The Unknown Obama

One pundit who I guess we can be sure won't be falling out of love with John McCain is Richard Cohen who today writes that he can name more admirable stuff McCain has done over the course of his live than he can about Barack Obama. This turns out to be especially true if you take a question Obama was right about, the decision to invade the war in Iraq, and decide that it doesn't count because he was representing a liberal constituency. But things like John McCain's opposition to a prescription drug benefit for Medicare and his "very early call for more troops" in Iraq do count even though McCain was representing a very conservative constituency.

Basically, since John McCain has been alive a lot longer than Obama, if you focus only on the positive actions of both men but refuse to count any of Obama's positive actions then McCain comes off looking much better than Obama. Consequently, to Cohen Obama is a bit of a sketchy unknown figure:

I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it.

Now in an ideal world candidates for office might release statements, speeches, documents, etc. about their policy ideas. People could scrutinize these ideas. Most people, of course, might be too busy to plow into detail. But a professional newspaper columnist, at least, would be able to sit down and really dig into what Obama is proposing to do on taxes versus what McCain is proposing to do. You could look into their plans for health care and for the environment. All sorts of things like that. And then even a guy with a relatively brief record in federal office wouldn't appear to be such a blank slate. So it's really too bad nobody does that. You would think that with the dawn of the internet candidates could at least put something up on their website under an "issues" tab or something.

Oh well.

Comments

So, if Cohen doesn't know anything, it means there's nothing there?

Funny, I just thought that would mean that dumbass would lose his job. I mean, if he doesn't know anything, what the fuck good can he be?

On Scarborough this morning, Cohen said Obama had been in the Senate "one year."
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 10:16 AM

In any sane nation Cohen would be torn limb from limb by an angry mob. The fact that that animal can safely walk the streets without fear of just retribution for his many crimes is one of the saddest facts about our current desperate situation.

Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 10:16 AM

Heck, Cohen could look at Obama's Wikipedia entry.

But of course Cohen is just being a di*k.

Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 10:18 AM

Maybe Cohen's been hanging out with Fred Hiatt again. Maybe Hiatt awards bonuses based on number of pro-McCain, anti-Obama columns, with bonus points for arguing in the dumbest possible way.

Posted by bob | July 29, 2008 10:20 AM

Richard Cohen is desperate to throw John McCain a lifeline, because McCain's latest ads and statements are actually starting to erode support for McCain amongst his "base" (the media).

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 29, 2008 10:21 AM

McCain is just about done, I wouldnt doubt the GOP ditch him at the last second and run a younger more charasmatic charachter. They could site his Cancer scare as the reason. I dont doubt that they will, Becuase he is becoming more unelectable by the day, with gaff after gaff. Did you see him knock all that stuff off the shelf at the supermarket. the video is at http://www.mccanes.com all the while barack obama is looking like an NBA super star, (arrogence and all) even taking time to stop and have a cigar break video at http://www.theobamaplan.com I mean really what is the GOP going to do. McCain cannot win at this point and we havnt even started the debates.

Posted by Peter | July 29, 2008 10:27 AM

McCain is just about done, I wouldnt doubt the GOP ditch him at the last second and run a younger more charasmatic charachter. They could site his Cancer scare as the reason. I dont doubt that they will, Becuase he is becoming more unelectable by the day, with gaff after gaff. Did you see him knock all that stuff off the shelf at the supermarket. the video is at http://www.mccanes.com all the while barack obama is looking like an NBA super star, (arrogence and all) even taking time to stop and have a cigar break video at http://www.theobamaplan.com I mean really what is the GOP going to do. McCain cannot win at this point and we havnt even started the debates.

Posted by Peter | July 29, 2008 10:27 AM

Isn't it funny that the big theme on Obama from the Republican Attack Machine (RAM) is that "We don't know Obama". What is there to know that we haven't yet learned? What do we know about McCain that we don't know about Obama? It is a silly theme, but sometimes these droll themes resonate with the electorate (see flip-flop '04).

Posted by freddiemac | July 29, 2008 10:28 AM

This is an example why most left/right measurements of bias are useless. Laziness is a far more significant factor in news bias.

And cowardice.

"Conventional wisdom" satisfies both. Cohen's column, as noted, avoided any intellectual heavy lifting, and while it won't be remembered next week, it's also consistent enough with CW that there's little risk of looking foolish within the echo chamber.

Posted by Ryan S | July 29, 2008 10:32 AM

This election shouldn't just be about who is going to be president--that part is pretty much decided, to the chagrin of people whose livelihoods are dependent upon the appearance of a close race. It should be about knocking the VSP's off their pedestal, and covering them with the same well-earned goop that McCain is sporting. Next January we shouldn't be content with not seeing McCain up on the podium--we should make sure that we don't see Cohen, Broder, or the whole ridiculous lot of them in our newspapers.

Posted by Rich | July 29, 2008 10:35 AM

If Cohen would at least admit that he didn't know anything about George W. Bush before he was elected and that's why he's worried about Obama, it would make some logical sense.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 29, 2008 10:42 AM

Why are we surprised about the DC media's reaction to Obama? McCain spent decades kissing their ass. They obviously prefer him over the upstart Obama. Methinks it is great that the only line of attack they have against Obama is that he is an empty suit. That is easily disproved once people hear him talk. By contrast even McCain's friends cringe when they hear him speak (I’m comparing content, not style). It is likely that the Mac's mind (probably given his age) is not in mint condition. Elections are about the future. Once people contrast the two candidates, I don’t think McCain has a hope. He is trying to don the mantle of Reagan but he looks like Bob Dole. While the margin of his victory might be uncertain (I think the election will be close) the only thing that can derail Obama now is a secret love child somewhere.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | July 29, 2008 10:50 AM

Two words: Bob Dole.

Posted by CJColucci | July 29, 2008 10:59 AM

To be a dedicated Obama supporter you must be an Obama believer.

That is, if you are an Obama supporter you support him on the basis of what you BELIEVE he can and will do, based mostly in WHO you believe he is -- that is, the kind of person you perceive him to be, the personal qualities you believe he possesses -- rather than demonstrated achievements, experience or resume.

That being the case, for the Obama believer, what he says he will or can do (policy statements, speeches) carries more weight than track record.

Cohen is trying to judging Obama by a standard that doesn't apply to this "new" kind of candidate and isn't recognized by his supporters.

Posted by esmense | July 29, 2008 11:01 AM

Cohen is just repeating the current talking point against Obama: "We don't know anything about him." No amount of information about Obama will make a dent in this stance. It's the drumbeat of ignorance.

Posted by Dave | July 29, 2008 11:03 AM

To be a dedicated Obama supporter you must be an Obama believer.

That is, if you are an Obama supporter you support him on the basis of what you BELIEVE he can and will do, based mostly in WHO you believe he is -- that is, the kind of person you perceive him to be, the personal qualities you believe he possesses -- rather than demonstrated achievements, experience or resume.

That being the case, for the Obama believer, what he says he will or can do (policy statements, speeches) carries more weight than track record.

Cohen is trying to judging Obama by a standard that doesn't apply to this "new" kind of candidate and isn't recognized by his supporters.

Posted by esmense | July 29, 2008 11:05 AM

Neocons and hangers-on, such as Cohen, only pretend to care about someone's stances on political issues. What they actually care about are, as David Brooks calls them, "symbolic issues".

These "symbolic issues" include, but aren't limited to, the wearing of flag pins, who your pastor is or isn't, and whether or not your mother was a Marxist. Of course, all of these "issues" can have a variety of "symbolic" meanings, so, like the Pope, neocons and hangers-on must take it upon themselves to translate these symbols into actual meaning for us mere mortals. American politics has become a real life version of the Da Vinci Code.

Posted by slag | July 29, 2008 11:08 AM

Similarly, it was Walter Lippmann's enduring misfortune to size up FDR and belittle him: Roosevelt, he wrote, was "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president." Lippmann later recognized that he had underestimated Roosevelt.

My guess is that Obama will make a fool of anyone who issues such a judgment about him.

The irony is delicious.

Posted by Kevin | July 29, 2008 11:24 AM

What's bad is the fact that the column is comprised entirely of ideas that would be welcome inside any delusional sports fanbase. "Well if we woulda won 4 more games, no one gotten injured, and qualified for the playoffs, we totally would have won it all." Brilliant Richard, you sound like a Bengals fan. Rich, you're gonna win it all next year, provided that all the things that count don't count.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/

Posted by Matthew | July 29, 2008 11:27 AM

No, Matt, you bozo.

Cohen isn't analyzing Obama's positions, as you seem to think. Policy positions don't always tell us much about relative newcomers to the political scene. Remember: Bush eschewed nation-building in his 2000 platform.

Cohen is analyzing his character, and can't find much that's very revealing. He's wondering: what hard choices has Obama had to make and what does that tell us about him? And I don't think it reflects much thought on your part to argue that Obama has had to face just as many hard choices as McCain has, or that Obama's antiwar position as a state senator in a liberal district in 2002 is the same as McCain's opposition to Bush's tax cuts or his support of campaign finance reform.

Posted by Kreliav | July 29, 2008 11:34 AM

Gee, to judge by the adult, well-reasoned responses:

Funny, I just thought that would mean that dumbass would lose his job. I mean, if he doesn't know anything, what the fuck good can he be?
In any sane nation Cohen would be torn limb from limb by an angry mob.
But of course Cohen is just being a di*k.

