David Corn

I agree with everything you wrote here except the 'ronald reagan/great communicator' thing. He was good IF HE HAD A SCRIPT in front of him to 'act' on, otherwise he was another bumbling idiot like mcsame.

Damn, the All Star Game is now going into the 15th inning.

The All Star game's relevance to this escapes me. Maybe I am like McCain and can't easily process information.

People repeat errors of speech and thought when they cannot remember the correction.

McCain has dementia and it is not mild or passing.

He is not fit to be president.

Thanks for all of your work!

The All Star game's relevance to this escapes me.

The only relevance is that I was STILL UP watching the game while also reading blogs. If that was a waste of blog space, then your comment was more of the same. *snide remark right backatcha*

All-star game... dementia... repeating "gaffes"...

This has to rank as one of the most worthless blog sites off the day... both the original post, and the comments so far...

Every serious military affairs reporter I've ever read, who has spent any significant time interviewing McCain, will affirm that he has very firm grasp of the political and military situation in Iraq. The fact that he stumbles over words in front the TV cameras is, in fact, utterly insignificant...

Check that... In a political culture transfixed by BS trivia and cable news, blogs and YouTube video garbage... Such things DO matter of course... Far more than anything important...

...but they DON'T matter to anyone interested in anything actually substantive.

To wit:

McCain/Bush's judgement on Iraq ca. 2002-2005 was disastrously bad. Obama's 2002 speech proved prescient.

However, Obama's performance on Iraq in the US Senate since 2004 has been deeply disappointing. (i.e. identical voting record to Hillary, any "anti-war" leanings extremely low-profile to say the least....certainly not even close to being in the same league as a Feingold, Kucinich, Lee or Sanders...)

And Obama's judgement on Iraq since 2006 has been very problematic.

While McCain's early support of Petraeus, the "surge" and the switch to a true "counter-insurgency" strategy has his judgement far better since that date... Looking back at Obama's statements since then can be quite embarassing for anyone supporting the Democratic ticket in this election...

**

“I called for a comprehensive new strategy -- a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed,” McCain recently stated. "He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible. Today we know Senator Obama was wrong.”

McCain's argument is simplistic... but simple. Rebutting it requires more than two sentences, and will therefore be next to impossible for Obama.

In the dominant cultural context of incessant 24/7 cable news and blog blather (see above blog entry and initial following comments), all of McCain's early gross misjudgements on Iraq are now effectively ancient history.... water under the bridge.

What matters is the present... McCain was right about the "surge," and Obama was wrong -- Bush' 180-degree tactical about-face, dumping of Rumsfeld and Abizaid, and switching to the formerly-disregarded Petraeus school of counterinsurgency, has now saved tens of thousands of lives in Iraq, dealt a severe blow to jihadist fanatics, and, as a direct consequence, the future of Iraq is now much brighter. No informed person thinks the Iraqis want a precipitous US withdrawal that ignores or threatens the current gradually-improving situation on the ground.

Here's another aspect of the political problem for Mr. O...

Obama's essential position is to reduce troops in Iraq and send more to Afghanistan...

...which happens to be precisely what Bush is now presently doing....

Again, Obama's response to this circumstance, any attempt to draw a distinction, will require more than two sentences, and will therefore be inoperable in campaign terms.

The challenge to our side now is that Republicans may have, in fact, effectively neutralized, in terms of this Presidential election, their mind-boggling strategic error in Iraq.

Quick follow-on note... Obama's thoughtful NYTimes piece on Iraq was pretty good... as far as it went... But the glaring omission was any consideration of how our policy in Iraq directly effects our position regarding Iran. If we disengage relatively promptly, how do we deal with the prospect of Iranian influence rushing in to fill the void?

That missing link turned what might have otherwise been a useful article into just another campaign PR document. Anyone looking for substantial insight into Obama's strategic thinking on the region as a whole, particularly in light of a relatively rapid withdrawal from Iraq, was left disappointed.

