Republicans and Democrats are both equally dirty. Both sides try to display a cleaner image than what they actually represent. If you let any of that upset you then you are going to be a miserable and probably disillusioned person.

It's more about the politics than the person and that is why I am voting for McCain. Obama seems likeable but he displays nothing other than cheap talk. He has rarely demonstrated anything as a senator of which would be of value to me personally if he were to take the White House.

I have no clue what he stands for at all. You have to dig for that information because he never says what he actually stands for. He just spins circles around what other people stand for.

So what then does John McCain stand for that's important to you? I'm not being snarky just honestly asking.

Woody wrote:So what then does John McCain stand for that's important to you? I'm not being snarky just honestly asking.

THE PELDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DAMMIT ITS OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!


sorry. I'm addicted to snark

Part of me is bothered by the fact that we follow elections now in a similar manner in which we follow sporting events. We use it as entertainment, and every major news agency is guilty of this. The fact is that the issues we are supposed to be talking about are major issues that make a difference in many a person's life regardless of whether they think so or not. So to take something so important and degrade it by covering it like ESPN does a College Football game really disturbs me.

And CNN is full of poop when they declare that they have "the best political team on television."

WilliamC wrote:Republicans and Democrats are both equally dirty. Both sides try to display a cleaner image than what they actually represent. If you let any of that upset you then you are going to be a miserable and probably disillusioned person.

It's more about the politics than the person and that is why I am voting for McCain. Obama seems likeable but he displays nothing other than cheap talk. He has rarely demonstrated anything as a senator of which would be of value to me personally if he were to take the White House.

I have no clue what he stands for at all. You have to dig for that information because he never says what he actually stands for. He just spins circles around what other people stand for.

Well, then you may be naive. Obama isn't going to turn the system upside down, it will be business as usual, but there are some critical differences. Obama will have a friendlier White House to the working man. He will be less aggressive with militaristic moves and the budgets for Military will be lower. McCain will be closer to Bush, Obama less so. That's the diff and I suspect your life personally will benefit with Obama in the White House. It's not about their personalities and all this silly stuff the media circus brings up.

Obama is less conservative and his cabinet and policies will be a bit more to the middle rather than extreme right-wing of which we've had for 20 of the last 28 years.

I'm not voting for Obama because I like him personally, or think he will do anything amazing or that he will change the system or represent me, I'm voting for him because he's still better than McCain in a variety of ways and I can only hope that will benefit the economy, and health care, and quality of life in the USA.

Polls keep showing this thing close, and we really shouldn't be close, so that's nice I guess. But the state polls keep coming out in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, PA, etc. and we're losing everywhere. How is this close? Where are we winning?

I know polls are meaningless at this point, and even 538 seems to be straightening out to give McCain a chance, but I'm having trouble counting to 270. And it's concerning the hell out of me.

Philly the Kid wrote:Ok, let me totally and completely clear:

1) The article indicated that he HAD cheated. Let's say he didn't...

HE LEFT HIS WIFE, who stood by him, went through a horrific car accident

Yes, he left his wife. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Divorce isn't so horrible. Yes, his wife was in a horrific car accident. He tried to make it work for seven years. It didn't. They were different people. Imagine being tortured for five and a half years. You'd likely be a different man than you are and I'd bet that your relationships with people would change.

and was supposed to be the love of his life,

Do you really think you know John McCain so well personally that you can determine who the love of his life is? He wouldn't be the first man to divorce someone he was in love with once.

for a MUCH younger woman. Talk about tacky cliche. He left his kids, etc...

Please explain to me what's wrong with leaving your wife for a much younger woman? If you leave your wife, why does it matter how young the other woman is? No, he never left his kids. He's been part of their lives. My parents divorced. My dad married a younger woman, someone who I consider a second mother to me. You seem to judge both of these things as wrong and I don't think you have a right to do so. What gives you the moral authority?

What I care about, is that for a generation now, almost 30 years, Republicans have tried to create this notion about how they ride the moral high road, and that they are the loyal family people.

It's nice to know that all Republicans are the same to you. John McCain has never ridden the moral high road. He's never talked about any of that. He's not socially conservative. Yet you've chosen to condemn him for something he isn't and hasn't done. I don't know if those you talk about are really more moral than you are, but don't assume because someone is a Republican candidate that they have these views.

he's talking tougher about torture all the time.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I pulled eight clips in the last thread where he said there'd be no torture in the McCain administration. Monkeyboy produced a letter saying the same thing.

