home

McCain Responds to Obama's Berlin Speech

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

John McCain takes a shot at Sen. Barack Obama and his Berlin speech today:

While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election. Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear. John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving and protecting America. Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it."

More...

To say Barack Obama has done nothing to improve or protect this country except talk about it for one afternoon is absurd. Obama's been talking about nothing else for 18 months.

I can't think of a single contribution by John McCain that improved America, despite his decades of opportunity to do so. He's got the wrong policies for America. I can think of many improvements, particularly to the lives of Americans on economic issues and issues like health care that a Democratic administration will bring.

McCain's response is sour grapes. He sounds like a sore loser, which hopefully he will be in November.

< Talk Left Appreciation | Two Viewpoints Merge in Opposition to Death Penalty >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain Responds to Obama's Berlin Speech | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Partially agree (5.00 / 14) (#2)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    McCain is a nightmare, but then you lose me with

    To say Barack Obama has done nothing to improve or protect this country except talk about it for one afternoon is absurd. Obama's been talking about nothing else for 18 months

    Um, exactly.  He's talked about his speech for 18 months.  What has he really done for this country?  What tough positions has he taken?  What pieces of legislation did he put up and fight for?  What did he do to learn all he could about Europe and NATO while chairing his subcommittee?

    What has he really done?

    Jeralyn..you may be technically correct... (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:34:20 PM EST
    ...but McCain's statement is very direct, very powerful and relates to how voters seem to be viewing Obama's Victory Lap...outside of the United States.

    That was hard hitting!

    Parent

    Thought the same thing cmugirl (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:56:52 PM EST
    talk, talk, talk.  McCain's a pip, for sure.  But I'm ever so skeptical of Obama.  

    Parent
    That is part of the (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by 0 politico on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:08:34 PM EST
    angst so many feel over the presumptive nominee - nothing but talk.  And, now, to go around give speeches as if he already is the victor is unsettling.

    I don't care for McCain, but I see nothing to make me feel okay with the Big O.

    Parent

    Why is this Obama's "victory lap" (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:45:24 PM EST
    but McCain's trip to Latin America was not?
    Going to Latin America in the midst of a presidential campaign, [McCain] said, speaks less to his role as a senator than to what he's hoping to achieve if elected this fall. "It's more my ability to govern as president," he said, "my ability to lead as president, to keep up with these major issues."

    It's the exact same thing -- except that Obama is being received better, by orders of magnitude.  And why not?  The world hates Bush and sees Obama as a complete break from the Bush mindset.

    Parent

    No, and this wasn't Obama's first, either (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:15:47 PM EST
    I don't understand your point.

    Parent
    Obama has done nothing but talk about (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    Obama. I am completely worn out by it.

    Parent
    Im tired of pols talking about themselves... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:47:11 AM EST
    constantly too, but what else is to be expected during a presidential campaign?  And how many times do we have to hear McSame mention his own POW status?  If youre going to make this kind of statement at least acknowledge both sides are guilty of this.

    Parent
    I'm sorry, (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:48:35 AM EST
    but this paragraph:

    To say Barack Obama has done nothing to improve or protect this country except talk about it for one afternoon is absurd. Obama's been talking about nothing else for 18 months.

    OMG!  Hysterical!  It made me laugh like you would not believe!  

    YES!  Obama has been talking about it for 18 months!  Too bad he hasn't done much else!  But to claim he's only talked about it for one afternoon?!  That's crazy!  ;-)

    Parent

    I feel sure Americans would have (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:19:57 PM EST
    appreciated obama's speeches more over on this side of the pond.  People still question obama's patriotism whether it is warranted or not.  To my mind, he still has not made a clear case of where he stands on many issues.

    I'm no McCain supporter (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:20:14 PM EST
    but, if he truly has done "nothing" for this Country (or his Constituents), why have they re-elected him year after year after year?

    I disagree with what McCain says in this statement, but I can understand where others may follow his logic.  And this statement also plays into what will become one of McCain's many narratives against Obama:  while others work, Obama talks.

    McCain... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:29:07 PM EST
    and similarly poor leaders who not only have done nothing to improve our country, but also have done plenty to make it worse make, get elected and re-elected year after year because we the people are doing nothing to break the 2 party duopoly.

    Parent
    McCain spent five years as a POW. I think he has (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    done something for this country simply by that virtue.  

    Hear, hear. And hey, he had bratwurst (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:34:49 PM EST
    today at the German Village in Ohio!  That cracked me up -- clever planning by his campaign staff.

    I have to join those here who would point out that Obama has talked a lot, but we know his skimpy record and resume.  Not liking what McCain has done is different from rather foolishly denying that he has done a thing.

    For one, he didn't just talk about bipartisanship but crossed the aisle to get together with my Senator to attempt campaign reform.  There was a time when the McCain-Feingold bill was applauded by progressives.  Let's not lose all sense amid the cheerleading.  Leave that to the Teutons.:-)

    Parent

    True... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    We gotta admit there are far worse Repubs than McCain, at least he will part ways with his cronies on occasion...still we all know he's bad news.

    Obama is a gamble, no doubt, he could be bad news or he could be playing the game, and if elected ready to do some positive damage.  Who knows?

    I'm still voting for Nader or some other no shot...but its a no brainer who left leaning folks should prefer.

    Parent

    Having bratwurst at the German Village ... (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:14:47 PM EST
    in Ohio may have been one of the bravest things McCain has ever done.

    ;)

    Parent

    What's funny is that Jay Leno just (none / 0) (#132)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:01:37 AM EST
    played a bit of Obama in Germany and McCain in German Village as a bit on his show tonight.  Nice contrast.  Funny too.  

    Parent
    German Village side note (none / 0) (#143)
    by jjsmoof on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 07:25:19 AM EST
    If you get a chance to go to German Village you won't be dissapointed.  The food is excellent.

    Parent
    how did that improve the country? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:43:54 PM EST
    You are confusing "doing something for the country" with "improving the country." He said he has dedicated his life to improving the country. My post is about that statement. His POW service has nothing to do with improving the country.

    Parent
    He went to war for his country and served as a POW (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:49:21 PM EST
    That, IMO, is a worthy contribution.  

    Parent
    He voted against the (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:53:42 PM EST
    marriage amendment...and got swiped by the Right for his vote on that. He voted against the Cheney energy plan.

    Saying he's done nothing to improve the country is hyperbole.

    Parent

    How about... (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:04:23 AM EST
    he hasnt done enough.  I dont know about you, but his anti-choice record makes me sick.

    Parent
    agreed... (none / 0) (#147)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:03:36 AM EST
    he's spoken out of both sides of his mouth on choice. And neither of these candidates has the greatest record in that arena.

    However, the statement is that he's done nothing to improve the country is hyperbolic at best.

    Parent

    I dunno... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:37:43 AM EST
    Obama voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP; Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion; voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines; voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions; voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives; and sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.

    Obama gets a 0% rating by the NRLC, which translates to a 100% pro-choice stance.  McSame however gets a 75% rating, translating to a strong leaning anti-choice stance due to a whole slew of disturbing votes.

    So Id say Obama actually has a great record for Pro-Choice when it comes to actual votes.

    Parent

    And here are some of McSames anti-Choice votes... (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:52:11 AM EST
    Voted YES on defining an unborn child as eligible for SCHIP; Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions; Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives; Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime; Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life; Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions; Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.

    Quite vile indeed.

    Parent

    And then Obama went and pandered (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:54:14 AM EST
    thereby undercutting some of his earlier stuff...

    Regardless...

    Here's the facts: McCain never had my vote. It was Obama's to lose.

    And his capitulation on FISA...and then his pandering to the anti-choice side have done a pretty good job making a third party candidate a viable option for me.

    Indeed, the FISA capitulation move is what finally pushed me out of the Democratic Party.

    Oh...and the rhetoric of fear is used by both sides when it comes to elections.

    Parent

    It doesn't "translate" as 100%... (none / 0) (#172)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:57:09 AM EST
    as so many have been quick to point out, it's one group's position with regards to a particular candidate.

    That doesn't make him 100% anything.

    Indeed...I seriously doubt that he is 100% pro-choice...or a Yes vote on Roberts would never have been an option for him.

    Parent

    You Lose All Credibility (4.00 / 2) (#176)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM EST
    With this statement regarding women's reproductive rights:

    And neither of these candidates has the greatest record in that arena.

    Absurd

    Parent

    It's funny that you read it that way (none / 0) (#177)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:19:00 AM EST
    cause I was more referring to the speaking on two sides an issue vis a vis FISA.

    Parent
    About FISA? (none / 0) (#188)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:52:32 AM EST
    Sure doesn't read that way:

    agreed... (none / 0) (#147)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:03:36 AM EST
    he's spoken out of both sides of his mouth on choice. And neither of these candidates has the greatest record in that arena.


    Parent
    Well that's what I was thinking (none / 0) (#190)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    when I wrote it (the both sides of the mouth part).