It's hard not to conclude that Cohen has found the secret fear of Obamaites: we're running a personality against an experienced leader, and that could backfire badly.

Posted by Mike G | July 29, 2008 11:42 AM

Mike G,
Voice of Reason always talks like that. Don't try to gather too much from it. I think the only thing Obamaites(cool nickname!!) are worried about is the MSM failing to call McCain out on bullshit. They are starting to, though...

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 11:46 AM

"He's wondering: what hard choices has Obama had to make and what does that tell us about him?"

1. Didn't Obama write an entire book about his life? Shouldn't that have given Cohen some insight into the man?

2. Does Cohen make any effort to tell the difference between "hard" choices and making the right choice?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 29, 2008 11:55 AM

Mike G,

The fact that I find it impossible to take Cohen seriously, and thus don't think Cohen merits a serious response, says absolutely nothing about what I think of Obama or McCain. Indeed, I actually happen to know quite a bit about Obama's background, which is part of why I can't take seriously people who treat their own willful ignorance about Obama's background as the basis for an argument against his candidacy.

Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 11:55 AM

Regarding the last sentence of the article, "You would think that with the dawn of the internet candidates could at least put something up on their website under an "issues" tab or something."

It's been there all along on Obama's website.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Posted by Jan | July 29, 2008 11:56 AM

It's hard not to conclude that Cohen has found the secret fear of Obamaites: we're running a personality against an experienced leader, and that could backfire badly.

Just out of curiosity, when it is that McCain has actually led?

He's been an excellent follower. A very good parrot. An occasional cynic. A wisecracking jokester. He gives good press.

But what specific instances of leadership would you point to that have earned him this personality...oops! I mean, "reputation" as a leader.

(Speaking as an Obama supporter, my secret fear is that McCain will drop out of the race, as another commenter mentioned above.)

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 12:04 PM

DTM:

I agree with you that we do know quite a bit about Obama after 18 months of campaigning. What we've learned is that this man does not have the background and knowledge gained through experience, or proven judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, nor demonstrated his character through being tested. Leadership matters in choosing a president, not simply policies listed under a tab on a website titled "Issues." Literally any candidate can have that, but not everyone has proved their mettle the hard way.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 12:11 PM

Matt ducked the question, which ought to be easy enough for the Obama-philes - what has he ever done?

There was that flurry of legislation in his last year in the Illinois Senate, as part of a deal with the Senate Majority leader. Anything else?

FWIW, not all of us consider assembling a bunch of cool progressive proposals an actual accomplishment, as opposed, for example, to seeing a proposal turned into law. Even if the proposals are assembled at a cool website.

But I suppose a writer turned think-tanker might imagine that that is all there is to the process.

Posted by Tom Maguire | July 29, 2008 12:16 PM

What we've learned is that this man does not have the background and knowledge gained through experience, or proven judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, nor demonstrated his character through being tested.

Specific examples, please. HOW do we know this?

Please back up your assertions with specific, real-world evidence, or be forced to listen to ME wax abstractly:

"The flower of courage is a plant which plants its seed not in every man, not in every time, but when the soil of freedom has mixed with the fertilizer of leadership to produce the pungent stench of liberty..."

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 12:16 PM

Obama has proven to be an adept politician and a great candidate for presidency. His European tour restored the world's hope in America. We still might be able to improve relations and the image of America. Obama has touched base with states that were Republicans and is leading McCain. That says a lot. Please support Obama. Visit WHYOBAMA08.org!!

Posted by Aiken Blue | July 29, 2008 12:18 PM

I agree with you that we do know quite a bit about Obama after 18 months of campaigning. What we've learned is that this man does not have the background and knowledge gained through experience, or proven judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, nor demonstrated his character through being tested. Leadership matters in choosing a president, not simply policies listed under a tab on a website titled "Issues." Literally any candidate can have that, but not everyone has proved their mettle the hard way.

That's too bad, because I was really hoping Tim K would write-in Obama in the next Canadian parliamentary election.

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 12:20 PM

I think an "inexperienced" candidate (a) running a virtually flawless campaign; (b) winning the primary against a strong field including the universally regarded frontrunner in his own party in the primary; and (c) so far leading and attracting attention away from a popular long-serving politician in the main event, after having achieved an impressive level of success in life being a mixed-race kid with a funny name from a single-parent household -- well, I dunno, but I think that guy might know a thing or two about mettle. More, probably, than you or me or any other idiot on the Internet.

Posted by Kevin | July 29, 2008 12:22 PM

Uh...Jan, Matt was joking. He's fully aware that Obama has an 'issues tab' on his website. He just thinks being snarky makes him more interesting. Or cute.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 12:22 PM

"What we've learned is that this man does not have the background and knowledge gained through experience, or proven judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, nor demonstrated his character through being tested. Leadership matters in choosing a president, not simply policies listed under a tab on a website titled "Issues." Literally any candidate can have that, but not everyone has proved their mettle the hard way."

So am I to assume, then, that George Bush passed that test prior to being nominated as the Republican candidate for president? As I see it, and I voted for G.W.B. twice, our current president has exactly none of the leadership characteristics you describe. Seems a bit hypocritical to pull out such tests now that a Dem is the front runner.

Posted by I'm Confused | July 29, 2008 12:23 PM

Peter H:

Well apparently the opinions of foreigners only matters when they are a crowd of adoring Germans. Whatever happened to World Citizenship and restoring America's standing in the world? I guess our opinions only count if we recognize the sheer brilliance of The One.

Scythia:

He does not have the background. He was an Illinois state senator, and then US Senator for only two years before running for president. He did not bother taking the time to build a record of accomplishment before running for president, and nothing in his pre-Senate career gives him any credibility on foreign policy, national security or defense-related issues. And that's 75% of a president's job description.

He doesn't have the judgment. Not only was he wrong the surge - and won't even admit it despite overwhelming evidence - but is currently naive and irresponsible and committing to a 16-month timetable in Iraq.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 12:30 PM

Why are people posing the what-has-Obama/McCain done questions to me? Seems to me Richard Cohen handles that one fine.

I live in Chicago, I know perfectly well what Obama's record is. Thin and lucky and well-connected and never crossed the Daley machine, that's his record.

To judge him by the most significant act I've observed, backing Todd Stroger because Mayor Daley ordered him to, instead of standing up for his reformer friend and ally Forrest Claypool, he's well suited to be a senator from Illinois, but not something I'd wish on the other 49 states.

Posted by Mike G | July 29, 2008 12:31 PM

Matt, I think you're being deliberately disingenuous here. Cohen's point wasn't only that Obama might merely have been echoing his constituents' anti-war stance and thus wasn't being particularly brave. It was that Obama was a lowly state legislator at the time and an irrelevency on national defense. A state legislator's futile opposition to a war is not an accomplishment, whether it's a brave stance or not. The dogcatcher of Podunk, Idaho was equally against the war - but neither man can take credit for stopping it, as of course it wasn't stopped.

I think you are also deliberately overstating the state of Arizona as a whole as being a "very conservative constituency," comaparble to the small area of Hyde Park when no entity as large as a state, especially a somewhat purple one like AZ, can seriously be compared to a small enclave like a Chicago neighborhood that is among the most left-leaning in the nation. There are undoubtedly constituencies as conservative as Obama's was liberal, but you'd have to look in a correspondingly small conservative district of a conservative state to find them, not in anything as large and diverse as a statewide electorate. In fact given the heavy concentration of retirees in AZ, opposing the Medicare prescription drug benefit was hardly the way for McCain to pander to his constituents.

Posted by Patrick | July 29, 2008 12:31 PM

I think an "inexperienced" candidate (a) running a virtually flawless campaign

Axelrod For President, then.

Posted by Mike G | July 29, 2008 12:35 PM

To summarize, in the Illinois Senate Obama worked to pass legislation on many issues, including low-income tax credits, ethics, police practices, and healthcare. In the U.S. Senate among other things he worked to pass Coburn-Obama, an ethics bill, and Lugar-Obama, a non-proliferation bill.

Now there is a lot more one could say about Obama's accomplishments as an elected official, but based on my experiences in the primary season, it just doesn't matter. The relevant people aren't interested in finding out more about Obama's legislative career--they just want a talking point.

Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 12:35 PM

I do judge him by his past accomplishments, and it is not a pretty site. Wright, Ayers and Rezco, along with his "the surge won't work" rhetoric are plenty for me to decide that his judgement is more than lacking. This guy is the least qualified candidate to get this far in a presidential election ever.

Posted by Judd | July 29, 2008 12:36 PM

Matt, I think you're being deliberately disingenuous here. Cohen's point wasn't only that Obama might merely have been echoing his constituents' anti-war stance and thus wasn't being particularly brave. It was that Obama was a lowly state legislator at the time and an irrelevency on national defense. A state legislator's futile opposition to a war is not an accomplishment, whether it's a brave stance or not. The dogcatcher of Podunk, Idaho was equally against the war - but neither man can take credit for stopping it, as of course it wasn't stopped.

I think you are also deliberately overstating the state of Arizona as a whole as being a "very conservative constituency," comaparble to the small area of Hyde Park when no entity as large as a state, especially a somewhat purple one like AZ, can seriously be compared to a small enclave like a Chicago neighborhood that is among the most left-leaning in the nation. There are undoubtedly constituencies as conservative as Obama's was liberal, but you'd have to look in a correspondingly small conservative district of a conservative state to find them, not in anything as large and diverse as a statewide electorate. In fact given the heavy concentration of retirees in AZ, opposing the Medicare prescription drug benefit was hardly the way for McCain to pander to his constituents.

