come out of his mouth next.....
Posted by jrs112 at 07/22/2008 @ 3:24pm
ah er, goaded
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 3:25pm
So many errors, so little time...
Anbar province had asked for our help to expel al Quaeda in Iraq not just bofore the surge, but also before the Baker-Hamilton report. The surge therefore is not responsible for the change there and in nieghboring provinces.
Al Sadr called for a cease-fire, which is largely responsible for the situation in Baghdad improving.
The tactical change of camping in the field instead of in the Green Zone might have been effective no matter how may troops there were deployed.
So it would seem that is not undeniable that the surge worked. It might even be worth finding out whether it did.
Jomomma - if you hate us so much, why on earth do you read the Nation? It must be had for your blood pressure. As for the MSM, I don't think Andrea Mitchell calling the surge an undeniable success is pro-Obama. And several of the talking heads have said that the story of this trip is whether/when Obama makes a mistake. This is positive? With friends like these... Well, you know the rest. Not to mention Bob Scheiffer and Wes Clark and all the press that non-story got. I could go on, but I'll spare us all.
Also, I don't recall McCain inviting some of the press to go with him in his plane. There was press following. I don't think there was much excitement. And Andrea Mitchell is complaining that the press is not allowed where Obama is meeting with the troops (lest it become politicized, per the military itself).
Posted by ramara at 07/22/2008 @ 3:29pm
Obama supporters need to realize that he is a conservative. I doubt he will act for progressive change unless the pressure is overwhelming.
Posted by mdt187 at 07/22/2008 @ 3:29pm
Posted by mdt187 at 07/22/2008 @ 3:29pm
At this point, is there any substantial difference between a "pure progressive" trying to talk down Obama as a legitimate candidate for the Left....
and a Republican POSER trying to pretend to be a pure progressive" trying to talk down Obama as a legitimate candidate for the Left?!?!??!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 3:34pm
(10) Goated Obama into going to Iraq...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 3:24pm
that was baaa--aa-a-a-a-a-dddd.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 3:34pm
Obama supporters need to realize that he is a conservative.
Posted by mdt187 at 07/22/2008 @ 3:29pm
Well there are dem-type of 'conservatives' and then again there are the insane new con repeb dic'tator worshiping war mongering greedy sob's. Obama isn't one of those.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 3:38pm
Because YOU feel it is a mess up doesn't mean the guy next to you does, or in fact that it is a mess up in reality...and that guy should be able to make the determination himself..so give him the clear info...and not opinions as the MSM does ad nauseum,... which may be why they are slowly collapsing...this may boomerang on them and the Dems. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 3:13pm
The reason the media is collapsing has nothing to do with this. You will never have unbiased media. Why? Because it is written by people and read by people. A simple deeper investigation into something implies a bias. When minor media sources bothered to ask why we were going to war in the first place they were shouted down with the claims of leftist bias. Isn't that question essentially in and of itself nothing more than good journalism.
The problem is. Media is written by people. Which means their opinions will ALWAYS encroach on it. Show me ONE media source that delivers the news without opinion involved. Without leaning one way or another. A source that presents nothing but that facts and presents them with equal airtime. The reason the MSM is failing and internet news it picking up has nothing to do with the fact that there is opinion in the news. It has more to do with that fact that sources on the Interenet choose to answer the questions that are unpopular. It is a result of the failings of MSM to investigate questions that are not "mainstream." It is the eventual failing of all MSM sources because they are based on ratings. They have to present what people WANT to hear. At the beginning of the war people were for the war, so the media presented only the pro-war view. Once people started to turn against the war the media presented the Anti-War view. The MSM is based on the whims of society. I am surprised the MSM has started posting anti-MSM articles.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 4:02pm
"...is there any substantial difference between a 'pure progressive' trying to talk down Obama as a legitimate candidate for the Left.... and a Republican POSER trying to pretend to be a 'pure progressive' trying to talk down Obama as a legitimate candidate for the Left?!?!??!?"
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 3:34pm
A good indication that a critic is not a Republican "posing" as a leftist is when the critic will hold Obama accountable for supporting the Republican Party. A good indication that a voter is an apologist for "compromise" is when he or she will not hold Obama accountable for submitting to the Republican Party.
Posted by mdt187 at 07/22/2008 @ 4:14pm
To all those "whining" about MSM ignoring McCain, let me advise you, be glad for that... because if the media ever begins to highlight ALL the errors & gaffes that come from McCain's mouth on a daily basis... he would appear to be the stupidest man ever running for President....
Again, be very careful what you wish for as you may just get it.... that's when all of America will realize McCain really doesn't know very much about anything.
Posted by nerakami at 07/22/2008 @ 4:48pm
Egads -- will McCave sink to vying for pity votes after the debates?
I got embarrassed at the mere thought.
But then again am I the only one thinking McCave may even drop out soon?