Being a Hawk, not talking about how horrible needless militaristic aggressions are. He's parroting the "bogey man terrorist" fear mongering of Bush.

How is that different than Obama's fear mongering of "another four years of Bush." Or when he says that McCain will appoint judges who will take away people's rights. Obama says this because he wants to make independents afraid of McCain. Maybe McCain talks about the bogeyman terrorist. Obama talks about McCain as the bogeyman.

Philly the Kid wrote:And you can spin things any way you want, but the choice he made, did end up undermining his relationship with the Reagans. That's not in dispute.

Nor is it anyone else's business. I don't know what John McCain did and I shouldn't know. That's a private matter. Everyone involved wants to keep it that way. I didn't want to know Bill Clinton's business. Unfortunately people wants to make that public. I don't judge either man on what they may or may not have done privately. Yet you seem to. Strangely, you think Republicans are the ones with the moral high horse.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Barack Obama's plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq won the endorsement of that country's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, boosting Obama's effort to strengthen his foreign-policy credentials.

Obama's 16-month window is ``the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,'' Maliki said in interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine published on its Web site yesterday. U.S. troops should leave the country ``as soon as possible,'' Maliki said.

Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has said he would remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. Obama arrived in Afghanistan today and will also visit Iraq for the first time since 2006 as part of an overseas trip aimed at countering criticism from Republican rival John McCain that he lacks national-security experience.

Just wanted to drop in to post this, I hadn't seen it posted here over the weekend

Iraq is really interesting as an issue at the moment. For a while Mickey Kaus has been pushing the idea that all the good news in Iraq helps Obama a lot more than it helps McCain because it makes his plan for getting out seem a lot more responsible, and also it allows the focus of voters to remain on the economy, where he dominates McCain. At first I wasn’t really sure I agreed, but it seems to be the case now.

The public has its mind made up on the war, so the changing events on the ground are unlikely to make people who are convinced going to war was a bad decision to make change their minds. Any credit McCain gets for the surge’s success might end up being overshadowed by the fact that leaving over the course of 16 months now looks like about the right length of time.

jerseyhoya wrote:Polls keep showing this thing close, and we really shouldn't be close, so that's nice I guess. But the state polls keep coming out in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, PA, etc. and we're losing everywhere. How is this close? Where are we winning?

I know polls are meaningless at this point, and even 538 seems to be straightening out to give McCain a chance, but I'm having trouble counting to 270. And it's concerning the hell out of me.

The problem for McCain is that no matter how well he runs, there's not much he can do. The race is going to be controlled by Obama. At least that's what all the pundits say.

I don't know. Does the fact that Obama seems to be doing ok in states (and will almost certainly outpoll Kerry by a considerable amount) that he won't win like Mississippi and Texas matter at all?

I do think a 40 state strategy might be a good one for Obama, not because it makes a big difference now, but might make a difference in the future. If I ran Obama's campaign, I'd definitely put resources into Texas, as I think there is long-term potential there to make Texas into a swing state, which really screws the Republicans. No, Obama won't win Texas this year, but 2012 might be a different matter.

jerseyhoya wrote:Iraq is really interesting as an issue at the moment. For a while Mickey Kaus has been pushing the idea that all the good news in Iraq helps Obama a lot more than it helps McCain because it makes his plan for getting out seem a lot more responsible, and also it allows the focus of voters to remain on the economy, where he dominates McCain. At first I wasn’t really sure I agreed, but it seems to be the case now.

The public has its mind made up on the war, so the changing events on the ground are unlikely to make people who are convinced going to war was a bad decision to make change their minds. Any credit McCain gets for the surge’s success might end up being overshadowed by the fact that leaving over the course of 16 months now looks like about the right length of time.

The funny thing is that I think in the end, the only difference between an Obama Presidency and a McCain Presidency on Iraq is 6-12 months. Both are going to get out before the end of the first term, but both will probably leave something like 20k troops there in order to insure Iran doesn't try any funny business.

McCain has two problems. The first is that his whole argument on Iraq--that we need to keep forces there at around the current level, or risk seeing whatever gains have been made over the last year-plus come undone--is unprovable. Against the strong emotional pull of "bring them home," that's a tough argument to win. And Maliki's sort-of endorsement of Obama's timetable exacerbates the political problem of McCain's position. I don't know if good news necessarily helps Obama, but it could be argued that bad news helps McCain since it illustrates the risks of hasty withdrawal.