    Parent
    But hey... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:21:21 AM EST
    if you're that into knocking folks (read voters) down so that they don't have credibility in your book...have fun.

    Parent
    Ohh... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:27:48 AM EST
    ok I misread your statement as well.  I thought you were directly referring to my anti-Choice post.  Sorry.

    Parent
    To Kredwyn... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    Well, Id say that actual votes trumps pandering.  And as for your legitimate complaints (FISA), I agree with you, which is why Im not an Obama supporter as much as I am a McSame hater.  

    But really my posts were solely directed at the statement squeaky quoted and not an overall defense of Obamas various positions.

    Parent

    Your overall posts... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:33:33 AM EST
    I'm sorry...he votes one way...then panders another...supports an obviously anti-choice judge for SCOTUS even after he's forced "politically" to vote against him.

    And we're supposed to just assume that his actual position is his voting position?

    My original comment had nothing to do with Choice...it had to do with hyperbole.

    I wondered why you brought up the Choice issue. I suspect that it has something to do with concerted attempts to bring wayward Dems "back" into the fold by way of the anti-choice fear factor.

    I'd hope not...but that's one way of trying to reel folks back in.

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    pandering is talk while voting is action, and I for one believe in the phrase actions speak louder than words.  But neither of us could possibly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove what he really believes.  So all I can say is, for me, votes win over talk.

    As far as my intent, its always to slam McSame... or more accurately republicans/conservatives because I hate them with the white hot passion of a thousand burning suns.  So if I have to use Obama to do that, then so be it.  But scare people into voting for Obama?  Nah, I just enjoy ripping on the other side.  Whether you or anyone else votes for Obama, thats not something I can, nor care to control.

    Oh and by the way, McSame sucks.

    Parent

    eh... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:53:59 AM EST
    He voted one way on FISA before and voted another way on FISA recently.

    I suspect that if a new vote on something related to abortion would appear, he'd be decidedly absent or possibly against it...depending on the political wind. But that's just conjecture based on previous votes and statements.

    Parent

    to be fair (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by angie on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:54:33 PM EST
    McCain's statement said he dedicated his life to "serving, improving and protecting this country" not just "improving" it. Saying that his 20+ years service in the armed forces doesn't "improve" this country is fine (although I'm sure some people, especially those in the military, will disagree), but it is serving and protecting this country, which I think was Angel's main point. And, of course, it is fine to disagree with McCain that Obama hasn't done anything to also "serve, improve and protect" this country, but what can you expect from him? A McCain statement praising Obama's "service, improvement and protection" of this country doesn't seem like a winning strategy for McCain.

    Parent
    Thanks for saying what I should have said. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:04:41 PM EST
     

    Parent
    Ok...granted... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:21:52 PM EST
    but what...EXACTLY...has Obama done to improve the country?

    Parent
    He moved the DNC to Chicago (none / 0) (#133)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:04:13 AM EST
    where no one in Washington actually has to pay attention to them anymore.

    Thank you Mr. Obama!!!!    

    Parent

    LOL, OK, that's funny n/t (none / 0) (#149)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:21:59 AM EST


    Parent
    if you actually believe that moving the dnc (none / 0) (#158)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:35:59 AM EST
    to chicago is a good idea, i have some bridges in brooklyn up for sale.

    Parent
    So what exactly... (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:01:58 AM EST
    did the Vietnam war do for America?  McCain being captured in a war that never should have happened, what exactly did that do for the homeless here in the states?  How many single mothers did that help make it through financial hardships?  Yes, he went through a horrible event, but it did NOTHING for America.  

    Sorry if it isnt PC to bring up facts about how Vietnam POW status did nothing to improve life here in America, but this whole delusional idea that POW = Presidential material is, well, just that, delusional.  Grant had far more war experience than McCain has and look at his presidency.

    Parent

    Wow! Thinking along the same lines as you are (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:14:12 AM EST
    all the guys who've died in Iraq...  What exactly did that do for the homeless in the USA?   How many single mothers did that help make it through financial hardships?  Yes, they died in Iraq, but that did NOTHING for America.

    Right?  

    People don't join the military to do specific things for specific people or groups of people in the United States.  They go because they have a Commander in Chief who has asked them to go and they go to fight for our country and the values we hold.  
    McCain was a POW because he was serving our country AND doing what his Commander in Chief told him to do.

    POW may not equal "Presidential Material" but serving your country does add to your credentials.  

    And giving a speech in Germany doesn't make someone "Presidential Material" either.  

    Obama has never served under a Commander in Chief and I doubt he is qualified to be one.  McCain, on the other hand, has already served.        

    Parent

    To be blunt... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:18:49 AM EST
    soldiers dying in Iraq, while horrible, doesnt do anything for America.  In fact it puts us in more danger by fueling terrorist rhetoric against us, creating more enemies.  

    See, thats why Iraq was a really STUPID war and we NEVER should have gone.  Honestly Id have far more respect for a soldier that stands up for whats right and protects us by NOT blindly following a moron (bush) by killing/dying for oil money.

    Parent

    and i guess never even holding a (none / 0) (#159)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:37:10 AM EST
    commiteee meeting one the one and only committee obama has EVER chaired is great experience also? right?

    Parent
    Your only response to this... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    is to bring up Obama?  Im not defending Obama, Im attacking McSame.

    Parent
    the truth what has obama done? (none / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:52:17 AM EST
    that is a good question. do you have an answer. i'd be delighted to know. i have actually wanted to find reasons to vote for him.

    Parent
    You wanna know my answer? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    Im a Hillary supporter and a McSame hater.  Thats my answer.

    Parent
    you know that's fine. it just makes me (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    tired. all this hate! that is what made me not want the religeous right in power. besides trying to take my rights away was it was their hatred for everything not like them that worried me. so hate if you will, i won't. have a good day.

    Parent
    Meh... (2.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:52:27 PM EST
    Its shameful when people dont hate republicans.

    Parent
    Yes. He also voted against the 2005 Energy bill, (4.07 / 14) (#57)
    by derridog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM EST
    along with Hillary, while Barack voted for it.  It gave huge tax breaks to the oil companies.  He has defied his party on many issues and collaborated with Dems. "During the 10 years The Republic examined, McCain crossed over to vote with Democrats 19 times in 82 close votes."  According to the Nation:  "As a senator, McCain was a rare and forceful voice against enormous waste in the military budget for programs designed to fight an enemy that no longer existed and which could not be justified in the name of fighting terrorism. Thanks in part to McCain's vigilance, a defense contracting scandal he exposed resulted in a Pentagon procurement officer and the CFO of Boeing being sentenced to federal prison, when it was revealed that the Air Force was leasing unneeded air tankers at an initial cost of $30 billion."  He also supported normalizing relations with Hanoi, which the Republicans saw as traitorous (see the Nation).

    That's why many Republicans don't like him.  They see him as their Joe Lieberman.  In addition, Dems were all fine with the idea that he would be John Kerry's running mate in 2004.

     It is totally true, however, that when he has attempted to run for President, he swings to the right and his collaborations with Democrats have dwindled each time.  Also, it's true that the last four years, he has been embarrassingly kissing GW Bush's rear end and backtracking on issues that, in his "maverick" days he would have not done.

    Nevertheless, he is still better than Obama.  McCain has a track record of working with Democrats. Obama doesn't even like Democrats. He wants to work with Republicans and has said so since the beginning of his candidacy.

    Obama, also, for some reason, now wants everyone to associate him with German militarism. The German poster he has made for his Study Abroad trip looks just like a 30s Social Realism poster the Nazis would have made. He poses in front of a symbol of  Prussian militarism that Hitler had painted gold and moved to its present location when he was gearing up for war. Why would Obama do this? Who knows?  Maybe it has something to do with his authoritarian personality:  he is thin-skinned, pissy, he won't talk to reporters, he creates fake news accounts of his trip and won't let any German citizens bring any counter-message signs to his rallies (sound familiar?)

    I do not like McCain (at least the new McCain) but will vote for him, if the election looks at all close in my state (I live in NC).  I consider him much less of a threat than Obama and I won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.   We are given a choice between two Republicans and one of them likes to rev up people's emotions to fever pitch, including at mass German rallies.  I'll take the old doddering one anytime. Thanks.

    Parent

    This was a (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:29:37 PM EST
    very brave post to make on this site.  I don't necessarily agree with all you said, but it's definitely given me food for thought.

    Parent
    Thanks. I want you to know that I've been a (4.20 / 5) (#73)
    by derridog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:48:23 PM EST
    Democrat all my life and first voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964.  I've never voted for a Republican and would prefer not to ever. But there are too many questions and problems with Obama, starting with his Chicago mob connections and including his total lack of experience and the fact that he isn't a progressive, as he's already demonstrated and will sell us down the river as the corporate mob takes over the Democratic Party the same way they took over the Republican one.   I've been researching him for the last seven months. He is bad news.

    Think about this:  There is also some reason why the MSM is pushing him on us like the Iraq War and GW Bush.   I've learned to be wary when they start getting tingles up their legs.