Yep, mcsame is now following Obama's lead about needing more troops in Afghanistan, AND bush is now following Obama's lead about direct diplomacy with Iran. "shhhhh" Don't tell the wingnuts though. Their head will explode.

How complimentary!

Thanks!

It is always good when we piss off the right people, eh?

lolololololololo

Excuse me, but is that All-Star game over yet?

...It is SO hard to fit a "substantial insight" into 50 words or less...

It is no use Hajji!

Some folks will never open their minds - they are too busy wringing their little paws!

lololololololo

Here is a good one - yes again in the daze after the original mistake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE33mU7TjxE

On the essential issue of not leaving Iraq in chaos, not ceding the country to Iranian domination, protecting the common folk from the depredations of religious fanatics and criminals, Obama and McCain have, in fact, the identical policies.

Obama is a centrist. He pulled one over on the anti-war left.

(That's precisely 50 words. NOW will you respond with something that exhibits some knowledge or intelligence?)

(...rather than with the usual juvenile character assassination and name calling...)

Blather - rinse - repeat!

Gramps is a PEACH!

The gaffe that keeps on givin!

lolololololo

Diff, I beg to differ...

McCain does not care about "protecting the common folk from the depredations of religious fanatics and criminals". Otherwise he would not have supported this war in the first place. McCain also has supported Bush in his efforts to line the pockets of his cronies Halliburton et al. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld are all war criminals and McCain has been supporting them all along.

On the other two issues, they both would not be happening if we didn't invade in the first place - which McCain supported whole heartedly but Obama did not, and so taken as what needs to be done now we are there, that falls within the realm of supporting anti-war efforts since less chaos is essentially anti-war and not ceding the country to Iranian domination would also be seen as anti-war - or preventing the possibility of a future war.

And what is wrong about being Anti-War? Why should we be so quick to want to kill people? The Iraq war was pointless and has ruined our economy and our standing in the world. And you want to have someone in office who will just continue with these policies? Sorry, I don't get it.

I don't either.

This upcoming election is about nothing more than preventing 4 more years of Bush-type leadership.

We can't afford another leader whose military service is questioned like Bush's was (Obama registered for the draft after Carter re-instated it in 1980, right?).

We can't afford another leader whose drug use is questioned like Bush's was (Obama's drug use history is clear, right?).

We can't afford another leader whose grasp of current events is questioned like Bush's was (Obama is clear on the current state of affairs in all 57 states, right?).

I thought so.

Cheers.

and outside of the chattering class, how many voters do you think realize czechoslovakia split into two countries 15 years ago?

not to defend mccain, but it's not like he called it austro-hungary or carpathian ruthenia.

maybe we could talk (and write) about stuff people actually care about ...

It amazes me that those who've posted nothing but anti-Obama rants here imagine all those who have chosen him as our candidate to be of a single stripe, of a single mind. (or lacking one, entirely)

I'm guessing that "Diff" really wasn't here all those years ago to suffer along with my family as our sons went off to Iraq in Bush's immoral, irrational and illegal 'lil war. Diff wasn't here to listen to the anguish, the worry, the horror of the mixed emotions when they survived, mostly unscathed, while many of their comrades did not.

It is the Obama bashers and the reich-wingnuts who screech about the "anti-war left" like it is a club with a secret handshake and a pledge. Obama's positions on this foolish foray into the ancient lands of the Tigris and Euphrates have been long recorded, in speeches and in print.

His cautions about the influence of Iran in the region have been similarly posited and in print for quite a while.

Seemingly his positions on just about everything can easily be accessed on his very own website, but those who oppose can't seem to trouble themselves to search for www.barackobama.com. They have to hear it in a speech, or see it all documented in an op-ed that is usually limited, even for presidential candidates, to far too few words for the white-paper they desire.

I can't know, past just bashing, or trying to instill "buyer's remorse" in supporters who chose differently than they in the primaries just what the hell point they're trying to make, if any.

As the situational reality comes to Obama's views, those who fomented this clusterfuck of a foreign policy can chase him all they want. It might just bring more american soldiers home more quickly, might allow the Iraqis to start making their own sense out of the sensless slaughter of their people WE created.

