Ground Game

Excuse me? What part of "a dumb war" don't you understand? Just about the clearest position one could imagine.

McCain's position is equally clear - and equally wrong. It's Clinton's position that is Kerry-esque in its clarity.

McCain's getting a huge pass from the media. You don't get to be a strong supporter of the greatest foreign policy blunder since the Bay of Pigs and then somehow get credit for supporting something to make it slightly less of a catastrophe.

Talk about moving the goalposts.

Amen and amen again, Susan. I woke to news of fresh fighting in Baghdad today. I think maybe the mainstream media is too quick to minimize the importance of Iraq as a campaign issue. It could in a matter of hours overtake the economy as the number one campaign issue, and I don't think McCain will benefit if it does.

It's been a bad week for McCain. After he comes out saying everything's going ok over there, American military deaths hit a new mark, 4,000. Casualty per death rates are higher than other wars, and of course he's not even counting Iraqi deaths. He comes across as a messenger of death.

And what "prism" do you see things through Mr. Pfeiffer? This does not seem like analysis or reporting, but just copy and pasting another's idea without providing any analysis. Honestly, why wouldn't you ask the question of what is supposedly clear about McCain's stance, but not Obama's? Otherwise no matter how often you place some disclaimer in there about prisms and perspectives, it will leave uninformed readers with a slanted view if you do not include both sides of the argument.

It is important that McCain be compared to McCain. We are not talking "2 sides of an argument" here, unless we are dealing with a split personality. Besides, limiting "the argument" to "2 sides" - McCain and Obama - leaves out Clinton, the Kurds, the Turks, the former Ba'athists, Muqtadr, the Saudis, the Iranians, and a wide range of others who have stakes in the issue of Iraq. Whenever I see someone write, "2 sides," I always look for the pair of straw men hidden in the wings that will be trotted out invariably to pose as the only 2 possibilities open to us. That is cheap fiction at best, and an intentional lie at worst.

This article raises a question about mccain and whether or not candidate McCain stands up to his image, as cobbled together by his marketing team, including Hyne.

The invidious comparison made to an allegedly unclear Obama is laughable in light of McCain's recent floundering around with Joe Lieberman. Laurel and Hardy they aren't, and it is certainly not funny when people are getting blown up. But their journey to the 'front' was supposed to present McCain as a decisive and cool leader, rather than showcase his ineptitude and distance from reality.

Look, Mccain opens himself up to scrutiny, nay he challenges us to scrutinize him, with his 'straight talk' brand. That brand has eroded badly in the last week, as the alleged 'straight talker' mistook Iran for Sunni, or alQaeda for Shia, and then painted a rosy picture of the Iraq fiasco, while a battle erupted in Basra and more car bombs blew more American soldiers apart.

It's this way Hardison, if McCain is going to pose as a straight talker, then he has to deliver the goods or look like a clown. This week he looked clownish.

Regarding Susan's comment about our blunder, the Bush/McCain Iraq Fiasco is unequaled since Gerry Ford connived to overthrow Sihanouk in Cambodia, which opened the way for Pol Pot and the murder of a couple million people. We should always remember that republicans haven't won a war since 1898 - a 110 year record of futility.

Some good points xrepublican, for sure, but i think you missed the point of my comment. I was noting that Eric Pfeiffer, the author of this blog, was basing this whole blog post on a copy and pasted point by a McCain supporter without questioning whether that supporter's characterization of Obama was accurate--especially when the supporter's point (at least the part of it pasted above) is so paper-thin: "[McCain's] position is clear and coherent. The Democrats’, especially Sen. Obama’s, isn’t." Maybe it would be better said, "McCain's position is simple, the Democrats isn't"--complexity does not equal a "confused jumble."

Democrats have been calling for some clear points, in agreement with much of what the Iraq Study Group had to say: a draw down of troops to remove much of the impetus for attacks (us), intense diplomatic efforts to bring about solutions and collaboration among concerned parties, and so forth.

Some raising of these points would be the type of analysis i would have hoped for by the author, as without them, i think the worry of straw man arguments you raise xrepublican, is encouraged.

Maybe i should clarify a step more actually to speak to your issue more directly xrepublican--while i think those nuanced views beyond the candidates' need to be a part of the discussion of what happens in Iraq, this blog post cites a claim that involves two views: 1. that mentioned, regarding the clarity of McCain's perspective; and 2. that of Obama's/the Dems, represented as a straw man with the description a "confused jumble" (thus my point was that i felt Pfeiffer would have done well to at least mention what the stated views of Obama are, opposed to allowing the opposing side to represent them with a less-than representative description).