    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:07:01 PM EST
    completely with you on this:

    But there are too many questions and problems with Obama

    This was actually the subject of extended debate on another thread last night, where I expressed much the same opinion.

    I've been a yellow dog democrat since 1980 myself.  Left the party after the May 31 fiasco, but am finding that it's easier to take myself out of the democratic party than it is to take the democratic party out of my head.

    My vote is largely symbolic due to my location.  If I decide to go green or even republican, it's pretty much a gesture.  I do feel for those democrats living in swing states who have genuine concerns about the party's nominee ...

    Parent

    Well, if enough people start to get as (none / 0) (#92)
    by derridog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:20:02 PM EST
    worried as I am about him, CA may not vote McCain, but I can see a lot of Dems voting Green or even Nader.

    Parent
    At this point, I'm not voting for him (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:32:12 PM EST
    I will vote down ticket though.

    Thought about writing Hillary's name in, but it is not allowed in Cali

    See here

    Parent

    Well, you could vote for Cynthia (none / 0) (#105)
    by derridog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:40:34 PM EST
    McKinney. If the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they will have to be considered a major party. It's better than not voting, in my book, cause it doesn't throw your vote away.

    Parent
    I'm a san francisco uber liberal lesbian (4.00 / 4) (#104)
    by sarahfdavis on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:39:13 PM EST
    and there is no way I can vote for Obama.
    You'd be surprised how many people will say this
    in hushed tones. The yoga instructor in our building.
    My sister in law who has never voted republican in her
    life. My neighbor who runs at a foster kid shelter.
    All of these are women who absolutely do not trust Obama.
    The word I hear over and over again is "fraud".

    Parent
    I know. I went to visit my cousin in Missouri (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by derridog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:47:19 PM EST
    earlier in the summer and I didn't even know which party she belonged to. Turns out she is a Democrat and she told me that, if Hillary didn't win, she was voting for McCain.  I have  a friend in NY and one in Vermont. The one in NY is Jewish. He says he and many of his friends will vote McCain rather than Obama.  My other friend is on the radio and knows all the Vermont politicians. He totally agrees with me that Obama is bad news and says he won't vote for him.  Both of these guys are life-long Democrats and Progressives.

    Even in my little town, where I usually canvass, I saw the mayor the other day in a restaurant and she said we were going to have to gear up for the election (she's a Democrat) and I told her I couldn't vote for Obama and wouldn't be joining them. She pointed to her husband and said he couldn't either.

    This is just anecdotal, obviously, but I think a lot of people have serious and legitimate concerns about this candidate.

    Parent

    I'm hearing (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:59:04 PM EST
    the same things that you and Sarah are from the women I know.  I honestly do not know a single woman who is voting for Obama. On the other hand, the men I know who were pro-Clinton are, for the most part, planning to vote for Obama.  Anecdotal only, but there appears to be an interesting gender breakdown where Obama is concerned. I wonder if and how that will manifest itself in the GE.

    Parent
    a wonderful girl I know (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:41:29 AM EST
    who works at a cafe here in NYC is moving back to WA State to be with her family and she told me recently that, although they're all Republicans, her whole family -- an impressive brood of 10, I think -- were planning on voting for Hillary in the General Election.

    Now that the Dem Nominee (or presumptive Nominee) is Obama, they're all voting for McCain.  One has to wonder how many others are making the same choice.  Judging by the Polls, my guess is "a lot".

    Parent

    I'm California too (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:31:06 AM EST
    though not a lesbian :)  Liberal though!  :)

    I'll be voting McCain as far as I know right now.  I don't see any support around here for Obama even though the media seems to think that it exists.  I'm in LA.  I see a tiny bit of McCain support but it seems like most people around me are apolitical.

    I would vote for a third party candidate but I don't think that would make a statement here in California.  From polling, it appears that Obama is the runaway choice.  I'll vote McCain instead of third party just to make a statement.

    Obama or McCain.  It has to be one or the other.        

    Parent

    I'm with you. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:24:59 AM EST
    I registered as a Democrat in 1975 and I don't believe I've ever voted outside the Democratic party (although I might be lying because I may have voted for the older George Bush -- I just can't remember).

    This is the first election I've ever consciously decided that I wasn't going to vote for the person the Democrats put up.  As of now, I just can't.  I really find him scary.  I don't like the fact he has no real record and I don't like all this "Obamapalooza" stuff I see happening around him.  

    I don't like a lot of the things I hear him saying and I don't like the fact that he has flip flopped on things he has said in the past.  I just don't trust him.

    I didn't trust GWB either so I think my vision is pretty good at this point.  I thought the Cheney/Bush team would be a lot of trouble.  I predict the same thing for Obama and whoever he teams up with.  (I doubt it will be Hillary.)  

    Anyway...  Thanks for putting it into words.  I keep hoping I'll find a reason to vote for Obama in the fall but it just doesn't seem to be happening.    

    Parent

    Bullseye (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jjsmoof on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 07:34:33 AM EST
    "Think about this:  There is also some reason why the MSM is pushing him on us like the Iraq War and GW Bush.   I've learned to be wary when they start getting tingles up their legs."

    why this doesn't resonate with the masses more I don't understand.  I had a conversation with an uncle and this is the first thing he pointed out.

    Parent

    "McCain was a rare forceful voice..." (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:01:30 PM EST
    Yeah -- I agree with that.

    The problem was that McCain changed everything once he started to run for president.  Sure, he was the only GOP Senator (other than Chafee) to vote against Bush's tax cuts, but now he wants to make them permanent.  And there's more:

    • McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he's against it.

    • McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Two months ago, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

    • McCain thought Bush's warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

    • McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn't.

    • McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

    • He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

    • McCain was brave when he said, flatly, that waterboarding was indeed torture.  Then he voted to permit the CIA to use it.

    • McCain supported moving " towards normalization of relations" with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

    • McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

    • McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

    • McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn't.

    Yeah.  He was a maverick.  But that's all out the window now . . .

    As for your comment that Obama doesn't even like Democrats, that's ridiculous.  

    And to try to associate Obama with Hitler is a ridiculously low blow.

    What was startling about your comment, however, is there is nary a single mention -- not one -- of an actual policy issue about why we should vote for McCain over Obama.  Oh, you know, things like: taxes, abortion, Iraq, social security, global warming, views of the judiciary, views of "don't ask don't tell", the "gas tax holiday", aid to the poor, AIDS research, rights of gays, torture, banking reform  . . . instead, you resort to comparing poster artwork and other non-issues.  That's not a very compelling reason, imho, to pick a president.

    Parent

    What you say about McCain may be true (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:27:33 PM EST
    but Obama has also shifted positions and made troubling statements since becoming the nominee.  

    No doubt, McCain is no good.  BUT, Obama, the candidate I'm supposed to support and trust because he is a democrat has shown me that he can shift too.  It worries the hell out of me, because the shifts are not in the direction I think is proper.  So when it comes to the standard arguments about the Supreme Court and Iraq (security and war), I don't have much confidence he'll do the "right" thing.

    Parent

    No. You are absolutely right. According to (3.28 / 7) (#96)
    by derridog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:29:20 PM EST
    what McCain now says he believes, there is NO reason to vote for him and I woudn't even dream of doing it if there was any other alternative but Obama.   I truly believe Obama is worse than McCain. You've only seen the beginning of how he will throw Progressive voters down the toilet once he takes power (and I use that word on purpose because that is what he and those who are behind him are doing).  

    We will have no Democratic Party if Obama wins.  The people who brought us GW Bush and the corruption in the Republican party and in Iraq and who have bankrupted the country will maintain their power once they install Obama. He's been a go along to get along politician working happily with (and being supported by) Chicago mobsters since he got into politics. Read Evelyn Pringle, the investigative reporter for OpEd news or Rosemary Regallo, editor of the San Francisco City Edition or the Chicago Tribune or Sun Times or just google Obama/Rezko/Nadhmi Auchi or something!  

    But, I believe that a vote for Obama is worse than one for McCain. You can argue with me about that and I completely understand where are you are coming from. I felt the same way in 2000 when friends of mine were voting for Nader. I was horrified.

    Believe me, I've been an active Democrat all my life. I've made phone calls, canvassed, sent money. I supported Kerry even though I was for Dean and was totally pissed at what Kerry and the other Dems did to Dean (not to mention the whole Dean Scream nonsense, which if you think about it, is just another example of how the MSM chooses our presidents for us these days).

    I'm just saying that there is nothing -no way -ever -- I will vote for Obama. I'd love to have another choice besides McCain but the powers that be have given us a nice "heads they win, tails we lose" choice.  Not my fault.

    Parent

    derridog, quite amazing (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:36:58 PM EST
    that now you have two lengthy posts in this thread, and still haven't raised a single substantive policy issue.  You talk of Chicago mobsters, and Nazi posters, and so forth.  (You sure seem like a "concern troll") -- but nothing about Iraq, privatizing social security, cutting more taxes for the rich, and so forth.