I dunno 'bout 'yall, but I can't see anyone who didn't have the mental capacity that know beforehand that invading Iraq was a calculated act of insanity bringing it to a close.

As far as I can tell, there's only one viable candidate who had that foresight still standing.

...and it AIN'T McCain.

-T

Obama, and McCain are both on record acknowledging we'll still be in Iraq, in some form, propping up a dependency gov't. at the end of the first term.

Both want to escalate the war in Afghanistan (along with Bush).

I am actually anti-war. And I supported the Democrats in Congress who wanted to cut off the funding. Obama, unfortunately, wasn't one of them.

I think Afghanistan (not to mention the tribal areas of Pakistan) is every bit the unwinnable quagmire that Iraq ever was.

And I think fears of Iranian domination are actually paranoid, and, in fact, disguise a true US agenda of continued hegemony over the Persian Gulf.

The point is, who is willing to admit that the anti-war left was taken in by Obama? (Not to mention the anti-wiretapping left, the anti-NAFTA left, or the let's-support-the-DC-handgun-ban left...)

Ah, so THAT's it!

YOU, supposedly "anti-war" leftist, feel slighted!

HA

You should've probably checked into Obama's positions on Iraq before you allowed him to break your heart.

I was dubious regarding your authenticity before, now I find you totally unfuckingbelievable!

And worth no serious consideration...carry on!

[...]

Social Security was not a battle John McCain wanted to fight. The Arizona Senator has avoided putting out a concrete plan on Social Security (his website, for example, doesn't have a section on the issue), and he has been less than exact in his public comments on the subject throughout the campaign.

Unfortunately for him, his flub last week in which he described the basic funding mechanism of Social Security as a "disgrace" — "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today, and that's a disgrace, it's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed" — has given labor unions and seniors' groups, in conjunction with the Democratic Party, the opportunity to highlight McCain's past support for President Bush's highly unpopular plan to privatize Social Security.

(MoJo)

With video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5UcL2IC7eg

Hard to hide from the youtubes. As I have always posted McCain is the gaffe that keeps on givin!

Obama didn't break my heart. Far from it. I'm just feeling for all those on the progressive left (wiretapping, anti-war etc)... who foolishly projected their wishful thinking on to his "blank screen."

Obama promises to carefully withdraw as the Iraqi government is able to take over.... Tell me how that differs exactly (in anything other than symbols and atmospherics) from, "well stand down as they stand up?"

Ah, so "Diff's" just here to wallow in glee at the heartbreak of others...

NOW we're getting somewhere...

Let's talk a bit about your father...was he good to you?

...actually the hour's up!

We'll take this up in next week's session...

Please give your co-pay to the receptionist, on the way out.

My father was good to me. (sniff, sniff)

Let it out, Ty, let it out....

...substance-free blogging... All personal attack, all the time...

McCain's liabilities are innumerable... It's just mind-boggling to try to imagine any way he could possibly win...

So why's Obama's lead barely beyond the margin of error?

I don't get it. Why do people that say they are Dems, can't stand mcsame, etc... do NOTHING but cut down Obama?? What's the point? Either change sides and vote for mcsame or accept that NO candidate is going to be 100% aligned with your views. You could even say something stupid like "I'll vote for the lessor of two evils." Then STFU.

http://tinyurl.com/5qx838

Oh, so this is the blog where you're only supposed to make juvenile jokes about the opposition, and criticizing Mr. Languid is off-limits... devote paragraph after paragraph to verbal stumbles and gaffes and ignore any substantive inquiry...

Trouble is, Alan, a lot of people got caught up in a celebrity-worship, personality-cult fit of mental regression and went and nominated someone who's an inexperienced "pragmatic centrist" -- not to mention an untested, unknown quantity in many respects -- in a year when everything was pointing toward driving a stake once and for all into the heart of the "Republican Revolution."