(Then again, as has generally been the case in our politics since at least '92, people tend to be so fixed in their views that they'll incorporate any new development into an argument for their position.)

Semi-related: this interesting article about how Obama's foreign policy might more closely resemble Reagan than Carter. Not sure I totally buy it--I hope Obama wouldn't accede to supporting death squads in central America, for example--but I think there's something to it.

McCain's other problem, as always, is Bush. A large majority has come to the conclusion that if Bush says the sky is up, it's probably down.

I do like McCain using the "don't hope for X, vote for it" line in his ads. I think the new one on drilling is a lot better than the troop funding ad I made fun of earlier in the thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTpS4MK3D8[/youtube]

jerseyhoya wrote:I do like McCain using the "don't hope for X, vote for it" line in his ads. I think the new one on drilling is a lot better than the troop funding ad I made fun of earlier in the thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTpS4MK3D8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=R2bOug1d20c[/youtube]

jerseyhoya wrote:Polls keep showing this thing close, and we really shouldn't be close, so that's nice I guess. But the state polls keep coming out in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, PA, etc. and we're losing everywhere. How is this close? Where are we winning?

I know polls are meaningless at this point, and even 538 seems to be straightening out to give McCain a chance, but I'm having trouble counting to 270. And it's concerning the hell out of me.

State polls tend to lag behind national polls, especially this time of year. We will see where McCain stands in the next wave of polls. If he is still in the same position, there is trouble.

Rococo4 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Polls keep showing this thing close, and we really shouldn't be close, so that's nice I guess. But the state polls keep coming out in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, PA, etc. and we're losing everywhere. How is this close? Where are we winning?

I know polls are meaningless at this point, and even 538 seems to be straightening out to give McCain a chance, but I'm having trouble counting to 270. And it's concerning the hell out of me.

State polls tend to lag behind national polls, especially this time of year. We will see where McCain stands in the next wave of polls. If he is still in the same position, there is trouble.

Most of these state polls suck balls anyway. Sample sizes of 400, suspect screening, robo calling.

dajafi wrote:McCain has two problems. The first is that his whole argument on Iraq--that we need to keep forces there at around the current level, or risk seeing whatever gains have been made over the last year-plus come undone--is unprovable. Against the strong emotional pull of "bring them home," that's a tough argument to win. And Maliki's sort-of endorsement of Obama's timetable exacerbates the political problem of McCain's position. I don't know if good news necessarily helps Obama, but it could be argued that bad news helps McCain since it illustrates the risks of hasty withdrawal.

McCain's position has been self-defeating. If the surge didn't work he'd be sunk. Now that it has, it proves everyone right that we can withdraw. Maliki said he was misquoted and hasn't endorsed Obama's position. He said that the US should withdraw troops when they don't need them there any more. McCain has never said that we need to keep the current troop level. He's said the same thing as what Maliki has said. If Petreaus says it's safe to withdraw, then withdraw.

Obama said the surge wouldn't work and recently said that it didn't work. A week later he said that since violence is down it shows that he's right and we should begin withdrawal. I'm not sure what he attributes the Iraqi success to, but clearly he believes that the surge didn't help.

State polls tend to lag behind national polls, especially this time of year. We will see where McCain stands in the next wave of polls. If he is still in the same position, there is trouble.

It's difficult to know which polls to trust. The national polls show McCain behind by 3-4 points. That's extraordinary considering his Iraq stance, Bush, the media coverage, and ad spending Obama has received. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama's unfavorable ratings have jumped.

Yet the state polls have Obama way ahead. If that's right, either all the national polls are inaccurate or McCain is getting landslides in the states he's winning. Otherwise some of the local polls haven't caught up. The longer McCain stays close the better it is for him. Most factors to this point have been favorable toward Obama. So it shouldn't get worse for McCain.

Spiegel stands by its report and has posted a transcript. Sounds more like Maliki just wishes he hadn't said what he did (or got an earful about it).

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 52,00.html

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

I'm going to assume that Barack Obama doesn't think that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply to him and that he knows that even if he's reelected he can only serve eight years. It's probably just an error on his part. Of course if McCain said this it'd be evidence that he's senile.

I don't know, that's probably a stretch