    I named about 15-20 issues in my prior post.  McCain is wrong (from my point of view) on every single one of them, Obama is on the right side of all of them.

    That's what matters to me when I vote.

    McCain has been against abortion for 30 years.  And the best you can say is "well, we don't really know if Obama might switch on that subject".  That's really reaching.

    And even if it's not reaching: when faced with "absolutely wrong on issue X" vs "he might switch and be wrong on X" -- the latter is the better choice.

    Thanks for your concern, but, hey, name some real issues if you want to convince anyone to vote for McCain.  I already posted of list of them for you.

    Parent

    Oh. Sorry. One more thing and (4.33 / 6) (#115)
    by derridog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:18:24 PM EST
    then I'll shut up.  Here's one of Obama's actions (for women?) while he was in the Illinois State Senate:

    Obama's voting record re women

    On a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases...Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote. Obama's campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill passed 112-0-0 in the House and 58-0-1 in the Senate. He was the ONLY vote not in support of sex crime victims!


    Parent

    get some perspective (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:46:02 PM EST
    you're seriously trying to compare a single "present" vote with McCain's 30-year solid record of opposing abortion in all its forms (and, even, sometimes against in the case of rape and incest?).  He's gone on record railing against Roe v Wade, he voted against insurance coverage of contraception, against providing emergency contraception for rape survivors, and in support of defunding Planned Parenthood.  All this is outweighed by a single "present" vote?!?!

    You're comparing Obama's "brief" suggestion of privatization of Soc Sec vs McCain's record on this? During this month McCain called Soc Sec funding a disgrace.

    Get a sense of proportion!

    Parent

    Oh, so now he's (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:32:19 AM EST
    a fanatic about the Bill of Rights amendents?  Geez, who knew. (snark)

    Parent
    Well, I've posted on those topics many times (3.28 / 7) (#112)
    by derridog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:13:27 PM EST
    on this site before and I don't consider policy issues to be the biggest threat.

    However,  you can read this excerpt of a post from Alegre's Corner today (I love the part about "The Center for New American Security"):

    In April, a second foreign policy adviser for Obama, Colin Kahl, who runs a think tank which has become an Obama shop - the Center for a New American Security - had a confidential position pager get loose which may have been the real plan Samantha Power was alluding to - it called for the US to keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010. Obviously, Obama was - and is - telling the American public something different.....

     DCBlogger over on Corrente has the word on Cass Sunstein, Obama's legal adviser, who thinks the "rule of law" stuff is carried too far. He's not too keen on holding Bush administration officials accountable for their criminal conduct after they leave office. As quoted by Glenn Greenwald, Sunstein believes that: ...prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, [Sunstein] argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton -- or even the "slight appearance" of it. It's sort of like telecom immunity, except it's for the government officials who ordered the wiretapping, not the telecoms who carried it out. It also applies to all those orders to torture people, too, I guess.
    >
    Robert Bauer, another Obama legal adviser, expanded on this theme by arguing the case for pardoning Scooter Libby back in March 2007. Pretty much the same argument - boys will be boys.... It would be tacky to hold them criminally liable for breaking the law, and besides, forcing Bush's hand will drag him into the case....
    >
     ...the Chicago economic school running Obama's domestic policy shop....Austan Goolsbee, prominent economist and part-time free-lance international trade negotiator with the Canadians on NAFTA, but a more interesting figure is Jeffrey  Liebman, who was the "Democrat" on a three person panel which developed a "compromise" version of Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, complete with individual retirement accounts....

     ...(Obama) has not always been crystal clear in his stance on Social Security - an issue that became a partisan litmus test in 2005. (Obama) wound up (along with a bipartisan congressional majority) on the anti-Bush side of the 2005 debate. But back in 2004, Obama appeared, at least for a moment, to be a potential ally for the private-account side. The Cato Institute hailed his calling for an "open-minded" stance on the issue.

     Note from me (Derridog):  I have a lot of other stuff (you can ask my friends to whom I am constantly mailing it), but it's late and I'm going to bed and I don't want Jeralyn to kick me off the site.  

    Parent

    Question: (none / 0) (#137)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:39:05 AM EST
    "Concern Troll" -- is that a Dkos thing?  I've never really heard those words except on this board.  What is a "Concern Troll" exactly?  

    I've never posted on Dkos or most of the liberal boards and I don't read them on even an annual basis for the most part.  

    It's not that I'm not a liberal, it's just that I view a lot of them as being the left wing versions of "Free Republic" (another place I don't post and rarely read).

    So what is a "Concern Troll"?      

    Parent

    "Concern Troll" (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:25:56 AM EST
    It's a somewhat widespread term.  A concern troll is someone who professes to be in agreement with the general tenor of the blog, but actually writes damaging stuff.

    I think a GOP staff member was caught "concern trolling" in one of the NH 2006 Congressional races.  He would write things like (I'm simplifying of course), "I like candidate A, but I'm worried about X, Y, and Z" and then actually rant against candidate A.

    So, to, here.  derridog says that he loves the Dem party, but he's "worried" about it's future because -- and then goes on to rip Obama about really silly stuff -- like the Chicago mob, or publicity posters in Germany, and all kinds of thing that also appear in the standard GOP-trash-cans, and so forth.

    Parent

    As far as I can tell (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    ... it's just a variant of namecalling that ensues when the regulars on a blog don't like what someone is saying. When I've seen it, it looks to me like an attempt to quash conflicting viewpoints that don't adhere to the group's overall thinking. It seems to go hand in hand with calling people 'right (or left) wing trolls', 'shills', etc. But I could be wrong because I haven't spent that much time on those blogs. It always seemed juvenile to me in the contexts in which I've seen it - a stalking, bullying kind of thing. It also assumes a lot - the namecaller seems to assume to know an awful lot of the commenter's motivations, predilections, voting preferences, etc. But others may have a different perspective.

    Parent
    thanks for the info, now please give (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:39:29 AM EST
    us detailed information on just what obama has done.

    Parent
    screwing up the symbolism thing (none / 0) (#111)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:11:24 PM EST
    is, seems to me, because of ignorance of history rather than an intentional invocation of authoritarianism.  His campaign seems to have a sort of superficial grasp of history (thus the Brandenburg drama), but not more than that.

    Still bad (at least, to someone like me who thinks knowledge and understanding of history is extremely important), but bad in a different way.

    Parent

    Yeah, but think of it (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:38:37 AM EST
    from his point of view.  He needed to make a big speech somewhere in Europe with lots and lots of resonance and association with past actual U.S. presidents of great stature and great historical events he had nothing to do with.  Speaking in front of the Louvre in Paris wasn't going to do the trick.  Or say Buckingham Palace in England.  Poor guy's choices were kinda limited, really, when you think about it.

    The whole thing is so grotesquely transparent, it makes me cringe.  However I end up voting (and I probably won't decide until the day of), part of me has to root for McCain because I can't take another four to eight years of having to throw the mute button on every time the president of the United States opens his mouth.

    Parent

    mccain's speech is called politics. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:32:03 PM EST
    i rather think obama and his campaign will say some things about mccain his supporters won't agree with as well. frankly, obama better get used to criticism. it comes with the job he wants.

    hellothere- don't you know? (3.00 / 4) (#40)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:52:56 PM EST
    Obama, or "THE ONE" as the MSM and many seem to view him, is above criticism and any of us who DARE utter a word of criticism or disagree with him on anything are evil racists bound for hell.

    Parent
    you may be on to something! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:29:35 PM EST
    tonight in the houston chronicle was the story of a woman who followed a couple home and blocked their driveway making threats and verbally assaulting them(according to the paper) because they had an anti obama sticker on their car. she called them "racists". now i did get the impression this "sticker" was over the top, but the idea is that this could happen anywhere for much less.

    Parent
    Hopefully, he'll be a good loser. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:39:18 PM EST
    I'm tired of sore losers.

    And, to be fair, those of us who still hold out some hope for some kind of equitable campaign finance system have some respect for McCain-Feingold.

    finance reform yes! yes! yes! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Nettle on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:56:19 PM EST
    Holy holy all this moly in the Presidential race makes me want to hang out in a German bar all day, McCain and brautworst and all.

    Its so disheartening sometimes, working for state leg candidates and in a poorer state at that then to read some fricking fundraiser is getting $30,000. a seat is just, well, sinful, criminal, unethical and stings.  Why do we work our arses off and its still those with the most or at least excess capital that get all the goodies.  

    Sometimes I really think shame on our presidential candidates and congressional members for slighting some of the most important offices we have - at the state level where all things are local til the corporation says otherwise.

    100 days til election, everybody.

    Parent

    I'm glad to "see" you still here :) N/T (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:52:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, I'll be a while yet. n/t (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:54:25 PM EST


    Parent
    I suffer ODS (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:57:15 PM EST
    so I completely agreed with what McCain said. I feel like I'm an estranged Democrat, no blog to call home.