Now we're stuck with a "blank screen" who wants to split the difference with the Republican, gives them credit for "good ideas" (cap-and-trade) that they never actually had... and seems to be confused on the Constitution as well (fourth amendment, wire-tapping etc.) ... wants to be an anti-war icon, but then "refines" his way to a policy substantively indistinguishable from his opponents...

And folks like me are supposed to just be reassured when some Obama-maniac looks us square in the eye and assures us that he is, for sure, in fact, "the next Abraham Lincoln..."

...Yeah, I uhm...went to this dinner party once and it wasn't what I'd expected. The food was all wrong and nobody wanted to talk about the things I wanted to talk about. Even the HOST wouldn't engage me on the level I desired.

...So I stood on the table and took a big dump on the centerpiece!

Now THAT's a PARTY!

From Rolling Stone “In the next presidential election America will get the president it deserves. If after eight years of Bush’s foreign and domestic crimes that we elect a Republican president, you know, it seems to me like you should be able to run a barnyard animal against a Republican and win in a ninety-ten split,” Morello says. “So if America elects McCain over, you know, the clearly intelligent, erudite, fair-minded Barack Obama, then either way we’ll get the President we deserve.”

-Tom Morello, the Nightwatchman

The Truth about PUMA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn9RJPeMNcY

*****

Kinda makes it hard to take the knuckleheads seriously, eh?

Reich-wingnuttia does as Reich-wingnuttia sez!

lololololo

In my slow way, I'm only now starting to catch on.... This "dinner party" is all about trashing McCain with the shallowest and most juvenile YouTube-level character assassination (age-ism certainly not off limits, even preferred), and if you dare actually mention the chosen one, be sure to only use words like "intelligent, erudite, and fair-minded"....

Obviously reminds one of the current discussion of why Obamaphiles are so sensitive to anyone making jokes about his holiness...

(from Maureen Dowd's column)

"On Tuesday, Andy Borowitz said that Obama, sympathetic to comics’ attempts to find jokes to make about him, had put out a list of official ones, including this:

“A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, ‘I was expecting the farmer’s daughter.’ Barack Obama replies, ‘She’s not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American dream.’ ”

http://tinyurl.com/6a97ku

I agree that McCain is a dead man walking. His liabilities seem only to multiply...

But his fitful rise to the nomination actually represents something positive. Reinforcing the nation's decisive shift away from Republicans, the GOP itself went and nominated someone's who's nearly an anti-Republican himself.

His scarred but long-standing maverick status in his own party, the fact that he's himself reviled by the most-reviled (Rush et. al.), his antagonistic relationship with the religious agents of intolerance, his embrace of global warming, his quixotic quests against campaign finance reform, torture, fiscally-irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy...

Isn't it true that if someone held a knife to your throat and demanded you must pick a Republican to be President....wouldn't he be the one?

But that itself is only a hypothetical exercise... As I've stated repeatedly, I don't think he has a chance. So with a respectful and sympathetic eulogy, I suggest that he be left behind now in a quest for more respectable and and valuable (and challenging) subjects for discussion regarding the future of our country.

I think the issue that's crying out is why is our own candidate only leading the DMW by 4.8%? What's missing? I fear for another 51-49 victory where 49% end up thinking he's an opportunistic flip-flopper...

It's foolish to try and wait until AFTER Jan. 20, 2009 to suddenly "mobilize the masses".... I'm with Glenn Greenwald... Someone, someday, has to take the risk and try and win based on fire-in-the-belly progressive stands... (and I'm sorry, the admire-my-vague-speeches-but-go-to-my-website-for-details tack doesn't hack it).

And you can't sustain a significant political movement for anything important only by relentless character assassination of the opposition... (The R's tried that).

"He was good IF HE HAD A SCRIPT in front of him to 'act' on, otherwise he was another bumbling idiot like mcsame."
Posted by: Alan Author Profile Page | July 16, 2008 12:49 AM

Yeah, but you have to hand it to him.
He was a great 'actor'.~

For all I know, that's what we're getting with Obama.
Can't tell yet. There's nothing to look at.