Posted by Patrick | July 29, 2008 12:37 PM

Matt ducked the question, which ought to be easy enough for the Obama-philes - what has he ever done?

I'll throw this right back at you, Tommy. WTF has McCain ever done? He's been in Congress, what? Seven times longer than Obama? Where are his accomplishments?

I actually broke down and read the damn Cohen article. Aside from his [excreable] performance during the Bush administration, Cohen could only cite two accomplishments of significance for McCain.

Now, this may surprise you. But in addition to being...shall we [charitably] say...marginally relevant to executive ability, McCain's "achievements" in Vietnam and Campaign Finance are not cut-and-dry as some would have us believe.

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 12:37 PM

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

You always get a lot of whiners who complain in the face of superior talent and judgment. The fact that these people are invariably the same people who supported bush over Gore and Kerry makes the hypocrisy all the more hilarious.

Posted by Tyro | July 29, 2008 12:39 PM

He did not bother taking the time to build a record of accomplishment before running for president, and nothing in his pre-Senate career gives him any credibility on foreign policy, national security or defense-related issues. And that's 75% of a president's job description.

OMG, and Iraqi-Pakistani border patrolman McCain has foreign policy credibility? Give me a break. Please show me something intelligent McCain has said or written on foreign policy or STFU, please.

He doesn't have the judgment. Not only was he wrong the surge - and won't even admit it despite overwhelming evidence - but is currently naive and irresponsible and committing to a 16-month timetable in Iraq.

Keep pushing that talking point, bro. It's a winner.

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 12:41 PM

I'm Confused:

I wouldn't have voted for Bush over Al Gore or John Kerry. I'd have voted for President Clinton in the 1990's and Senator Clinton this year. They all crossed the necessary thresholds in my view.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 12:41 PM

Wright, Ayers and Rezco

Please please PLEASE go here! I'll see your Rezko and raise you a Charles Keating.

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 12:43 PM

I'm Confused:

I wouldn't have voted for Bush over Al Gore or John Kerry. I'd have voted for President Clinton in the 1990's and Senator Clinton this year. They all crossed the necessary thresholds in my view.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 12:44 PM

Because Ambinder's comments section is non-functioning (imagine that!)...

Obama's Iraq War opposition--including the predictions and judgments he expressed therein--is a biggie, esp because it was risky back then. But I think being a community organizer, a Constitutional Law professor, and raising a pretty cool family are all important and great things too.

In the short time he's been in the Senate, I really like his efforts to make government more transparent (any bill that results in a useful website is a good thing in my book).

Oh yeah...and he's inspired a lot of people to get involved in politics, which, no matter what Cohen and his ilk claim, is a really big deal. Not to mention building an amazing political organization, which requires no small amount of management skills and insight.

And he's done it all without having been born with the silver-est of spoons in his mouth, unlike his opponents.

Posted by slag | July 29, 2008 12:47 PM

Scythia:

People who have an understanding of international relations know why setting a timetable is a bad idea. Withdrawl needs to be based on conditions so that US troops leave Iraq in success and will not have to go back to finish the job that should have been done the first time. I empathize with Americans who just want to wash their hands of the Iraqi occupation given the high costs incurred, but leaving too soon could have incalculable consequences. Sometimes a president has to do the right thing, not just the popular thing.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 12:49 PM

Tim K,

Fair enough, I shouldn't have made the snarky comment. You are entitled to your opinion about American elections.

He does not have the background. He was an Illinois state senator, and then US Senator for only two years before running for president. He did not bother taking the time to build a record of accomplishment before running for president, and nothing in his pre-Senate career gives him any credibility on foreign policy, national security or defense-related issues. And that's 75% of a president's job description.

Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosovelt, Woodrow Wilson, & FDR all had less experience in politics than Barack Obama did before becoming President? Do you think that their lack of experience hindered them from becoming successful Presidents? And, conversely, do you think the extensive legislative experience of LBJ, Nixon, or Ford made them successful in office?

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 12:53 PM

Its all about thresholds with Timmy K.

Tell me, Tim, what foreign policy thresholds to Bill Clinton cross before 1992? What foreign policy thresholds to Senator Clinton pass before before 2008? You are a silly, silly man.

Admit, you are still bitter at BHO for knocking your 'diva' out of the race. Get serious, Timmy.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 12:54 PM

Tom Maguire: plenty of information on Obama's record and accomplishments can be found at this link.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 29, 2008 12:55 PM

"He doesn't have the judgment. Not only was he wrong the surge - and won't even admit it despite overwhelming evidence - but is currently naive and irresponsible and committing to a 16-month timetable in Iraq."

Obama's point is not that the surge hasn't reduced violence, because he HAS admitted as much on numerous occassions, but that in his judgment his plan would have been better for the U.S. and Iraqi people. Because Obama's suggested approach was not implemented we have no idea how it would have compared to the surge. May have lead to more political reconciliation and perhaps fewer american soliders would be dead. Maybe not.

McCain's argument that "he won't admit he was wrong about the surge" sounds like a 3 year old crying nana nana boo boo. Grow up people.

We got real problems facing the planet folks, and we need someone with real intelligence and leadership to get back on track before it is too late. Obama certaily isn't perfect, but McCain would be a disaster.

Posted by Now I'm Really Confused | July 29, 2008 12:56 PM

People who have an understanding of international relations know why setting a timetable is a bad idea.
Then, somebody needs to boot Iraqi PM Maliki fast. Oh yeah...and McCain too, since he endorsed Maliki's endorsement of Obama's plan.

Will there be no one left to lead the people?!?!?

Posted by slag | July 29, 2008 12:57 PM

People who have an understanding of international relations know why setting a timetable is a bad idea. Withdrawl needs to be based on conditions so that US troops leave Iraq in success and will not have to go back to finish the job that should have been done the first time...Sometimes a president has to do the right thing, not just the popular thing.

No offense, Tim, but you write like a third grader and rest your argument upon vapid cliches. Your appeal to authority has been denied.

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 12:59 PM

[but it's all love, Tim. you know that, right?]

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 1:01 PM

Stacy:

Bill Clinton did not have much background in foreign affairs, but that was after the end of the Cold War and before 9/11. What he did have was many years of executive experience running a state government, something Obama also lacks. So Obama cannot even make up for a lack of foreign policy credentials with executive experience, and even his domestic policy record is thin.

I am not going to refight the arguments over Hillary Clinton's experience from the primaries. Suffice it to say that if you are unable to understand the difference there isn't much I can do for you.

Peter H:

Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were presidents at times when the US was a middle power at best with little global importance. It was a time before nuclear weapons and superpowers. FDR was secretary of the navy, and had executive experience as governor, while Nichard Nixon was senator for many years, served in the military and was vice-president for eight years.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 1:03 PM

Yeah, people that really understand international relations know that you stay indefinitely, maybe even 100 years, as long as the enemy isn't killing any of our soldiers. And if they are still killing our soldiers, then...um...well, we can't just leave them in a state of civil war!! But I'm sure glad Tim capable of empathizing with us yankees!

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 1:05 PM

Scythia:

Well it is rather difficult to match the intellectual rigorous displayed by your school-yard taunts and petty insults.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 1:09 PM

People who have an understanding of international relations know why setting a timetable is a bad idea. Withdrawl needs to be based on conditions so that US troops leave Iraq in success and will not have to go back to finish the job that should have been done the first time.

That's just not true. There are plenty of people "who have an understanding of international relations" who support a timetable for withdrawal. Read Steven Simon's essay in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs. Simon is a fellow with the Council of Foreign Relations, hardly a leftist peacenik organization. He says that a commitment to withdrawal is necessary to push surrounding countries & the Europeans countries to take responsibility for improving the political situation in Iraq & building a viable Iraqi state.

Of course, there are intelligent people on all sides of the debate, but it’s stupid to say there’s only one responsible position to take.

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 1:10 PM

rigor*

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 1:12 PM

there really are surprisingly few competent researchers working as Op-Ed writers at the major papers in the US. each paper seems to have one or two out of their roster who actually take the time to look up information. the WPost and WSJ are the worst offenders, by far. their editorial pages are undisguised pro-state, pro-GOP, pro-Bush propaganda, and there's no getting around it. why people even discuss their incessant whining and the stream of lies they spew forth, I do not understand. you don't get rid of these people by debating the validity of what they say. you get rid of them by simply, time and again, pointing to their lack of validity, and refusing to discuss any further.

of course anyone with a functioning brain knows that Cohen could have done some damn research and written a fair piece. that was obviously never the point! chastising him over not doing a better job is pointless. he accomplished exactly what he meant to.

Posted by onceler | July 29, 2008 1:13 PM

Tim K, it is fairly obvious to everyone that Obama is extremely knowledgeable, has a set of excellent policy positions, and forces politicians who supported the Iraq war to pay the political consequences for their failures. Hillary Clinton stands out as an example of a politician who fails when the moment requires her, and John McCain standards out as a person whose moment passed back in 2000. To support an abjected worse, unknowledgeable politician like McCain, who is supported by an entourage of ignoramouses and veritable criminals, can only be regarded as a defiaqnt lashing out against Obama for perceived humiliations he forced you to suffer, due to having been proven wrong by him.