    No Blog to Call Home, but you're not alone (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by fctchekr on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:01:24 PM EST
    Ditto Catfish!

    Parent
    I feel at home when you're here. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:02:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I have been stunned at Obama's "Tour" (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    Not happily stunned..I might add.

    I understand politics. I understand "needing to win".  But what in the hell was this all about?  To make US voters "feel the swoon" again?

    Barack Obama is a novice - he has no resume - and yet he believes that doing this jaunt will make US voters say "YES, Obama is the one we have been waiting for!!"

    I think he looks silly.  Naive. Inexperienced.  

    If you want to vote for an American Idol...well, I give up on this country.

    It breaks my heart.

    Parent

    The Israel leg of his trip was interesting (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:19:14 PM EST
    Jake Tapper had quite a few posts, and they do not swoon there. And Candy Crowley today said the Germans were tepidly cheering his speech (not her word choice.)

    It seems like it's been a long trip, but it's only Thursday.

    Parent

    a friend of mine (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:33:50 PM EST
    traveled from Paris to Germany to catch his speech -- a trip she planned when she first learned of his trip -- and, in an email earlier, said the people around her started out excited when he made his entrance, but then seemed to lose interest as the reality came nowhere near the hype.  Eventually, it became more of a "is THIS what the Americans are so excited about?" kind of deal.

    She wasn't impressed and is now in the "not gonna vote" group.

    Parent

    My experience in Oakland last spring (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:59:26 PM EST
    huge crowd, great looking young families of all races in the crowd. But the sound logistics were all off and he just meandered. He didn't say anything specific about Oakland, which is fine, but I sort of expected he would. And even that crowd was bored by the end, and just started talking amongst themselves.

    Parent
    Is it true BO and Friends expected a million... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:42:36 PM EST
    so the 200,000 who alledgly turned out was a slap in the face?

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:11:14 PM EST
    Leave it to folks here to call 200,000 a "slap in the face".

    Sheesh!

    Parent

    Well, there was some sort (none / 0) (#187)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    of (rock?)concert before the speech, ala the Portland speech w/75,000 and concert first event. I don't call 200,000 a slap in the face, however, if there were going to be a concert such as there was, and you could just show up would you? Oh yeah, and the presidential, citizen of the world was making a speech...he wanted more, got less. Without the concert,would 200,000 have come?

    Parent
    no blog to call home. you know that would (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    be a great name for a new blog.

    Parent
    hellothere...you might be onto something! (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:55:02 PM EST


    Parent
    ditto (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by jjsmoof on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 07:45:18 AM EST
    good idea!

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:46:39 AM EST
    "No Party to Call Home"  would be a great name for a new political party.

    Parent
    I watched the speech on TV (4.00 / 4) (#138)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:56:37 AM EST
    and I didn't get any warm fuzzies.  

    I saw the waving American flags and the cramped German crowd -- and I still didn't feel any warm fuzzies.  

    The main thing I kept thinking is:  What is this guy doing over there?  

    This was like a stupid speech.  Kanye West could have given it or Will Smith (ooooh!  bigger crowd!) or Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt (ooooohh!  Even bigger crowd!) or any of host of celebrities who aren't running for any political office.  

    And thinking that -- how far am I from:  Obama= celebrity.  

    So why doesn't Obama audition for some movie roles?  He seems to want to act more than he wants to govern.  His resume says pretty much the same thing.  

    Parent

    Sadly No... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by jarober on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    Well, McCain actually served his country, and was tortured in captivity while doing so.  Obama, on the other hand, sued to remove all his opponents from his first race, and now wants to draft my daughter into national service.

    I dislike McCain a lot, but he's not demanding my child.  Obama is.

    Sarcasm coming... (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:29:26 PM EST
    With all due respect, by our country's standards today I believe it's safe to say McCain was never tortured.

    Parent
    From Wikipedia (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by derridog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:38:35 PM EST
    McCain requested a combat assignment,[23] and in December 1966 was assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal flying A-4 Skyhawks.[24][25] McCain's combat duty began when he was 30 years old. In summer 1967, Forrestal was assigned to a bombing campaign during the Vietnam War.[12][26] McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by micromanagement from Washington,[27] and he would later write that "In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn't have the least notion of what it took to win the war."[26]
    By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany.[32]
    Prisoner of war
    John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[33][34] McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi.[33] After he regained consciousness, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him;[33] he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[34]

    McCain being pulled from Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi and becoming a POW[35] on October 26, 1967.
    Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[36] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care.[36] His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times[37] and The Washington Post.[38]
    McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33] Now having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]
    In mid-1968, McCain's father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and McCain was offered early release.[42] The North Vietnamese wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes,[43] and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[42] McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[33]
    In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[44] He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[33][44] Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, which was stopped by guards.[33] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[33] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable,[45] but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[46] His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[47] He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[48] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements.[49]

    Interview with McCain on April 24, 1973, after his return home.
    McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, wanting to give neither them nor the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory.[50] From late 1969 on, treatment of McCain and many of the other POWs became more tolerable,[51] while McCain continued to be an active resister against the camp authorities.[52] McCain and other prisoners cheered the B-52 Stratofortress-led U.S. "Christmas Bombing" campaign of December 1972 as a forceful measure to push North Vietnam to terms.[46][53]
    Commanding officer, liaison to Senate, and second marriage
    Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[54]

    Parent

    And your point is? (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:13:41 AM EST
    If there isn't organ failure it's not torture. Not my belief, that's the accepted procedure set by the US government. By that standard McCain wasn't tortured and any Republican supporter of the George Bush policy (and that would include John McCain) would agree.

    John McCain used to impress me a little before he drank the kool aid in an attempt to win the support of those same people that have torn the country down for the last eight years. He could have bucked his party and stood up for his beliefs. Instead he sucked up to those he always said were in the wrong. He is a classless sell out to his own long held standards of right and wrong and no longer has any credibility with this voter.

    Parent

    Improving the country (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:49:51 PM EST
    To me, the most effective counterpoint to McCain's claim that Obama has done nothing to serve, improve or protect the country would be enumerating what Obama has actually done.

    McCain hasn't lost yet.  Obama supporters' rush to call anyone who doesn't support BO is a 'sore loser' is past overdone at this point.

    Obama really needs to start making a case for himself beyond 'I gonna win so don't you want to be on the winning team'?!?!

    Obama already has his transition team. Seriously. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:56:11 PM EST
    My husband was in DC last week and one of the attorneys he works with there is a former Chicago guy who is on Obama's transition team.  

    Parent
    The way this whole thing has played from (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:17:00 PM EST
    the beginning wouldn't surprise me one bit if "the fix is in" and he knows he needs that team. I don't have any confidence in Obama as a leader, innovator, or great judge of situations and how to find solutions, but it's the process that is happening behind him that has me so concerned.

    Who are these people and what are their plans if they get BO into that oval office?


    Parent

    There was a link posted today (none / 0) (#78)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:57:13 PM EST
    about this transition team into the White House, consulting with John Podesta. It's July, pre-convention, pre-nomination. If the "fix" is in, why don't they just cut to the chase as the "new dems" and get on with it. How would they "fix" it?! Like Rove/Bush likely did in 2004?

    Parent
    so what? (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:07:28 PM EST
    Obama is favored.  Why not assign some people some transition work "just in case" he wins?  The US Govt is a big thing to run, getting a head start would seem prudent.

    Why not attack Obama on some real issues?

    Parent

    To me, there is no other reason (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:16:36 PM EST
    to release this information except to perpertrate
    the idea that he expects to win. He has travelled through Europe and the Middle East speaking as if he were the president. Personally, I think he is arrogant, not a truth-teller, and before he is "officially the nominee" which he presently is not, he should not be releasing this info as if he were the president-elect. He may win, he may not. Some have said the "fix" was in. Is that how you want to "elect" someone to the presidency? Why, then, have a Constition. Oh yeah, he voted against the Constitution with FISA.  

    Parent
    puleeze (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:29:29 PM EST
    Straight out of Politics 101: a person first has to seem presidential and has to project confidence in order to get elected.

    But when Obama does it, it seems uppity and/or arrogant?

    (BTW, he did not "release" the information, nor made any formal announcement about it.  Word got out, and the campaign confirmed it.  Big deal.)

    Here's University of Chicago public policy professor William Howell, who specializes in presidential history, on the issue:


    he's smart to prepare. There are general challenges just in terms of learning--who are you going to appoint? What are the first days going to look like? So, it makes really good sense that he's forming this. I think those challenges are compounded by the fact that he's going to be assuming a presidency that's undergone radical changes by the Republican regime. The first days of the Clinton presidency, remember, were rough-going. And, like Clinton, we have a young candidate. Since there are going to be claims that he doesn't have the experience, to the extent that he can appear organized and on top of things, he wants to do that.

    It'd be nice to have the new administration as prepared as possible come January.  There sure is a whole helluva a lot of sh#t to clean up, and a whole lot of complete course reversals to do (see, e.g., EPA).