"And you can't sustain a significant political movement for anything important only by relentless character assassination of the opposition... "

And the only "movement" you can sustain by doing that to your OWN candidate is the above mentioned "bowel" type?

Puh-THETIC!

There is a sense of elation in the Obama campaign as it was announced that their candidate raised $52 million in June. It's a massive haul for the presumptive Democratic nominee -- $3 million short of the historic mark he hit earlier in the cycle but much larger than the $22 million that John McCain brought in this past month.

The majority of donations, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an email to supporters, were of the small variety, with the average amount being $68.

An aide to the Senator was ecstatic when asked about the June numbers and said of an earlier Wall Street Journal report that Obama had raised "only" around $30 million: the paper is "embarrassed."

(huffpo)

Obviously reminds one of the current discussion of why Obamaphiles are so sensitive to anyone making jokes about his holiness...Posted by: Diff | July 17, 2008 9:49 AM

I don't understand that sensitivity either. The guys right where he wants to be, and therefore his loyalists are where they want to be too. Why trash everyone else that has questions about him or the process that got him there. So much mean spiritedness. (How do you dare question the 'chosen one''.)

Speaking of Politics of Division and fear. Since when can't we question our politician, Does that make us unpatriotic?

ABC World News noted the White House's objection to Obama's words, but added that "the fact is, they are sitting down at the table with the Iranians," which "is essentially what Barack Obama has been proposing." In fact, former Ambassador John Bolton "said this is like getting an Obama administration six months early. Now, the White House says this is very different. But it sure sounds like it's heading in that direction."

(USNews.com)

A spokesperson for Sen. Clinton implicitly distanced the candidate from Lieberman's effort, telling the Huffington Post: "Senator Clinton fully supports Senator Obama. She continues to urge all of her supporters to get behind him. ... She continues to do everything she can to rally folks behind him. We don't support any effort that doesn't."

(huffpo)

Poor PUMA's can't get any traction from Hill?

lololololo

ABC World News noted the White House's objection to Obama's words, but added that "the fact is, they are sitting down at the table with the Iranians," capt

Mary Kitt Neel wrote a blog (with link) on this the other day:
Despite Bush's bluster, talking to Iran is still on the table
http://marykittneel.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-07-16T03%3A47%3A00-11%3A00&max-results=2

Flip-flopping to the White House

How Barack Obama and John McCain are changing positions on everything from wiretapping to taxes.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/17/flip_flop/index.html

Thanks for chiming in chloe...

I wish Obama would take firm, unequivocal stand on the fourth amendment. And say, "We're better than that. We don't have to compromise our principles to be safe."

I wish Obama would say, "military force is counterproductive in the Middle East. Only the people of good will in the region can throw off jihadists. We'll do our part...we'll leave military hegemony behind... And abandoning militarism is an essential cog in leaving the curse of fossil fuel dependency behind forever..."

And I really wish Obama would say, "It's time to leave the Republican chimera of every-man-for-himself-devil-take-the-hindmost behind forever. We're stronger when we all pull tegether. Creating and protecting good-paying jobs in America is PATRIOTIC.... mandatory UNIVERSAL health care is a foundation of citizenship..."

I don't think there's any useful, tactical "splitting the difference" on those issues.

How about:

"Our defense budget is outrageously bloated, wasteful and corrupt. The truth is that it's the bedrock of federal pork. It's time to take a meat axe to it..."

"I wish Obama would would say......"We don't have to compromise our principles to be safe....military force is counterproductive in the Middle East.....Creating and protecting good-paying jobs in America is PATRIOTIC.... mandatory UNIVERSAL health care is a foundation of citizenship..." Diff

Diff,
If Obama said the things you're suggesting, he couldn't lose. Can you even imagine what it would be like to hear him say that and to watch him unwaveringly stand behind what he says (and to make his decisions based on what is best for THE PEOPLE of America, all the people, not just corporations). Now that would be a strong leader.

May I suggest you go to his website and put that post on it. (I honestly think they read those things).
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsiADdmoh3E