Furthermore, timetables are a staple of planning. It was not until the appearance of the Bush administration that otherwise intelligent people started claiming that timetables were a bad idea. I am sorry to hear that you have been taken in by this sort of dishonest propaganda and have started to emulate it. Such behavior is really not healthy.

Posted by Tyro | July 29, 2008 1:17 PM

Well it is rather difficult to match the intellectual rigorous displayed by your school-yard taunts and petty insults.
You just made an argument akin to "Anybody who knows anything about anything agrees with me," and you're accusing others of making "school-yard taunts"?

Who's rubber and who's glue in this scenario?

Posted by slag | July 29, 2008 1:17 PM

Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were presidents at times when the US was a middle power at best with little global importance. It was a time before nuclear weapons and superpowers.

So what? Lincoln still had to deal with the greatest crisis in American history. Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1906 for mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese War & helped build the Panama Canal. The point is...neither of them were hindered by "lack of experience."

FDR was secretary of the navy, and had executive experience as governor,

FDR was an assistant secretary, not the secretary. He was governor for 4 years before he became President. It's hardly an overwhelming record.

while Nichard Nixon was senator for many years, served in the military and was vice-president for eight years.

Right. And do you think his experience made him a successful president? Did LBJ & Ford's extensive experience in Congress make them successful Presidents?

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 1:21 PM

Tim K,

Withdrawal based on conditions and withdrawal according to a timetable are not mutually exclusive.

Obama is proposing a withdrawal because the conditions in Iraq demand it. The Iraqi people do not want an indefinite American occupation, and one of the prime factors motivating insurgents in both the Sunni and Shiite militias is the suspicion that the US wants to maintain a permanent military presence there.

In addition, Afghanistan has a far greater need for a large American military presence than Iraq does, and securing Afghanistan against the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda is of far greater importance to American national security than intervening in a Iraqi civil war. To give the Iraqi government adedquate time to successfully transition from the protection of the American military to Iraqi security forces, Obama is proposing a phased withdrawal over time, rather than an immediate withdrawal of the bulk of our troops. Obama has said many times that the timetable is not fixed in stone; if the Iraqi government needs more time to get iis act together, he will slow down the rate of redeployment.

As usual, Tim K, you present false choices and frame the argument in disingenous ways, just like Dubya, Cheney, McCain, and Hillary Clinton.

Stop presenting false choices and framing the argument in disingenous ways, in the manner of Bush, Cheney, McCain, and Hillary Clinton.

Posted by eltoro | July 29, 2008 1:23 PM

Well it is rather difficult to match the intellectual rigorous displayed by your school-yard taunts and petty insults.

Don't sweat it, bro. Spend your time responding to the substantive arguments people are making. I'll just keep slamming you on style.

See how Peter H. didn't just make an unsubstantiated claim, but backed up with a citation? And how it wasn't just propaganda, but a serious, detailed piece in a respectable journal? That's the kind of effort I'd like to see from you.

Remember upthread, when I asked you to "please show me something intelligent McCain has said or written on foreign policy"? A link at the level Peter H is the kind of thing I was looking for there. [He supplied his without even being asked for it, so I'd say right now he's pwning you.]

So, Tim K., if you have thought about these issues in depth and detail, and aren't merely a mouthpiece who regurgitates talking points without bothering to examine their validity, now would be the time to show and prove.

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 1:25 PM

". . . over the course of his live . . . "

That's over the course of his life.

Thanks.

Go, Barack!

Posted by will sachis | July 29, 2008 1:25 PM

Peter H:

No, sometimes there is only one responsible position to take. Setting an arbitrary timetable for withdrawl based on domestic political considerations rather than conditions on the ground is irresponsible. Yes, US troops will withdrawl and it is important to signal that intention. That has already been done by Bush, McCain, Obama, Maliki and every one else of any influence. It is clear that most US troops will be leaving as soon as conditions warrant it. Virtually everyone - including McCain - recognizes the desire to and benefits of withdrawing the bulk of the troops, but it must be done prudently and based on conditions. Obama himself say s its important to be as careful getting out and they were careless getting in... an arbitrary timetable isn't careful.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 1:26 PM

Like I said, read the Simon article in Foreign Affairs. I'll leave it to others to make judgments about who's the more responsible one.

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 1:31 PM

Like I said, read the Simon article in Foreign Affairs. I'll leave it to others to make judgments about who's the more responsible one.

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 1:31 PM

Tim K and Richard Cohen both seem to be promoting the same dellusion - that being President of the United States is this mysterious, enigmatic job that no one can be prepared for unless they spent X amount of time in certain approved elected offices. Cohen's doing it more because he likes McCain and Tim K because, well, he's just a little nuts.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 29, 2008 1:32 PM

scythia:

Maybe when you start being substantive yourself it will give you more credibility when lecturing others.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 1:34 PM

The Abomination is so predictable whenever their candidate's credentials are questioned. And they are so forgiving of his shadow boxing policy issues(i.e. His reversal on FISA and his hundred percent record on voting to continue funding the war that he allegedly opposes.) So many naive young people hate McCain simply because he had the gall of telling people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. Barry was a failure as a community organizer, he was a lazy state legislature, he is untested as a U.S. senator. He doesn't even know for sure how many state's are in the country. He is unqualified to lead. Jimmy Carter II.

Now, I want to start saving boxes so will all you folks promising to move to Canada if McCain win in November let me know now so that I can line up U-Hauls and pizza? Something went wrong after the Kerry loss and I want to make sure we can help facilitate your travel needs if McCain manages to win this time around.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 1:34 PM

Maybe when you start being substantive yourself it will give you more credibility when lecturing others.

That's excellent advice, Tim. Might I suggest reading it to yourself, out loud, and repeating it several times?

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 1:36 PM

The Abomination is so predictable whenever their candidate's credentials are questioned. And they are so forgiving of his shadow of boxing policy issues(i.e. His reversal on FISA and his hundred percent record on voting to continue funding the war that he allegedly opposes.) So many naive young people -- and a few old ones, too -- hate McCain simply because he has the gall of telling people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. That's called leadership.

Face it, Barry was a failure as a community organizer (ever visited the housing project where he performed his alleged miracles? Ever hear what other activists that worked with him had to say about his contributions?), he was a lazy state legislator (he was allowed to shepherd the sure-thing legislation because the party leadership recognized his marketability), he is untested as a U.S. senator (two year. No major legislation of his own). He doesn't even know for sure how many states are in the country. He is unqualified to lead. Jimmy Carter II.

btw, I want to start saving boxes so will all you folks promising to move to Canada if McCain wins in November let me know now so that I can line up U-Hauls and pizza? Something went wrong after the Kerry loss and I want to make sure we can help facilitate your travel needs this time around if McCain manages to win.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 1:40 PM

"Setting an arbitrary timetable for withdrawl based on domestic political considerations rather than conditions on the ground is irresponsible."

If John McCain is elected President, will Iraqis just wake up one morning and be shocked to discover that all American troops have disappeared from their country overnight? No.

BOTH Obama and McCain will set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal. The difference is that Obama is comitting to withdrawal up front, while acknowledging his timetable may change based on events on the groung, while McCain is demanding that we wait some unspecified and undetermined amount of time before setting his timetable for withdrawal, without ever establishing the precise conditions he will require for such an action.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 29, 2008 1:41 PM

And as I said before, Tim, don't waste time responding to me. I'm just having a laugh.

Instead, look at the substantive arguments recently posed by Tyro, Peter H., slag, and eltoro, among others, and see if you can fashion a credible, intelligent response to them that doesn't merely consist of campaign slogans from commercials and stump speeches.

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 1:42 PM

Cohen's underlying point is that Obama apparently doesn't have any principles he stands for beyond his own leadership. McCain's been laying it on the line for policies he cares about for year, while Obama's delayed having to take major decisions (except in the case of the war) in pursuit of higher office. McCain's brand is about public policy -- national security, immigration reform, et al -- Obama's is himself.

Posted by Rich | July 29, 2008 1:43 PM

Tim K,

BTW, Obama wasn't wrong about the surge. While the surge did help reduce the level of violence found in Bagdhad, the surge is not responsible for reducing Sunni opposition to American troops. It is the negotiations done by the American military with the Sunni sheikhs that provided a temporary cessation of that. In addition, the American military supplied money and weapons to the Sunnis in exchange for the Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, and destroying much of Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq. Finally, while Dubya was concentrating on his surge tactics in Iraq, he allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regain strength in Afghanistan. Thus, while the surge in Iraq did play a secondary role in ramping down the intensity of the Iraqi civil war, it did nothing to improve our national security.

When ones looks at the Middle East situation then through the correct macro lens, instead of a distorted micro lens, one can clearly see that Obama was right about the surge, and McCain/Dubya\Cheney\Tim K were wrong.

Posted by eltoro | July 29, 2008 1:44 PM

McCain's been laying it on the line for policies he cares about for year[s?]...national security, immigration reform

Rich, I'm afraid I don't know much about McCain's position on immigration? Could you explain it to me, with attention to specific detail, and perhaps take a look at how McCain's experience and dedication to principles greater than his pursuit of higher office have shaped his position as it's evolved in recent years?

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 1:48 PM

scythia,

How can you be so sure of your position when you say you don't know much about McCain's position on immigration? If there are three things most everyone know about McCain it's that he served in Vietnam, worked on campaign finance reform, and co-sponsored with Ted Kennedy a comprehensive bill on immigration that would have granted amnesty while toughening the laws dealing with illegals who repeatedly enter the U.S. illegally.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 1:56 PM

o-sponsored with Ted Kennedy a comprehensive bill on immigration that would have granted amnesty

McCain's pro-amnesty? OMG! Dude, I'm in favor of amnesty too! Does everybody really know this? Why is this not getting mentioned more?

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 2:01 PM

I'll let you in on another secret. There are conservative xenophobes who hate him more than you do because of his position on immigration. Daily Kos has even mentioned it so I am surprised you didn't know.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 2:04 PM

Look, this all boils down to generational jealousy. Cohen and a lot of other baby boomers are not ready for the passing of the baton to Obama and other younger members of the Democratic Party. Some people believe the conflict between Sen. Obama and Rev. Jackson is related to the age gap and I think there is a similar phenomenon here b/t Cohen and Obama. Cohen just can't accept that the two presidents from his generation -- Bush and Clinton -- were personal failures; the former blinded by being completely devoid of any intellectual curiosity/rigor and the latter by his own narcissistic impulses.

Posted by BEmama | July 29, 2008 2:05 PM

The truth is that Scythia, Peter, Tyro et al are not interested in success in Iraq. For ideological reasons, they do not believe a military intervention in Iraq can be successful. That is why their position is withdrawl no matter the cost.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 2:10 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

Since you seem genuinely surprised and interested, Scythia, here's a link to the Wikipedia article. The bill wasn't perfect but I am one of those lost Republicans who believe the U.S. economy would grind to a halt if we lined up the 11,000 buses necessary to truck all the illegal back to Mexico. (I also think that immigration add important diversity and color to our country. But that's another post.) McCain isn't the perfect candidate. I live in Iowa and take the caucus process seriously and made a point of hearing all of the candidates speak several times and finally decided that the only ones I would find acceptable were McCain, Biden and Dodd. But I also think foreign policy experince is the most important credential for our next president and a rock star tour of Europe doesn't cut it for me. Obama talks pretty. He looks pretty. His wife is pretty. His children are pretty. But the suit is empty.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 2:13 PM

LOL! Tim, why do you keep responding to me?

The truth is that Scythia, Peter, Tyro et al are not interested in success in Iraq.

Evidence?

For ideological reasons, they do not believe a military intervention in Iraq can be successful.

Evidence?

That is why their position is withdrawl no matter the cost.

I'm gonna say it one last time, Tim, and if you don't pay attention I'm not going to play with you any more:

Evidence?

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 2:15 PM

*and see if you can fashion a credible, intelligent response to them that doesn't merely consist of campaign slogans from commercials and stump speeches.*

Hey, at least they didn't point you to the "issues" page on the candidate's web site. Oh, wait, that one's okay....

Posted by RW | July 29, 2008 2:16 PM

Scythia:

Trust me, it's evident. Just as it's evident I distrust Obama and respect McCain. You don't need to provide evidence of that since it drips from every word I write here. The same is true of your ideology of defeat.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 2:18 PM

Aw, shucks, Jay. You seem earnest so I can't clown on you like Tim. I'm actually too busy today to get into a discussion on the merits, but if you stick around these boards we'll tangle at some point. Cheers!

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 2:20 PM

What is becoming far more apparent in retrospect is that I was quite right to disregard the advice of folks like Tim K and support Obama in the primary. Your political perspectives are embarrassing man! Respect McCain? If you're a hard-core Republican whose done nothing but watch Fox News for the last 10 years, this is understandable. But for an alleged Democrat? That's when it just gets pathetic.

Posted by mpowell | July 29, 2008 2:23 PM

Trust me

Haha. No.

Check it out, Tim! There's a new thread on timetables! Your contributions are needed!

We're done here. Your grasp of the complexity of the issues has been noted.

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 2:24 PM

Guys,

I thought we established long ago that Tim K's real problem with Obama is the shade of his skin. Tim respects himself some McCain because of McCain's pleasing skin tone.

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming that MOST people supporting McCain are supporting him because they are racist. Far from it. Most people supporting McCain are either uninformed, are partisan hacks, are vicious genocidal warmongers (biggest category) or some combination thereof. Sure there are plenty of McCain supporters who are incidentally racist, but who would support McCain against any Democratic candidate.

But I'd say that only 4-6% of McCain's supporters, are, like TimK, supporting him solely because of Obama's race.

Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 2:33 PM

Tim K,

You got pwned on this thread buddy. Your posts went from somewhat reasonable to outright emotional garbage as you were pressed on specifics.

Your final post:

"The same is true of your ideology of defeat."

is a true gem. If your goal was to look like a fool then you have succeeded.

Posted by Tim K = LOL | July 29, 2008 2:36 PM

Scythia,

Pity. I don't post on these board much (any board for that matter) but was compelled to do so because I am so tired of the Obamaniacs shooting the messenger every time their messiah's credentials are questioned. I've never been able to change the mind of a Barack supporter even when I supply a raft of information so I don't know why I bother. I actually kind of envy that blind faith that so many of you have in your candidate. It's cult-like, but it must be comforting to believe that someone can really change your world simply by being elected president. Because we all need to worry that no matter how qualified our next president, they still have to deal with the Pelosi-Reid led Congress with is 14 percent public approval rating. We're all cooked. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to put together the best team possible, it just that it doesn't matter much in this age of political slogan and public opinion polls.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 2:41 PM

Do you seriously think this echo-chamber of ultra-liberalism and Obama sychophantry represents the mainstream of America?

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 2:41 PM

Translation of "voice of reason":

Not everyone who dislikes Obama is racist, just the ones who post here or otherwise speak.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 2:45 PM

Face it, Barry was a failure as a community organizer (ever visited the housing project where he performed his alleged miracles? Ever hear what other activists that worked with him had to say about his contributions?)

Are you talking about Altgeld Gardens? This is what the Boston Globe reported

Still, key players who worked with Obama at Altgeld Gardens said he deserves credit for pulling together a team of hundreds of residents who rallied for improvements at their housing projects. Obama helped secure grants for a jobs program and pushed for asbestos removal. His biggest accomplishment may have been to leave in place a group of activist mothers, some of whom continue to work or live at Altgeld Gardens.

"What he brought to the effort was he helped [residents] to step into themselves to do things they weren't going to do and that the establishment here was not going to get done," said Linda Randle, an Atlgeld Gardens resident who worked closely with Obama and now has an Obama for President sign in her window.

he was a lazy state legislator (he was allowed to shepherd the sure-thing legislation because the party leadership recognized his marketability),

Again, that's not true. Read the New York Times article on Obama's legislative record & the accompanying graphic. Ethics reform was passed in 1998, 5 years before Emil Jones became Senate Majority Leader. And, as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee, he played a major role in passing health care reform in Illinois.

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 3:09 PM

"Not everyone who dislikes Obama is racist, just the ones who post here or otherwise speak."

No, Tim, wrong again. If you prefer Hillary Clinton over John McCain, but clearly prefer John McCain over Barack Obama, there are only a few explanations. One of those possible (and most likely) explanations is that you have a problem with the color of Obama's skin. Obviously, you don't want to seem like a racist, so you claim that Clinton and McCain have crossed some type of imaginary threshold that you arbitrarily move to fit your point. The problem, Tim, is that everyone on these message boards can clearly see through your bullshit. Take the following line...

"Just as it's evident I distrust Obama and respect McCain..."

I find it funny that you admit to not trusting Obama. You don't say you don't trust him to protect the troops, or trust him to protect your neighbors to the south. Or even trust him to turn the economy around. While I don't exactly agree with those views, they would at least be valid reasons to support McCain. But after seeing your posts on here for quite some, you clearly don't trust Obama as a man. Its clear some of this stems from a racial animosity. Or he reminds you of an ex-boyfriend. Which is it?

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 3:10 PM

Peter,

I certainly hope people read the Globe story and other stories about Altgood instead of depending on your selective snip-snip of the story.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 3:25 PM

Stacy:

It's wonderful to see first-hand this wonderful example of post-racial politics playing itself out.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 3:32 PM

Tim K,
What the hell are you talking about? You are the one with the racial hang-ups. Now others are playing racial politics because they call you out on it?

Jay,
I've read that entire piece before. I went back through it and the only truly negative thing I could find was the following..."Even his backers say Obama's achievements were modest." Oh, boy, what a failure. I'm not in love with Obama, but maybe the reason you can't convince any Obama supporters the error of their ways is because you see a piece like that in the Boston Globe and you think that it shows some great truth as to how Obama was a failure as a community organizer. You are petty, and clearly a bit delusional. But hey, keep referring to Obama supporters as "cult member," or "Obamaniacs." That's sure to convince others. Idiot.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 3:37 PM

I'm impressed. It took quite a few posts before the O-bots pulled out the race card.

Posted by sigh | July 29, 2008 3:41 PM

Stacy:

No, you and other Obama partisans are the only ones to mention race. If you don't think that's accurate please provide an example of when I discussed Obama's race.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 3:44 PM

It was pulled out on one person and one person only. And if you've read Matt's blog long enough, its pretty obvious where Tim K is coming from. He's a self-proclaimed Democrat who's supporting John McCain. But go ahead and continue to sigh. Nerd.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 3:47 PM

Tim K,
When all other things are held equal, there is simply no explanation for your 'distrust' of Obama. Not your dislike, but your 'distrust.' There's just something about him that's a little off, huh?

The only other explanation I can think of is that you simply can't forgive him for ruining your candidate's chances. You took the Hillary loss especially harsh.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 3:55 PM

To be fair to Tim K, I've never seen anything he's written that he's racist. His support for McCain has much more to do with his hawkish views on foreign policy and his loathing of activist liberals.

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 3:56 PM

---It was pulled out on one person and one person only. And if you've read Matt's blog long enough, its pretty obvious where Tim K is coming from. He's a self-proclaimed Democrat who's supporting John McCain. But go ahead and continue to sigh. Nerd.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 3:47 PM---

I'm a delicate flower. Please don't hurt me with barbs such as "nerd". I love how your post is a defense of the race card being pulled. "Yeah it was pulled, but look, Tim is supporting McCain, so it's all good!" I hate to break it to you, but Jesse and Al made the race card tactic jump the shark ages ago. It actually works in reverse now. You know, sorta like the first person to call someone "Nazi" automatically loses the argument.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by sigh | July 29, 2008 4:02 PM

Peter H:

Yes that is being more fair to me, although I hardly "loathe" activist liberals. I happen to be liberal social issues like gay rights, choice and seperation of church and state, am agnostic and believe in evolution. I am rather liberal in being for universal healthcare. I am liberal in the true sense of the term in being for free trade and against protection. I believe action must be taken to address climate change. On economic policy I don't really think either candidate has a coherent plan, so I don't loathe liberals on that one. I don't think you've read me calling Obama a tax-raiser. I just have issues with activist liberals on foreign policy because I find them dangerously naive on what I feel is the president's central responsibility.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 4:06 PM

Who cares what Tim K. thinks? He can't even vote!!!

Posted by Actually an American | July 29, 2008 4:10 PM

Actually, sigh, pulling the race-card card jumped the shark years ago. Just because Jesse and Al get all hot and bothered over the smallest thing doesn't mean that you are allowed to dismiss everything as 'pulling out the race card.' I don't know any real adults who actually use the term 'race card' without being ironic. And I tend to run with a fairly conservative bunch.

Also, I didn't say anything negative about Tim K simply for supporting McCain. Go back and guess again...

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 4:10 PM

Stacy,

Are we going to resort to shrill name calling? The Globe piece certainly doesn't paint the area where he worked as being the unmitigated success that Obama would lead you to believe. Keep hoping for change, sweetheart.

The bottom line is that even the liberal columnists -- Bob Herbert and Richard Cohen, to name two -- are starting to see through the Obama-crafted narrative. Who knows? Maybe he will be a fine president. Maybe he will be the greatest president the country has ever seen. Reagan-like even. (Alright, I just threw that in there to get your blood pumping.) But right now there just isn't enough concrete evidence to support all the things the Kool-Aid kids want the rest of us to believe.

I would concede that it was the Republican party who turned these presidential races into beauty contests, or at least took the art form to a new level. But that shouldn't be the way we elect presidents. And if / when Obama is elected is not because he is the most qualified person in this country to lead, it's because a group of consultants proved you can put lipstick on a pig.

Obama can read a speech better than most anyone in the country. He and his handlers can paint a picture that makes him look like the epitome of the American dream. He has crafted a good resume for himself. But you can't just choose to believe the things you want to believe and ignore the things that are, uh, inconvenient truths. He isn't qualified to lead.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 4:13 PM

So Tim, you are a liberal on ALL those issues, but yet you are still going to support McCain over Obama? It just seems strange to me. As if McCain's judgment on foreign policy is sooo much greater than Obama's that it trumps all those other issues. If its that important to you, and you feel that strongly about Obama's lack of experience, I suppose I can't argue with you. I think that your reasons are silly, but I won't argue with you.

Maybe I was unfair to you, but every old racist that I know (and I know quite a few) disguises their racial animosity towards Obama as a matter of 'trust.' They don't 'trust' him, or just think that there is something sinister lurking behind his toothy smile. If this truly isn't you, then my bad.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 4:15 PM

today writes that he can name more admirable stuff McCain has done over the course of his live than he can about Barack Obama

I can think of a whole bunch more less than admirable things that McCain has done also - adultery, divorcing a faithful wife to pursuit a rich heiress, the Keating 5 Scandal, etc., etc.

I would figure these people shouldn't really be bringing up the character thing

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | July 29, 2008 4:25 PM

Jay,

Not all name-calling is shrill, for starters.

Second, there is no reason for you to assume that I am some naive, kool-aid drinking liberal, because I'm actually far from it. I've been presented with two choices for President, and right now, there's no question as to who I'm supporting. That doesn't make me a member of a cult just because you say so. If you want to be taken seriously in your opposition to Obama, you can start by losing the Sean Hannity bit. Obama has never claimed his time on the Southside of Chicago as an unmitigated success. Ever. So when you point to an article like the one in the Globe as evidence of him being a failure. Or worse, a liar. Its hard to take you seriously.

Lastly, I'm not your sweetheart. I'm not even a woman. Although I suppose being a man doesn't necessarily rule me out as a possible sweetheart, I just though I'd clarify...

XOXO,
Stacy

Oh, and here's Herbert's article today. Yeah, he's really starting to see through the facade...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/opinion/29herbert.html?ref=opinion

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 4:29 PM

Too bad there aren't more lefties like Peter H, who actually seems to be able to debate ideas and issues without name calling. 95% of this thread is useless trash. See, I think that someone like Peter H and myself could discuss an issue, listen to each other, end up agreeing to disagree in the end, and remain friendly. Most of the examples of liberal posters on this thread are the perfect stereotype: if you don't vote lefty, you're stupid, racist, or evil and you deserve to be "re-educated" so you can "think correctly." God forbid a lefty ever re-examined their failed Marxist/socialist worldview they try to force on everyone. I've always been curious as to why liberals seem to have a visceral hatred of anyone that doesn't march in lockstep with their views. Like the whole world is in the crapper unless "your guy" is in power. What a sad way to go through life.

FYI I don't really like McCain either and I don't know if I can force myself to vote for him, but on foreign policy, between him and Obama, I would hand the military reins over to McCain in a heartbeat.

Posted by sigh | July 29, 2008 4:33 PM

Stacy:

I wouldn't be too concerned about me not supporting Obama given that I am not a US citizen and, therefore, do not get a vote.

Foreign affairs, national security and defense are the policy areas where the US president dominates, unlike economics or social policy. For example, John McCain not supporting gay adoptions is not a particularly important matter given that's a state issue. Ditto for gay marriage. The one issue that does have me conflicted is the Supreme Court, because I do not trust John McCain not to appoint very conservative justices. I am staunchly pro-choice.

Having said that, I really do think Obama lacks the right experience to be Commander-in-Chief. The most solemn duties of the President is to keep your country safe, and command those who serve your country in uniform. It's not to restore your nations image. It's not to talk with your enemies. It's not even to slow the rise of the oceans. It's to keep you safe. I think Americans should be able to have confidence that their president not only is bright, articulate and inspirational, but has the relevant experience, knowledge, background and jugdment necessary to keep the country safe. After 9/11 that's no longer a hypothetical.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 4:33 PM

Stacy,

Yeah, I can tell you have given both candidates serious consideration. I'll read the Herbert article and see how it jibes with the piece he wrote last week. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08herbert.html

Whose Sean Hannity? Does he post on this board, because I'm not a regular here. I don't think Obama is so much a liar as an example of someone who really believes everything he's been told about Barack Obama. Maybe more like the Manchurian candidate. Not ready to lead.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 4:38 PM

Matt,

You miss the point of Cohen's piece, which is pretty basic.

Policies and plans are not accomplishments. They are just words. Taking a position that gave rise to zero consequences (both politically, and because you were powerless to influence the decision) is no achievement.

Speeches, statements, drop down menus that address the "issues" do not in any way speak to what a candidate (or a citizen) has done in the past. And, based on Obama's demonstrated lack of commitment to any one position - they hardly give insight into what he will do in the future.

Ain't that complicated.

Posted by kdbono | July 29, 2008 4:40 PM

The most solemn duties of the President is to keep your country safe, and command those who serve your country in uniform. It's not to restore your nations image. It's not to talk with your enemies. It's not even to slow the rise of the oceans. It's to keep you safe. I think Americans should be able to have confidence that their president not only is bright, articulate and inspirational, but has the relevant experience, knowledge, background and jugdment necessary to keep the country safe. After 9/11 that's no longer a hypothetical.

These are not necessarily dichotomous. Many of us happen to think that talking with our enemies, restoring our nation's image abroad, & having an articulate & charismatic leader who can articulate your nation's position to the world are all intimately connected with keeping the nation safe.

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 4:40 PM

It's not even to slow the rise of the oceans.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 4:33 PM

Don't worry Tim, Obama already took care of the oceans in one of his magic speeches:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that...this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

See? Already taken care of.

Posted by sigh | July 29, 2008 4:41 PM

Stacy,

Was that Herbert column is some sort of rousing endorsement? All I got out of it is that McCain can be a prick sometimes and despite the media love-fest, Obama's campaign is a bit inept and can't capitalize on mistakes that McCain has made in recent weeks. Can't wait to hear what I missed.

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 4:46 PM

But you still don't get it, sigh. Just because some liberals might bring up race when it has nothing to do with the situation doesn't mean that it can never be brought up. Especially when you have people talking about how 'untrustworthy' he is and how he might be a 'Manchurian candidate.' You seem very happy to group 95% of Democrats together so who knows how else you're generalizing...

"Most of the examples of liberal posters on this thread are the perfect stereotype: if you don't vote lefty, you're stupid, racist, or evil and you deserve to be "re-educated" so you can "think correctly.""

Nope, still wrong. I clearly pointed out Tim K in particular for other reasons. He's explained himself in great detail so I'm willing to admit that I am wrong. But when someone votes lefty, until that particular lefty is Barack Obama, than I should be free to guess as to why that is. Especially when the Republican candidate has proven himself to be a fairly weak one. I mean, honestly, he won his primaries by default, and most of his own party doesn't even like him. But you've already admitted to not liking him so I suppose I don't have to convince you...

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 4:49 PM

To go back to the original subject of this post, let's go back to what Richard Cohen wrote in November 2000, at the height of the recount battle:

But those "current circumstances" I just mentioned change everything. Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush.

Bush has incessantly proclaimed himself as that sort of guy--"a uniter, not a divider." The tendency is to dismiss that sort of chest-thumping as campaign nonsense, but in Bush's case it appears to be true. After all, the Bush boomlet began among his fellow Republican governors, each of whom probably thought the next president should be none other than himself.

So it says something about Bush that the governors were able to coalesce around him. Some of these governors knew Bush quite well, some hardly at all, but the fact remains that they all seemed to genuinely like the guy and respected his leadership abilities.

You hear the same sort of thing from people who worked with Bush in private enterprise. I talked with one of them once, a Democrat who disagreed with Bush on many issues. Yet he, too, praised Bush's leadership abilities, his talent for bringing order out of chaos and for reaching some sort of consensus. That man's testimony impressed me. His disagreements with Bush were real, his admiration for him profound....

Keep that column in mind the next time you read Richard Cohen praising McCain.

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 4:50 PM

Matt,

You miss the point of Cohen's piece, which is pretty basic.

Policies and plans are not accomplishments. They are just words. Taking a position that gave rise to zero consequences (both politically, and because you were powerless to influence the decision) is no achievement.

Speeches, statements, drop down menus that address the "issues" do not in any way speak to what a candidate (or a citizen) has done in the past. And, based on Obama's demonstrated lack of commitment to any one position - they hardly give insight into what he will do in the future.

Ain't that complicated.

Posted by kdbono | July 29, 2008 4:51 PM

Many of us happen to think that talking with our enemies

A vague statement. Narrow it down and it can be debated. Otherwise I'll just start pointing to all the examples of Bush and other leaders already doing this.

restoring our nation's image abroad

Give specific examples of how that will be achieved. I can guess at least one you'll say: "By enacting more socialist policies so we can be more like Europe!"

having an articulate & charismatic leader who can articulate your nation's position

That's all fine and good until Obama's teleprompter breaks. He's terrible at unprepared speeches. Just watch him in one and count the "uhs". He's a horrible speaker. He's a good speech deliverer.

Posted by sigh | July 29, 2008 4:51 PM

He was simply defending him, that's all. I didn't see anything about a media love-fest. Interesting. Suggesting that Obama has made a mistake in not pounding McCain on Gramm's remarks is hardly calling his campaign 'inept.' You seem to have a very peculiar way of interpreting things. You were the one who made me think I was going to go to Herbert's column to find him ripping Obama. I was simply sending you the link to show he wasn't. I'll go read his last one right now.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 4:56 PM

But when someone votes lefty, until that particular lefty is Barack Obama, than I should be free to guess as to why that is.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 4:49 PM

That's valid. I'm just wondering why the first thoughts along those lines tend to be "Maybe he's racist!" If Tim is a lefty, then you're just eating your own. Perhaps instead of dismissing recurring criticism outright, you should examine them as potential weaknesses in a general election. I mean, if you really want to win, that might be a good strategy. But hey, don't listen to me. I'm the "enemy". America votes centrist. McCain has a centrist reputation and plenty of examples, and I'm not saying that out of appreciation for his mushy views either. But unless Obama can pull off the centrist makeover, America will feel more comfortable with a known "centrist" McCain before they will an unknown lefty with ties to even more radical lefties. Sorry, but black liberation theology and writing about how you looked up to Marxists when you were in college is not going to get it done.

The bottom line is, the Obama letdown will happen. The question is, will it happen before or after he's elected?

Posted by sigh | July 29, 2008 5:01 PM

Sigh,

I don't feel like getting into a debate about how we should conduct diplomacy with hostile states/actors & what steps the United States should take to improve our standing abroad right now. I was responding to Tim K's point that there is somehow a distinction between these kinds of steps and "keeping the nation safe"

Also, while I'm glad you think highly of my commenting style, you certainly don't help yourself around here when you throw around terms like "failed Marxist/socialist worldview."

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 5:03 PM

Stacy, I like that you represent yourself as someone who has given your choice for president careful consideration. Since you are non-partisan you probably aren't privy to this excerpt of the Obama inauguration speech that his staff is considering. If it sound familiar, it is based on another piece of writing (You might remember that Obama has "borrowed" speeches in the past) You can find the original at http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts

The cruel face of OBAMA fills the screen. His voice booms out with a deep, penetrating quality.

OBAMA I am General OBAMA! Listen to me, people of the Earth!

CAMERA PULLS BACK: OBAMA is perched on top of the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.. He stands erect on the pointed apex of the tall, needle-like edifice, his voice echoing across the landscape as terrified TOURISTS below scream, run away in panic.

OBAMA Today I bring a New Order to your planet!
One which shall last until the end of time! Each of you......

INT./EXT. LINCOLN MEMORIAL - DAY
PEOPLE stand petrified inside and out of the Lincoln Memorial and reflecting pool beyond as OBAMA continues

OBAMA'S VOICE ....each man, each woman, each child - all will march proudly together in this New Order!

EXT. JEFFERSON MEMORIAL - DAY

CAMERA LOOKS THROUGH the Jefferson Memorial, across the Potomac River.

OBAMA'S VOICE Your lands, your homes, your possessions, your very lives......

EXT. WASHINGTON MONUMENT - ANGLE LOOKING DOWN
CAMERA LOOKS DOWN PAST OBAMA. Police cars with flashing lights begin to converge in the distance.

OBAMA All of this and more you will gladly give to me!

EXT. KREMLIN - RUSSIA - DAY

An aeriel view of the Kremlin in flames, the fire
spreading throughout Moscow.

OBAMA'S VOICE There is no longer a need for separate nations in this world, no need for petty squabbles between one group and another ...

EXT. TOKYO - DAY

TOKYO is in flames. Thousands of JAPANESE flee through the streets.

OBAMA'S VOICE All of you will work together, strive, produce, and sacrifice together - and all for a common goal!

EXT. PARIS - EIFFEL TOWER - DAY

The Eiffel Tower in Paris is suddenly bathed in a strange LIGHT.

OBAMA'S VOICE It is useless for you to resist as
it is for me to annihilate you ...

EXT. PARIS SKY - ANGLE ON NON
NON focusses his X-RAY vision on the Eiffel Tower.

OBAMA'S VOICE You will only bring death and destruction upon yourselves ...

EXT. EIFFEL TOWER
The Eiffel Tower melts under the heat, sags, then
collapses like a tin toy.

OBAMA'S VOICE ....while I will lose the potential products of your labour....,

EXT. MT. RUSHMORE - SOUTH DAKOTA - DAY

URSA stands in front of Mount Rushmore, turns on her X-Ray vision: The famous faces of the Presidents are obliterated, then replaced by those of OBAMA, URSA, and NON as she burns them in with her eyes

OBAMA'S VOICE There is now one law, one order, one ruler who alone will determine your collective destiny! One force before will all of you shall kneel forever!

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 5:09 PM

Sigh,
The reason is that I've seen Tim post on here many, many, many times. In addition to the reasons I mentioned above, he also takes to calling Obama untrustworthy. I know racists. I work with racists. When they talk about the things they don't like about Obama, they talk of how they don't 'trust' him. Its a code word if I've ever seen it. I've already admitted to being wrong about Tim, but those are where my suspicions arise.

Also, the Obama letdown has already happened a bit. At least to people that actually pay attention. The article that Jay linked to talked about just that. Also, he can only be a letdown to people that have built him up to be something he's not. You seem to assume that everyone on this blog has. I can tell you you're on the wrong site if that's what you think. You seem to be mistake people despising McCain as being the same as exalting Obama. They are not the same.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 5:10 PM

Well done is better than well said- We have no proof that all of Obama's soaring rhetoric will come to pass- In fact, if we look at what he has actually done since he's become the "presumptive" nominee- it could spell trouble-
campaign finance, FISA, gun control etc. etc.

Posted by BB | July 29, 2008 5:14 PM

Is that part of the script from Cobra starring Sly Stallone? I love that movie. The bad guy is awesome.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 5:14 PM

Peter H:

I never said those things were dichotomous. To the extent those approaches are achievable and do what you say they will do, they should be considered. Yet they are not ends in themselves.

Posted by Tim K | July 29, 2008 5:16 PM

Superman II

Posted by Jay | July 29, 2008 5:16 PM

Yeah, I knew it really wasn't from Cobra, but if you haven't seen it in a while, you definitely should. The bad guy is always talking about the New World Order. He's also got a badass knife. Just take this exchange for example...

Night Slasher: You want to go to hell? Huh, pig? You want to go to hell with me? It doesn't matter, does it? We are the hunters. We kill the weak so the strong survive. You can't stop the New World. Your filthy society will never get rid of people like us. It's breeding them! WE ARE THE FUTURE!

Marion Cobretti: No!
[aims his gun]

Marion Cobretti: You're history.

Uh, yeah, its as awesome as it sounds.

Posted by Stacy | July 29, 2008 5:20 PM

Instead of listening to Obama talk I think it's much better to look at his track record to get an idea about Obama. Obama was Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Grant, this group spent $110 million to improve education in Chicago, what were the results? Obama never mentions this because he got the job of Chairman from his good friend William Ayers, the WE$ATHERMEN TERRORIST. Obama wants the job of DECIDER but he can't seem to make a decision. John McCain called Obama out for his COWARDICE for REFUSING to vote on a non-binding Resolution Condemning MoveOn.org for their Gen. Betrayus Ad. Obama was in the building but wouldn't take sides on that tough issue. Hillary stood up and Voted NO, she supported Free Speech, not Obama. Take a look at the House Obama bought in 2005 with the help of Convicted Felon Tony Rezko, who was Obama's biggest fundraiser, over $250,000. Having your biggest fundraiser help you buy your house is corruption, a public Official shouldn't take $625,000 favors. The reason Donna Brazile and the DNC promoted Obama is because they thought he could get those Church Voters, too bad they didn't check his "Spirtual Advisors" Rev. Wright and Father Mike first. "WHY AMERICANS HATE DEMOCRATS" How To Tap Into The Obama factor, by DONNA BRAZILE http://www.slate.com/id/2109328

Posted by Jim aaron | July 29, 2008 5:52 PM

Also, while I'm glad you think highly of my commenting style, you certainly don't help yourself around here when you throw around terms like "failed Marxist/socialist worldview."

Posted by Peter H | July 29, 2008 5:03 PM

Heh, well for most people that statement isn't even controversial, but I guess that's a debate for another day.

Posted by sigh | July 29, 2008 5:53 PM

Instead of listening to Obama talk I think it's much better to look at his track record to get an idea about Obama. Obama was Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Grant, this group spent $110 million to improve education in Chicago, what were the results? Obama never mentions this because he got the job of Chairman from his good friend William Ayers, the WE$ATHERMEN TERRORIST. Obama wants the job of DECIDER but he can't seem to make a decision. John McCain called Obama out for his COWARDICE for REFUSING to vote on a non-binding Resolution Condemning MoveOn.org for their Gen. Betrayus Ad. Obama was in the building but wouldn't take sides on that tough issue. Hillary stood up and Voted NO, she supported Free Speech, not Obama. Take a look at the House Obama bought in 2005 with the help of Convicted Felon Tony Rezko, who was Obama's biggest fundraiser, over $250,000. Having your biggest fundraiser help you buy your house is corruption, a public Official shouldn't take $625,000 favors. The reason Donna Brazile and the DNC promoted Obama is because they thought he could get those Church Voters, too bad they didn't check his "Spirtual Advisors" Rev. Wright and Father Mike first. "WHY AMERICANS HATE DEMOCRATS" How To Tap Into The Obama factor, by DONNA BRAZILE http://www.slate.com/id/2109328

Posted by Jim aaron | July 29, 2008 5:54 PM

Instead of listening to Obama talk I think it's much better to look at his track record to get an idea about Obama. Obama was Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Grant, this group spent $110 million to improve education in Chicago, what were the results? Obama never mentions this because he got the job of Chairman from his good friend William Ayers, the WE$ATHERMEN TERRORIST. Obama wants the job of DECIDER but he can't seem to make a decision. John McCain called Obama out for his COWARDICE for REFUSING to vote on a non-binding Resolution Condemning MoveOn.org for their Gen. Betrayus Ad. Obama was in the building but wouldn't take sides on that tough issue. Hillary stood up and Voted NO, she supported Free Speech, not Obama. Take a look at the House Obama bought in 2005 with the help of Convicted Felon Tony Rezko, who was Obama's biggest fundraiser, over $250,000. Having your biggest fundraiser help you buy your house is corruption, a public Official shouldn't take $625,000 favors. The reason Donna Brazile and the DNC promoted Obama is because they thought he could get those Church Voters, too bad they didn't check his "Spirtual Advisors" Rev. Wright and Father Mike first. "WHY AMERICANS HATE DEMOCRATS" How To Tap Into The Obama factor, by DONNA BRAZILE http://www.slate.com/id/2109328

Posted by Jim aaron | July 29, 2008 5:54 PM

Instead of listening to Obama talk I think it's much better to look at his track record to get an idea about Obama. Obama was Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Grant, this group spent $110 million to improve education in Chicago, what were the results? Obama never mentions this because he got the job of Chairman from his good friend William Ayers, the WE$ATHERMEN TERRORIST. Obama wants the job of DECIDER but he can't seem to make a decision. John McCain called Obama out for his COWARDICE for REFUSING to vote on a non-binding Resolution Condemning MoveOn.org for their Gen. Betrayus Ad. Obama was in the building but wouldn't take sides on that tough issue. Hillary stood up and Voted NO, she supported Free Speech, not Obama. Take a look at the House Obama bought in 2005 with the help of Convicted Felon Tony Rezko, who was Obama's biggest fundraiser, over $250,000. Having your biggest fundraiser help you buy your house is corruption, a public Official shouldn't take $625,000 favors. The reason Donna Brazile and the DNC promoted Obama is because they thought he could get those Church Voters, too bad they didn't check his "Spirtual Advisors" Rev. Wright and Father Mike first. "WHY AMERICANS HATE DEMOCRATS" How To Tap Into The Obama factor, by DONNA BRAZILE http://www.slate.com/id/2109328

Posted by Jim aaron | July 29, 2008 5:57 PM

Instead of listening to Obama talk I think it's much better to look at his track record to get an idea about Obama. Obama was Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Grant, this group spent $110 million to improve education in Chicago, what were the results? Obama never mentions this because he got the job of Chairman from his good friend William Ayers, the WEATHERMEN TERRORIST. Obama wants the job of DECIDER but he can't seem to make a decision. John McCain called Obama out for his COWARDICE for REFUSING to vote on a non-binding Resolution Condemning MoveOn.org for their Gen. Betrayus Ad. Obama was in the building but wouldn't take sides on that tough issue. Hillary stood up and Voted NO, she supported Free Speech, not Obama. Take a look at the House Obama bought in 2005 with the help of Convicted Felon Tony Rezko, who was Obama's biggest fundraiser, over $250,000. Having your biggest fundraiser help you buy your house is corruption, a public Official shouldn't take $625,000 favors. The reason Donna Brazile and the DNC promoted Obama is because they thought he could get those Church Voters, too bad they didn't check his "Spirtual Advisors" Rev. Wright and Father Mike first. "WHY AMERICANS HATE DEMOCRATS" How To Tap Into The Obama factor, by DONNA BRAZILE http://www.slate.com/id/2109328

Posted by Jim aaron | July 29, 2008 5:58 PM

Sorry for the triple post!

Posted by jim aaron | July 29, 2008 6:00 PM

I'm sure McCain will finish Bush's job of ruining this country 100%. That is something I'm very sure of. McCain himself has said he's a-okay with things as they are. McCain is so okay with everything that's going on, so sure it's all hunky-dory, that he'll just keep on doing the same thing Bush has done the last 8 years. To that I say, "no thanks." Sure of Obama or not, I'll vote for him. If you want this country to go down the drain, you'll vote for McCain. If you want this country to take back its place as the leading country of this world, then you'll vote for Obama.

Posted by Russell | July 29, 2008 7:10 PM

Jim: Sorry for the triple post? How about being sorry for posting that nonsense once. Americans hate Democrats? Really? Who has been in office the last 8 years giving the finger to the people of this country every single step of the way? Republicans, that's who. And guess what, people hate Republicans, all of them, and for very good reasons. Go post your unsubstantiated lies somewhere else. To anyone reading these posts, everything written by Jim, in triplicate no less, is nothing but a load of Republican talking point BS meant to distract people from the truth. Don't let yet another Republican bigot ruin this country.

Posted by Russell | July 29, 2008 7:19 PM

OBAMA'S DISTURBING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE FOR BERNANKE

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-gives-bernanke-vote-of-confidence.html

This does not bode well.

Posted by PacificGatePost | July 29, 2008 7:57 PM

I kind of enjoyed the back and forth with Tim K. But then Jim aaron wanders in and spews wingnut talking points complete with CAPITAL LETTERS.

This thread is now officially dead.

Posted by Shine | July 29, 2008 9:16 PM

With the newspapers laying so many people off lately, I'm surprised some of these columnists still get paid to write this stuff. What do they do with the rest of the work week after they're done writing for the requisite 20 minutes? I assume they're out taking extended lunches. You know the type. I hate those people.

Posted by Leif | July 29, 2008 10:21 PM

Can we afford to take a chance on this unknown guy Obama???? America, think about it.

Posted by whattagoodguy | July 30, 2008 4:47 AM

I love how McCain is so willing to bring up his military service and his POW status, but has stripped his record of any references to a particular event on July 29, 1967 when he was responsible for the deaths of 131 men in the navy who happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time when McCain wanted to play around with his plane.

Posted by Kevin | July 30, 2008 1:12 PM

Can we excommunicate Richard Cohen, or at least make him go by a less obviously Jewish name? What an embarrassment.

Posted by aleks | August 1, 2008 8:41 AM