    Parent

    In the first place, word didn't (none / 0) (#163)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    "just get out." If the campaign wanted people to know, they "got it out" for political reasons. Fair enough on that basis, however, Obama's attitude is one of entitlement and assumption before anyone has even cast a vote to nominate him, whether it's a foregone conclusion or not!!
    He questions anyone who questions him or his votes (see FISA), his view on repoductive rights is sketchy at best (I make the decisions, not w/clergy or family or anyone), his mixing of church and state, especially in our schools, is mixed, his words, to me, are empty as he doesn't seem to do as he says (just words), but he does have his ties knotted well.

    Parent
    It's a fair question (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:45:43 AM EST
    (although we've hammered him on a fair number of issues here)

    But the answer is, for most of us, I think, that the core issue is that there's something quite seriously wrong in the man's psyche that scares the pants off of us.  At least it does me.

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    1.  It shows a level of supreme hubris that makes him even less likeable than he already seemed.

    2.  Because it gives the impression that he'd just as soon bypass this whole messy election stuff and move right along to being president.  A dictator would do that.

    He isn't president yet.  And this far out, any "expectation" is bogus.  

    Anything. Can. Happen.

    Parent

    Oh, The Presumption of the Presumptive Nominee (none / 0) (#191)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    I'm in no way a political insider or professional so I can't speak to what the norm is.

    But there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with assembling a staff to prepare plans IF you're elected so that you can most effectively hit the ground running. Apparently, McCain is doing the same thing. So why all this 'special' outrage leveled at Obama?

    From the New Republic web site, the Plank

    "If Obama wins, on the morning of November 5th he will wake up with less than eleven weeks to prepare for grappling with two wars and a severely troubled economy. People will likely be clamoring for help with falling housing values and increasingly scarce jobs, making it tough, among other things, to pay high gas prices. If it's Obama, he'll have been elected to slow skyrocketing medical costs and enact universal health care, something the country desperately needs but that will likely require speedy legislative action (plus some difficult budget arithmetic) to accomplish. And that's not to mention climate change, for which every day of delayed action worsens the crisis.

    "Oh, and he'll inherit a government full of politically appointed positions to fill and a bureacratic infrastructure in desperate need of repair, thanks to eight years in which the Bush Administration systematically gutted key agencies and made a shambles of oversight."

    Parent

    The more Obama talks about change, (5.00 / 10) (#47)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:58:23 PM EST
    the more I wonder why he hasn't been working all along to bring that change about?  And if he hasn't shown much interest in working to effect change in the job he has now, why should I expect that he will have a different approach in the WH?  

    Obama's happy to take credit and piggyback on what others have done, but he is never on the front lines, taking the risks that real leaders take, being willing to take the heat - he stands off to the side, measuring the political risk, before he moves - and then, he's apt to hopscotch all over the place to the point where it's hard to identify what his position is.  Someone will have to tell me how he works to make something happen when he can't make up his mind where he stands on the issue.

    McCain is no prize, his views do not parallel mine, and I won't vote for him - but he has served, he did sacrifice, and he has been on the right side of some issues here and there that he has worked hard for.

    Obama derangement syndrome... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:21:46 PM EST
    I'm not voting for Obama.

    But quite honestly, what I'm seeing here is ODS.  The critique of Obama is repetitive, and reductive -- its simply venting, rather than engagement on the topic of discussion.

    (gasp) do you mean (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:19:04 PM EST
    ... that complaining about a poster of his in Germany is not "engagement on the topic of discussion"?

    (irony mode off)

    Seriously -- it's nice to see that even one who is not voting for Obama can recognize this ODS.

    Parent

    Oh, give us a break (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:23:41 AM EST
    What are blogs for if not venting?  I NEED to vent.

    Parent
    Party pooper! (none / 0) (#107)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:44:28 PM EST
    :- )

    Parent
    I'd like to know what Obama has (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:30:31 PM EST
    done to improve this country. I can think of several things he has done to worsen it.

    Hey, I just read that Obama canceled (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:47:03 PM EST
    a visit to wounded troops in Germany? Is that true? If so, I'm very disappointed.

    The news said he cancelled (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:59:22 PM EST
    because he felt it wouldn't look right to spend campaign funds to do it. Never mind that he could have just done it on his own, without the press and unaccompanied. Just him and the troops...makes a better story then pictures, imo.

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:47:56 AM EST
    Wouldn't look right to spend campaign funds to visit wounded troops?  What?  I hope you misread that because it makes no sense, particularly after the lollapalooza world tour he's been on.

    Parent
    Pentagon said (none / 0) (#175)
    by CCinNC on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    he could come alone but not with campaign staff.  He did talk with some wounded soldiers there via phone.  

    Parent
    I think it would've been (none / 0) (#179)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:24:07 AM EST
    a good thing to just visit with the wounded soldiers on his own. Even just as an American, a presidential candidate, and a "citizen of the world."

    Parent
    Yes, it's true. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Hmm... does Obama meet (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:52:02 PM EST
    hard-luck cases at his campaign stops?
    Hillary's compassion and empathy are on record in these kind of encounters, but I can't remember reading about Obama meeting personally with people who have suffered, for whatever reason.
    He must do that, right? He's not that delicate, is he?

    Parent
    one has to wonder (none / 0) (#77)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    why he canceled.  Any news on that or is it just "what Presidents do" (says his campaign to the Press)?

    Parent
    I'm recommending you before this (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:36:14 PM EST
    comment gets deleted.
    It was obvious in 2000 what kind of person Bush was, and how unqualified he was; it's just as obvious now that Obama is as you say, and no amount of media circus will change that OBVIOUS fact.

    Venting (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Duraxx on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:49:24 PM EST
    I'm suprised that when I check out both liberal and conservative blogs... I see people venting about Obama.  Amusingly, the left-leaning sites say he "only wants to work with Republicans" while the right-leaning sites say he is a "far left liberal" or even a "socialist democrat ideologue."  Actual quotes.  How can this be?

    I don't like that sort of faux political venting against either candidate.  If you disagree with McCain on foreign politics.  Fine.  If you disagree with Obama on oil drilling.  Fine.  But to make generalized "talking-point" attacks, including stating that McCain or Obama has done "nothing" is a non-sequitur.  Go to either campaign's website to know what they have done, and know where they stand.  Or, go to factcheck.org.

    It's very strange (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by stxabuela on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    I am one who thinks Obama is too far to the right.  I have said, "I'm not sure he's even a Democrat," to more than one person.  I can justify my beliefs--the FISA vote, the NAFTA backtrack, the outreach to evangelicals, the ambivalent statements on abortion.  I was an Edwards supporter who drifted to Clinton simply because I studied both candidates' websites and decided she was slightly more liberal.    

    Yet, many others claim Obama is far left, and they also have justifications--particularly Obama's long associations with Rev. Wright, William Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn--definitely on the left end of the political spectrum.

    I thought McCain was someone who, although far to the right of me, broke ranks with the Republicans and voted his mind.  I thought he had earned his "maverick" label.  Then he caved completely to the far Right in the last few years.  The immigration issue is the only notable exception I recall.  

    Now I'm faced with the only two candidates who have a chance of becoming President, and I don't trust either one of them any further than I can throw them.  I've been a Democrat since 1972 and I've held my nose and voted for more blue dogs than I care to remember.  However, should Obama win and govern far to the right, would the spineless Dems in Congress just roll over for him?  I'd say, "Yes."  If McCain wins and does the same thing, I believe the Dems might put up more of a fight.  An additional concern is the midterm elections of 2010.  The voters are already disgusted with the D led Congress.  Would more of the same with an Obama presidency cause a backlash?  I think it would be probable, while a McCain presidency might actually generate more D gains in two years.  

    The only bright spot is that my vote for President won't matter in TX.  In every other year, I'd just go ahead and vote party line, but the silence of the Democratic Party in the face of absolute misogyny appalls me, and there are no words to describe my disgust with the decisions made by the RBC on Florida and--especially--Michigan.  I am so angry at Dean, Brazile, and the DNC that I am skipping the top of the ticket right now.  The only thing that might knock me off the fence is the Democratic Convention or the new Platform.  It's just a waiting game for me at the moment.      

    Parent

    Great aticle on counterpunch.com named (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by suzieg on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:58:06 AM EST
    Audacity, yes; change, hardly
    Life in the post-political age

    www.counterpunch.com/bageant07242008.html

    excerpt:

    In essence the same forces that make it possible for the rapid acceptance of ideas such as gay marriage are the same force which can create a society that will accept massive social inequalities.

    In the post political world and the candidates who can best thrive in it have tremendous appeal to the economic elites, a system that does not dwell on issues and will never ask the question, "who has power and why", but simultaneously creates a social and media environment of stupefying distractions while destroying traditional social mores (under-credited as a source of much social solidarity). This can only benefit their continued rule of that society.

    In such a setting our political choices like our consumer choices, regardless of the product, are primarily about what makes us more fulfilled and feel better about ourselves.