Come on a show of hands.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 5:08pm
"OMG" the world is paying attention to Obama!?!?!___ See how frantic new con repubs just don't know what to do with a real leader-- they've had petty dic'tators on the brain for so long.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 5:19pm
"OMG" the world is paying attention to Obama!?!?!___ See how frantic new con repubs just don't know what to do with a real leader-- they've had petty dic'tators on the brain for so long. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 5:19pm
Don't worry. Soon they will start the "We can't let foreign countries choose our President." Cry.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:08pm
"Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Republican candidate John McCain, responded, "By admitting that his plan for withdrawal places him at odds with Gen. David Petraeus, Barack Obama has made clear that his goal remains unconditional withdrawal rather than securing the victory our troops have earned.""
Are all McCain mouthpieces equally stupid or are they intentionally ignoring the significance of what recent events have demonstrated?
The McCain Campaign's obsession with "Winning in Iraq" portrays an inability to comprehend that:
1.- "Winning" depends on integrating Iraq's ethnic and religious groups, working together within a single government, and that is not something that can be accomplished by conquering a military objective - it requires other talents that their ex-bomber pilot doesn't apparently have; and
2.- America's problems go a lot farther and deeper than Iraq. A number of important issues require immediate attention at home, and that is exactly what Obama said he would do as soon as he takes office!
Obama is a man that correctly identifies the roots of the problems he faces and knows how to organize his response. Effective and appropriate action is the result!
A lot different than those provided by the spoiled son of a rich oilman currently in the white House. (Keep the Admiral's son in the Senate -at least until Janet Napolitano takes away his job-, where he can do less harm).
Posted by cedecor at 07/22/2008 @ 8:38pm
Thoughts on the speculation about how Europeans will greet Obama this week.
Before leaving for a visit to Berlin and Prague last month, I bought an Obama shirt for the same reason some Amerucans travel abroad with Canadian maple leafs on their bags and clothing--an effort to identify my distance from the my war criminal government and perhaps even wear some protection. It worked.
Checking my bag at PDX, I smiled when the baggage handler (Hispanic, I think) wished me a "safe trip." But I evidently looked a bit puzzled, so he pointed to my chest and explained,. "We need you to come back and vote in November. Even before the flight left, a newstand girl told me "I lke your shirt," a young kid gave me a high five on the concourse and my seat companion began a friendly conversation that he later confessed was stimulated by the Obama ad.
But the streets of Berlin were even more remarkable. I didn't wear it every day, but when I did it brought numerous smiles, waves, "alohs" and even raised fists greeted me while walking, or riding buses and S and U bans. I was even tapped on the shoulder by young people and complemented on the shirt, or rather the name on it.
The story in Prague was similar but much more subdued, with a lower proportion of responses in public I understand some Czech and did not note any hostility--not unexpected in a country with a reactionary political culture.Czechs have burdened themselves with a global warming denier as president and a government that welcomes Bush's missiles. I was suprised to hear frequent compliants against a 20% sales tax --what do they expect after they restored capitalism?
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
Posted by lastmarx at 07/22/2008 @ 9:13pm
Of course McCain is attacking. It's the only choice he has left. Wouldn't you if you wanted to take a stab at winning? He has no powerful message, no inspiration, no motivation. He's desperate. Don't be offended.
Posted by finaleyes at 07/22/2008 @ 9:16pm
Of course McCain is attacking. It's the only choice he has left. Wouldn't you if you wanted to take a stab at winning? He has no powerful message, no inspiration, no motivation. He's desperate. Don't be offended. Posted by finaleyes at 07/22/2008 @ 9:16pm
Hillary proved attacks won't work. People are sick of Rovian politics. Looks like McCain is in for a long losing battle if this is his last desperate attempt.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 11:44pm
Wow! Really? Ok, let me get this straight--it was the press' adoration that obsessed for 6 weeks about the Obamas' Reverend Wright "connection", and it was the adoring press that went on and on about Obama being an elitist (code word "uppity"). Yes, I remember.
It was the adoring press that thought Obama was not black enough, and, oh no, too black--for after all--ALL THOSE BLACK PEOPLE WERE SUPPORTING HIM!! AHHHHHHHH…..
And it was the press' adoration that tripped out about Obama's use of the word of "revised" in the context of the Iraq war, and, oh lord, the adoring press exalted the fact that Obama voted with the majority of the Senate to pass a crappy FISA bill. Oh yes, the press LOVED that! Especially the LIBERAL press! And add to that the mega "terrorist fist bump" moment of our beloved Obamas--Wow! It doesn't get any better than that.
Then of course it was the adoring FAVORABLE press coverage that managed to obscure the realities of Phil Gramm's insidious nasty corruptive influence on the McCain campaign.
POOR MCCAIN--THE PRESS DID NOT COVER GRAMM'S CORRUPTIVE INFLUENCE.
They were too busy obsessing with Reverend Jackson (using the term Reverend loosely) desiring to cut Obama's, shall we say, noogies off. Yeah, that liberal media has sure been sucking up to Obama.
And of course we must not forget the awesome adoring depiction of the Obamas in the New Yorker. Adulation in its highest form.
Let's straight talk here; McCain's accusations are utterly disingenuous. He has no problem with the press obsessing with Obama if it is negative press coverage; he only dislikes Obama's positive coverage.
Face it; it hurts when you see picture after picture of a dynamic leader that can blow you out of the water with his EXPERIENCE in 21st century global communications.
And the fact that he can string a complex articulate group of words together without making a fool out of himself; wow! that sucks.
In addition, he has that unfortunate habit of instilling a confidence in people that he has listened, considered what their perspectives are, and weighed them in the context of America's interests. And--the trifecta--he leads; he is not manipulated and puppeteered by a bevy of corporate masters.
Yeah, that kind of main-street-media bias is quite unfortunate for you McCain. However, it is the audacity of hope for the American people.
Despot Destructors' Devious Deeds Demean
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/23/2008 @ 02:39am
Ok the only proper context for the nonexistent surge:
"There have been more US soldier casualties in the 1st 6 months of 2008-- than there were in the 1st 6 months of the Iraq war in 2003."
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 9:08pm
I never write off the Republicans in a presidential election. More than once, I've seen the Democrat ahead in the summer only to fall apart in the fall.
The Republicans ALWAYS have certain cards they can play in any election the Race Card, the Religion Card, the Law and Order Card, in addition to the Patriotism Card. You can expect to see all of these again in the fall, especially the Race Card--and not just in the South.
These have been working for the Right for the last 35 years, and they won't give them up now. I say this with regret, but they usually manage to convince just enough working class and middle class whites to vote against their own interests.
Posted by McHugh99 at 07/23/2008 @ 10:55pm
The world embraces Obama? If the world is then the world should have embraced Stalin, Lenin, Chairman Mao or Karl Marx. Obama, an idiot the media has propped up to enriched his or her own beliefs in leftist socialism. Obama loves the European frailer of Socialist ideology and would just love to bring it to My FREE AMERICA I SAY NO! He is a stumbling fool when it comes without a teleprompt. He doesn't have even an idea of how to run a free country just tax and spend us to oblivion and you like him? Well stay in France will you?
Wake up and smell the coffee because eyewitness being myself we are winning the war there. The media only reports bad news and no news when it is good. Problematic for Obama our surge did work and is working. Problematic for Bush bashers and entire neigh Sayers.
Posted by Odannyboy at 07/23/2008 @ 11:45pm
Posted by Odannyboy at 07/23/2008 @ 11:45pm
Me am from Bizarro World. You and Obama am not good. We is good and English speak well.
(I'm guessing the RNC is outsourcing their paid bloggers to Asia or something....heheh)
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:10am
"There have been more US soldier casualties in the 1st 6 months of 2008-- than there were in the 1st 6 months of the Iraq war in 2003."
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 09:23am
He is a stumbling fool when it comes without a teleprompt
Posted by Odannyboy at 07/23/2008 @ 11:45pm
Hmm. Reminds me of the current Republican President. Who, if he doesn't have a gaggle of speech writers and TelePrompTers he ends up look like and idiot. I am doubtful you actually know what a TelePrompTer looks like. But I will tell you this. Watch his speeches. I have yet to see a TelePrompTer. With all the angles they are shooting from you would have seen it by now.
Obama is far from socialist. Anyone who knows anything about socialism would know that. But guessing by your manner you know nothing about a lot.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 11:51am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 11:51am
You think Dannyboy minded so much when it was...
"strategery"?
or "families struggling to put food on their families"?
or "OB-GYNs not able to practice their love on women"?
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 11:59am
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new poll released Thursday shows overwhelming support from Latinos for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain
Obama's approval rating with registered Latino voters, the nationwide Pew Hispanic Center poll found, is at 66 percent versus 23 percent favoring McCain.
Obama's "strong showing in this survey represents a sharp reversal in his fortunes from the primaries, when Obama lost the Latino vote to Hillary Clinton by a margin of nearly 2-to-1," according to Pew Hispanic Center associate director Mark Hugo Lopez.
Obama's favorability among Latinos is slightly up from a Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May, which showed Obama with 62 percent of Latino voters nationwide, compared with 29 percent for McCain.
On Super Tuesday, Obama received only 38 percent of the Latino vote, while former rival Sen. Clinton received 58 percent, according to CNN exit polling.
Only 8 percent said they are likely to vote for the presumptive GOP presidential candidate.
"He now appears to be even more popular than Hillary Clinton among Latinos," Lopez said.
http://tinyurl.com/55rs9x
Doesn't that mean that 15% of the Latino's that like McCave-- won't ever vote for McCave!?!?!
Wow, now that gots to hurt.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 12:04pm
Latinos appreciate good articulation...
GOP new con repubs depreciate good articles of impeachment...
I see symmetry.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 12:23pm
Me am from Bizarro World. You and Obama am not good. We is good and English speak well.
(I'm guessing the RNC is outsourcing their paid bloggers to Asia or something....heheh)
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
It's Frank trying to mask his political genius and blatantly racist views through poor grammar.
Posted by BizarroRio at 07/24/2008 @ 12:49pm
Maybe you should know the Chinese netizens' remark on Obama, http://chineseloveobama.blogspot.com/,in it there are all from Chinese blogs and media.
Posted by yakmode at 07/26/2008 @ 3:56pm