    Senator Obama's campaign understood much better the impact of these changes on our electoral system than any of his opponents' campaigns. In the post political world, the campaign that is less political and less issue-based but is savvier in using new modes of communication technology will be the campaign to win the greatest market share of the electorate. The candidate in this case, Obama, was not a political entity but, in essence a product, an ornament that made his supporters feel better about themselves.

    One of the most telling facts about the Obama's constituency outside of African Americans (whose support needs no explanation) is that it is a coalition of people who need or demand the least amount of social benefit from our government. They are the under politicized younger voters and upper middle class whites. The two groups, coincidently, are the ones most influenced by trends in consumer popular culture and have the greatest of ease using the latest technologies.

    in his core: Public service vs. Personal ambition (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Yotin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    The contrast couldn't be more glaring. McCain has shed blood, sweat and tears in his public service to his country in his entire adult life starting in his service in the military. And Obama in all his young adult life has talked about his and played it to the electorate for votes.

    Now, who do you think who has public service in his core vs. personal ambition?

    On their spouses: social service vs. being proud of America for the first time in her adult life

    in my humble opinion neither side has (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:50:49 AM EST
    their best or brightest running this year. sad really when we so desperately need help. what do we get? words and not much else!

    Parent
    perhaps, but the contrast remains (none / 0) (#195)
    by Yotin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST
    that's how you may feel. nonetheless, the contrast is still glaring between the two. you can blame both parties for their poor selection in nominees.

    and it's perhaps, the choice may end up between lifetime of public service vs. talk

    Parent

    The hospital visit blowoff... (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:56:39 AM EST
    That's going to come back hard on Obama. He promised to visit the wounded troops and then he let them down...The army hospital in Germany spent some time preparing for his visit and telling the wounded soldiers about it...The spokesman issued a one-word statement that was telling in its simplicity and pathos: "He isn't coming to see us and we don't now why." Eesh, that's going to be really, really hard for Obama to squirm out of--breaking a promise to wounded vets so you can go give a rock concert in Berlin. Even worse than the political fallout is what it says about him as a person.

    I'm not responding to anyone here (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by rottenart on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:52:42 PM EST
    in particular. I only have two more comments in my trial period left so I'm going to use one here to say what I think.

    I find it so sad that so many people are just bashing Obama with some of the most slanderous bile I've ever heard. Hitler and W references? Really? And so many people keep talking about how they "just don't trust him..." Why? You talk about this cult of personality but this isn't something that he manufactured like Bush... this is genuinely millions of people believing that he's different.

    It's like people want to find a reason to fight against the establishment and The Man even when the guy that we've got going for us, for all intents and purposes, on our side. He's the candidate we've been waiting for, because with all his lofty speeches he's imploring US to stand up, US to fight for our country, US to take responsibility for our future.

    I get the pragmatist view that says that will never happen. But wouldn't it be nice to hope that it could, if we all tried just a little? Sure, hope won't fill the gas tank, but you have to start somewhere. If you have NO hope, then all is lost.

    Everyone keeps talking about his thin resume and lack of substance. I've been reading his issues pages at his site for a while now, and if anyone would take the time to go read it, then they might get a feel for where he wants to take the country. He has plenty of policy speeches that he's given over the past year and a half that spell out his proposals if anyone would listen. I've been told numerous times on this site that a poster wasn't going to "do my homework for me" in regards to something that has been discussed. Well, I don't see why the same doesn't apply to people asking for proof of what he's done. It's all there, in his speeches and his books and his policies.

    People say he's messianic or power hungry. What is the basis of this? Because he rouses thousands of cheering fans? Because people genuinely believe that he can be the one to lead America with dignity and humility again? Because his campaign is smart and focused and running like a well-oiled machine? Isn't that what we want?

    I don't know if this worth the effort. I tried hard to not insult or denigrate with this post. I truly believe in Obama. But the fact is, it's more than that. For the first time in my life, I'm actually participating in the process, canvassing, campaigning, donating, phone-banking. It's not that I haven't been motivated before, or politically unaware. I grew up in a staunchly politically wonky household, with an activist family. I have followed politics since before I could drive. But in all that time, I've never had anyone motivate me to go out and do it for my country in the same way as him. I think his idea for national service is excellent, and not military service. This is our country and it has been stolen from us by greedy thugs. Let's take it back. He can't do it alone.

    Good luck with that approach, (none / 0) (#196)
    by phatpay on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:12:25 AM EST
    rotten. It is audacious to hope around here.

    There is still so much sour grapes (sorry if that's deemed callous) around here from the primary. I keep  checking in and hoping that some of the bloggers here will have moved on from the hurt of the primary season.

    Me? I'm excited about a media savvy Democratic candidate for pres. 2 elections where the Dems looked/acted like a JV debate team is absurd.
    But naw, we just bemoan the fact that Obama's got some brass one's rather than applaud a Dem campaign with some verve. Some life. A freakin' pulse. Beating Repugnant's to the punch instead of always on the defensive.

    No wonder the legislative result of the '06 midterm election  has been so underwhelming. They are our representatives, after all. Very little unity. Very little alignment. Or, rather, reserved alignment and, even worse, defection. /sigh
    Yup, definitely our representatives.

    The main thing I kept thinking is:  What is this guy doing over there? ~ Grace

    Umm... the same thing that McCain did in March? Almost identically. The difference being that Obama was savvy enough to have the campaign foot the bill thus allowing the (drooling) media to tag along. Ya... but it was just stupid for him to do this, right? What with the perception that his lack of foreign policy experience is a hindrance to his election and all. /facepalm
    Whatever the Obama campaign paid for this trip they got a bargain. How much coverage was devoted to this? Free commercials! Yay! But, yeah... what the hell, seriously? /sigh
    Total garbage ~ lentinel

    Ayep...
    Wait... what? Hrmm... if he is only speaking in generalities (shock/horror) and it is "total garbage"... then... ummm what has the last 7 years been? Or, perhaps, you and I just have different perceptions of "total garbage".
    Transcript of Obama's Berlin speech
    I can't think of one thing that Obama has been a leader on - no piece of legislation, no bold ideas, nothing, zip, nada. ~ cmugirl

    /grumble
    Can I have a free pass to troll on this one post?
    Please?
    Fine!
    Click this link to enjoy surprisingly easy to access research.
    Yikes! Daily Kos url

    Wake up, America!
    Be delighted that we have a candidate for president that is:

    1. Not a Bush
    2. Not as dull as Gore
    3. Not as naive as Kerry
    4. Running versus the most ineptly run Republican campaign since '92

    This is a guy that is brilliant politically. He beat the anointed one to win the nomination. He deserves a chance to follow through on all this rhetoric. And I sure as hell like his rhetoric more than John "I sold my soul to Karl Rove to get my shot at the POTUS" McCain's. There is no magic number of negative Obama posts that will make Hillary the Democratic Nominee. People really do want to look forward. The world wants to look forward. HRC represents the past (that was my problem with her). McCain = McSame.
    So this guy does it like a rock star. So. Breath of fresh air, if you ask me. If you truly think there is no substance to this guy then do yourself a favor and do some research. Stop wasting bandwidth on ill thought out, knee jerk responses solely for the purpose to commiserate with other members of the HRC lonely hearts club. That or go actively campaign for Barr or Nader.

    The politics of fear and division is still running rampant through this country.

    ...well, I give up on this country.
    It breaks my heart. ~ Shainzona

    Your heart is only now breaking?

    Parent

    link broken in above post (can't edit) (none / 0) (#197)
    by phatpay on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:21:45 AM EST
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

    I checked all the links before I posted. I'm not sure why the above url did not embed in the post.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/

    This is a pretty cool site if you need some info on legislation. Really easy to use this to find out what legislation Obama (or any Representative or Senator) has introduced or co-sponsored. And other fun too!

    Parent

    Talk is just that... (4.60 / 10) (#21)
    by lentinel on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:00:19 PM EST
    You said, "To say Barack Obama has done nothing to improve or protect this country except talk about it for one afternoon is absurd. Obama's been talking about nothing else for 18 months."

    Yes. He has been talking since he started running.
    But he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. That's considerably longer than 18 months.

    And what has he actually done to improve this country?
    Vote for FISA? Vote for the Patriot Act? Campaign for Lieberman?
    Vote to fund the war? Go on tour with Donnie McClurkin?

    you just don't understand (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:07:23 PM EST
    Obama finds Senate work "boring", you see?  And, really, what CAN compete with adoring crowds of misty eyed worshipers chanting your name?  Or being called The One by your slack-jawed group of Yes Men (aka the DNC)?  Being 1 out of 99 or having to get up early to attend Committee Meetings (hint:  he didn't) is just so bleh after that.

    (over the top snark)

    On a serious note, look for this to be a subtle -- and not-so-subtle -- vein with most of McCain's views about Obama in the weeks to come.  He also seems to be somewhat successfully turning Obama's strength (his popularity) against him.  And without the popularity, what will Obama have?

    Parent

    i love talkleft (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Chisoxy on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    but what a horrible defense of what Obama stands for. Just words.

    Parent
    The wrong person got the nomination (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:35:44 PM EST
    There is no doubt in my mind.

    Parent
    The Ron Paul folks feel the same way (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:05:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Hmmmm (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:16:51 PM EST
    18 million vs how many people voting for Ron Paul?

    Parent
    Talking (4.33 / 6) (#29)
    by BC on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:18:13 PM EST
    I've been thinking about that "all Obama can do is talk."  Well, how else does a president lead this country if he can't communicate his ideas?  I was reading some of FDR's speeches - he used the power of ideas to galvanize the country for his program.  I get the same thing with Obama.  He does give good speeches, but the reason they are good speeches is because they have a lot of substance in them.  He will be able to use the power of ideas to galvanize the country and LEAD.  As for John McCain - he sounds tired, he looks tired, and this will only be worse if he's elected president.  He does not have any good ideas for how to lead this country.  His health care plan?  Eliminate employer-provided health insurance and give everyone a tax credit.  That won't cover the cost of you getting health insurance outside of a group plan.  His energy policy?  Open up all the federal lands to drilling.  These are not liberal ideas, folks, and for anyone who calls themselves progressive or liberal to support this is to betray your own political ideals.  

    But.. (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:33:01 PM EST
    He will be able to use the power of ideas to galvanize the country and LEAD.  

    Why hasn't Obama led on anything?  Just because you think he will lead because he talks a good game, doesn't mean he can or will.

    I can't think of one thing that Obama has been a leader on - no piece of legislation, no bold ideas, nothing, zip, nada.  He gave a speech 6 years ago.

    Whoop de do.

    Parent

    Yes, but today he reminded Berliners (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:54:03 PM EST
    about 9/11... :(

    Parent
    Hmmm (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:39:45 AM EST
    sounds like Rudy Guiliani...

    Parent
    Frightening....of course, he is all about (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:59:51 AM EST
    emulating Reagan, so sounding like another republican, Giuliani, is not so strange for obama.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 13) (#35)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:37:57 PM EST
    His speeches lack substance.  They dance around a general idea intended to stir the emotions of those listening while offering no answers and no direction to follow.  They don't lead;  they excite.  Big difference.

    Or, as my dad put it, they're the political equivalent of cotton candy.  Seems like a big deal until you bite into it and then it just ends up being disappointing spun sugar which gives you a tummy ache in the end.

    Parent

    Ecuse me, but you and Jane in CA (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by WillBFair on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:11:04 PM EST
    and plenty of others are why this is smartest and most sensible and charmingest blog on the net.

    Parent
    It's Great (5.00 / 15) (#50)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:03:30 PM EST
    that you're reading FDR's speeches:

    I was reading some of FDR's speeches - he used the power of ideas to galvanize the country for his program.

    May I suggest that you also do some research on Roosevelt's history?  He did not derive his ideas from his speeches; rather his governance experience informed his speeches in a moving and very eloquent manner.  For example, he was warning Americans about the concentration of economic power among the power elite as early as 1926.

    As governor of New York, he implemented the first statewide poverty relief program in the country in 1930, proclaiming that it was the government's responsibility to find solutions to the problems that overwhelmed working families.  This was radical stuff for the country in 1930, and the concept was the fundamental building block of his "New Deal." Nor was there ever a disconnect between his words and his actions, because he spoke from a place of experience, confidence, and empathy.

    Sorry if I'm lecturing, but I've recently finished one Roosevelt biography and am halfway through another.  I seem to have a wealth of Roosevelt info to share whether people particularly want to "hear" it or not :)

    Parent

    Hear, hear! (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:31:05 PM EST
    I'd love to believe that Obama is another Roosevelt.  But nothing in his record compares to what you could cull from Roosevelt's record prior to his election.

    Parent
    Don't apologize to me. What you say is wonderful. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by WillBFair on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:31:35 PM EST
    I wish more thoughtful people would read and share their observations. We certainly don't get anything worthwhile from the msm.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

    Parent
    Thanks Robot and Will (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:11:35 PM EST
    I'm reading FDR by Jean Edward Smith right now.  I highly recommend it if you're interested in the Roosevelt years.

    Parent
    heh, I should have refreshed before (none / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:26:37 PM EST
    posting!

    Parent
    fdr is my all time favorite president. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:49:01 AM EST
    i am going to the beach this weekend, so maybe tonight i'll head for the bookstore and see what i can find on fdr.

    Parent
    My father was named for FDR. Franklin Delano, (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    then passed the Delano down to my brother as his middle name.  To say we are serious Democrats would be an understatement.

    Parent
    Which are you reading? (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:25:43 PM EST
    recommendations?

    Parent
    Obama - FDR? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:11:14 AM EST
    About FDR you said, "...he used the power of ideas to galvanize the country for his program."

    Obama is not trying to galvanize the country around anything.

    He is only going around speaking in generalities. War against terror. Iran the threat. We beat communism.

    Total garbage.

    Parent

    He's a bully (3.66 / 6) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:19:43 PM EST
    Plain and simple.  He's physically bullied collegues on the Senate floor, I'm sure he's bullied plenty of people in private.  He's a malevolent, unstable, unimaginative, born and bred product of the military-industrial complex.  He is the pinnacle of everything wrong with American policy for the last half century plus.  EXCEPT he gets a pass from the media because he is perceived as a war hero.  I would love just one reporter with courage to ask him, point blank, "would the Vietnamese have been justified in executing you?"  Since he would certainly want to kill any foreign pilot who bombed America, and he has certainly been no anti-torture champion during our current run of abuse and disgrace, only pretending to be one for appearance.  But I won't hold my breath that the question will be asked, or any tough question asked of him for that matter.

    He is getting softballed every day and can't even take advantage of that, well, advantage.

    With all due respect.... (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:38:49 PM EST
    I'm bloody tired of "representatives" who talk a good game but don't do anything.  The 2006 "victory" in congress is a great example of that - all talk and no action.  If it takes bullying to get something done, so be it - at least the bully will show some spine.

    Hillary shows/showed spine.  I trusted her to speak up and act out on issues of importance to all of America.

    Truly - BO was always a political lurker (there...but never really "there") and he is only comfortable in front of staged, telepromptered, controlled events.

    But life is not like that.  Life is never staged.  Never telepromotered.  And NEVER controlled.

    Obama scares the daylights out of me.  IMHO.

    Parent

    Deja Vous! (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by fctchekr on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:59:52 PM EST
    It's a total irony to be a Democrat and be scared to the extreme of our own nominee and not his opponent.

    Parent
    He's got a hot temper (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:03:32 AM EST
    not the same as being a bully.

    This was gone into in minute detail in 2000, since the Bushies and their allies were spreading the rumor that he was mentally unstable as a result of his POW experiences.

    One very, very telling fact is that at least as of 2000, he had by far the most loyal, longest-serving staff in the Senate.  You don't get that kind of staff loyalty if you're a bully.  McCain is not.

    He may be an a***e too often, but he's clearly not a bully.

    Parent

    who gets a pass from the media? (none / 0) (#164)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    who gets into altercations in the legislature? so far you have described both candidates. you know name calling is not good form.

    Parent
    Like healthcare? (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    I can think of many improvements, particularly to the lives of Americans on economic issues and issues like health care that a Democratic administration will bring.

    Though I generally agree, I'd leave healthcare out of that mix.  Obama's not gonna push that issue.

    We are ONES (none / 0) (#139)
    by norah22 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:27:46 AM EST
    Yes WE ARE citizens of the world, WE ARE one, please listen to the lyrics of this song WE ARE that I found on Youtube. his name is Francis Jocky, he is so right, we're all of one, one of all... Just beautiful, Together we can and I'm not a dreamer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t5F6jZlFbc

    worst campaign I've ever seen (none / 0) (#148)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:16:03 AM EST
    Seriously, the McCain campaign is the worst presidential campaign I've ever seen. He makes some of most loosing POTUS campaigns in recent history look good. Every time he has a campaign event or says something I actually find myself bracing for pain. And I'm not even for the guy. And the response to this speech is totally lame and typical of what I've seen.

    Of course given that and given the amazing lovefest for Obama in the media, how on earth is McCain ahead in CO and between statistically tied or only behind a few points in the overall numbers? Apparently there are a lot more clingy racist appalachians than the Obama campaign thought. snark.

    Agreed re McCain=bad campaign (none / 0) (#154)
    by DFLer on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:04:07 AM EST
    That's why today's Q-polls in MI, WI, CO and MN are so baffling and really alarming. As opposed to the recent Raz poll, this new Q poll has O & McC in a statistical tie in MN. Yikes! I suspect that there will be a TL post by BTD or JM about it, so...

    [Obama needs to start connecting with voters about bread and butter issues, HERE in the USA.]

    Parent

    Spellcheck (none / 0) (#173)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    now=know. Ack!

    McCain Responds to Obama's Berlin Speech | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment