This article is another reminder of how fundamentally many on the left misunderstand the McCain campaign and the conditions within the GOP.

McCain is not playing to the Republican 'base' - there is no single, monolithic base in the party. He is, in fact, playing very much counter to what most on the left assume the base to be. McCain's rhetoric and the issues he's pushing and his choice of Palin are specifically designed to appeal to working-class and middle-class independents, not the religious right. The religious right are becoming increasingly ostracized from the GOP and McCain is trying to create a new base.

You provide the evidence for this yourself. Look at who has turned against McCain. It's not moderates like Lindsey Graham or Arlen Specter, it's the hardline religious right nutcases like John Ensign. Ensign has a 100% Pro-Life rating and a 0% NARAL rating. He has a 20% ACLU rating, a 11% HRC (gay rights) rating and a 7% NAACP rating. He has a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition.

What you miss is that McCain is attempting to redefine what the 'mainstream' of the GOP is. He wants to have a more populist, pragmatic party, with less control for the extremists.

Those of you making assumptions about what McCain is doing and writing it off as a mistake may be in for a rude awakening in a few days.

Dave

Don't worry, Dave - I honestly think McCain will probably 'win'...but not legally. Diebold and Dynacorp have it in the bag for him.

Obama's only hope is to have so many votes from electoral states where Diebold and Dynacorp have NO voting machines that he is still able to achieve 270 electoral votes. Otherwise, he's done and out.

And America will have lost this golden opportunity to elect someone who can truly LEAD the world, rather than someone who can only bully the world into obeying him.


Sun Tzu would not have approved of John McCain. McCain knows tactics, but not the overriding strategy. He knows what the military can do, but he doesn't know the tools available that keep us from needing to threaten military force. He neither knows the enemy, nor does he know himself (as is evidenced by his flip-flops on little things like torture). He does not know that the acme of generalship is to achieve victory without having to resort to military force.

McCain would NOT be a good Commander-in-Chief.

Niggling?

You had better not use that racist language when discussing Obama Barbara or you might end up floating in the East River.

have a different take on the election Glenn. Obama has a legitimate hope in winning in that the millions of idiots out there that have fallen for his schtick will actually go and vote while many disaffected Republicans will not vote for McCain.

There's also the Acorn factor. If Obama can get the fictitios vote and the repeat vote to trun out he will probably win.

I have a question for you Glenn. How is Obama going to lead the world when roughly 50% of this nation doesn't even support him?

Why do leftists such as yourself always assume that if your guy gets into power everyone else that opposed him is suddenly going to have some grand epiphany which will cause them to change their worldview to your's?

The fun thing about knowing you've already lost, is that you can say things you wouldn't DARE say if you thought you had a real, and serious, chance of winning.

I have the same question for you Arch? How is McCain going to lead when roughly 50% of this nation doesn't support him?

Same question applied to Bush. Both times.

And your point is?

Did I claim McCain was goingto lead the world Lisa?

No, you said "How is Obama going to lead the world when roughly 50% of this nation doesn't support him?" So I was just reframing the question using the other candidate's name.

Niggling?

You had better not use that racist language when discussing Obama Barbara or you might end up floating in the East River.

racist language? Hardly. "irritating, worrisome, perhaps painful annoyance..." hmmm. Sounds like some of my friends on the Right. Present company excepted, of course.

I have a question for Archie:- how do you come up with that figure of "roughly 50% of this nation doesn't even support him?"

According to the poll of polls info I've seen, the national support is at 52%/41% in Obama's favour and this year's turnout is expected to be the highest since the 1960 election.

No, you said "How is Obama going to lead the world when roughly 50% of this nation doesn't support him?" So I was just reframing the question using the other candidate's name.

Fair enough, Lisa.

So now you've established that neither one can "lead the world," which is just as well, because Glenn and Arch are being typical hubristic, arrogant gringos in making the assumption that the "rest of the world" even wants the imperialistic, predatory americans, whose total disarray amply demonstrates they can't even govern themselves, (much less "lead the world") to lead them.

And Christopher, Obama has, as you point out, 52% of the electorate behind him. That means, that at this point 48% are not behind him. I would say that 48% qualifies as "roughly 50% of the nation."

Well, actually, Clavos, Obama has the advantage in that at the least 80 percent of the countries outside the US of A support his presidency and think he would be the better candidate in terms of getting our country back on a good footing with them re diplomacy issues. Which, I think, would be a good thing, seeing as we have global economic issues and a couple of wars going on.

I live in Chicago and have talked with a few Black and Hispanic people that are planning to vote for Obama. Most of the ones I've talked to are pessimistic about whether Obama can solve the problems that most of face. Most would not want to see McCain as president.

I'm not sure what percentage actually support either candidate. There is a general fear that the 'other' candidate will be a disaster. This comes from both sides. My guess is that less than 25% have any confidence in either candidate.

Barbara I wasn't calling you a racist. I was being sarcastic. You obviously haven't read a lot of my posts or you would have known that. I was using sarcasm to point out that Obama supporters will seize upon anything, regardless of how irrelevant, they can to portray anyone who opposes them as a racist.

Lisa you didn't pose it as a rhetorical question but directed it at me as if I had implied McCain would "lead the world." He can't. No mortal man can. That hasn't stopped the Obama cultists in speaking of him in messianic terms though.

Christopher, I didn't say 50% I said roughly 50%. Your using polls, which are not as accurate a measure of support as actual votes.

According to the 2005 census there are 197 million people in this nation that are eligible to vote. I guarantee you that Obama will not receive the support of half of those people in the form of 98.5 million votes come next Tuesday. Therefore we can conclude that over 50% of total Americans and over 50% of eligible voters don't support Obama enough to vote for him.

Despite what Glenn and other Obama cultists koolaid addled brains would have them believe, not everyone is in love with Obama. In fact there are millions upon millions of Americans that are not going to vote for him, don't believe in his ability to lead, don't trust him, don't believe he would be good for America and generally don't want to have anything to do with him.

But Glenn is implying that if Obama were to win, not only this nation but the entire world would come together and we'd all join hands and sing row row your boat as we skip down the yellow brick road together pausing now and then to take naps on marshmallow clouds and converse with cotton candy monsters about how it's raining gum drops again.

In order for this to happen that would mean that everyone who opposed Obama's grand visions before the election would suddenly have to abandon thier own ideals and values and adopt his. IT AINT GONNA HAPPPEN!

It's some might fucking powerful Lysergic acid diethylamide that "THE ONE" has been slipping into the koolaid his cultists have been drinking that makes them say the things they do and believe in them.

As for me I'll pass.

I'll pass on McCain to because he is a crazy old man whose main satisfaction in life seems to subjecting anyone who looks at him cross eyed to 5th grade verbal ridicule.

I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin because he exhibits two qualities that Obama and McCain don't. Honesty and common sense. That alone makes him a much better candidate for president than those two self righteous pricks who've done nothing but tell the American people for the past year. My support of Baldwin doe snot require that I become a brainded sheep chanting monosyllabic mantras such as "hope" and "change." It does not require that I baselessly attack anyone who opposes my guy with socially stigmatized hand grenades like "racist." It doe snot require that I deny that my guy has any faults or imperfections and refer to him as "the one" or "the leader who will unite the world." It does not require that I suspend all reason, common sense and objectivity with regard to my guy, his place in the world and the potential for change that he may be able to affect.

On CSPAN right now there is a debate being shown between Nader, Barr, and Baldwin. Any of these men would be light years better than McCain or the one but the corporate media has the average American idiot by the balls and they're too stupid to see it.

But let's not forget that I'm the crazy one around here. Don't pay any attention to me. Go back to your "hope" and "change."

Gosh, Arch, and you think McCain subjects people to ridicule, when you call everyone who disagrees with YOU sheep-brained.

Well, BAHHHHHHHHHH then.:)

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is Lisa.

Obama, whom you support, has made all kinds of lofty promises on the campaign trail. I contend that he's not going to follow through on any of them and that you're voting for a fraud.

We can go make a list of all his promises and in four year's time if he has not fulfilled them or made significant steps toward fulfilling them you will admit I was right, you were wrong, and then we can dress you up in a sheep costume, take some pictures of you bahhing and eating grass or whatever it is that sheep eat and post them for everyone on this website to view.

Barbara,

Great article! I would like to add one more thing on organization and preparedness.

Obama began developing his presidential transition team in July.

McCain STILL has not really been developing his. (NYT 10-25-2008)

Presidential nominees typically start preparing for transitions before the election, but Mr. Obama's plans appear more extensive than in the past and more advanced than those of Senator John McCain, his Republican opponent. Mr. McCain has also assigned confidants to prepare for a transition but instructed them to limit their activities as he tries to rescue his foundering campaign, Republicans said.

That is my emphasis. Because not only is Obama prepared where McCain is not. Obama is more prepared than presidential candidates of the past.

You say prepared.

I say arrogant, presumptuous and narcissistic.

Get ready world. Jimmy Carter part 2 coming to you next January.

"Jimmy Carter part 2 coming to you next January."

No way. It will be much worse, but quite different.

Well the term misery index was coined on Carter's watch Les.

Do you think we wil have to invent some new term to measure the despair the American people feel after three - four years of the messiah leading us?

Well, actually, Clavos, Obama has the advantage in that at the least 80 percent of the countries outside the US of A support his presidency and think he would be the better candidate in terms of getting our country back on a good footing with them re diplomacy issues.

What exactly does "80% of the countries" mean? Their "leaders?" Their sheeple? And what is the source of the 80% figure?

And in terms of getting our country back on a good footing with them re diplomacy issues does not necessarily mean a benefit or good for the USA; remember that their goals often are at odds with those of the USA.

The people of the US who vote for a candidate because he's highly regarded abroad are deluding themselves and doing a disservice to the rest of US. Leaders of other nations have their own self-serving reasons for wanting a given candidate to win, and those reasons are not necessarily in the best interests of the USA.

Who's been keeping track of the misery index? I bet you it's much higher now.

Neither McCain nor Obama has any plan to reverse the economic crisis. As the economy sinks misery will increase.

"What exactly does "80% of the countries" mean? Their "leaders?" Their sheeple? And what is the source of the 80% figure?"

I think it means that Lisa thinks foreigners should somehow have a say in our national election.

Maybe Lisa would like to have the new Democrat Congress enact legislation that would give the UN veto power over future legislation.

Arch,

"Maybe Lisa would like to have the new Democrat Congress enact legislation that would give the UN veto power over future legislation."

This is what some on the 'left' say about NAFTA.

The problem with this argument from both the left and right is that the legislation isn't ours in the first place. The 'representatives' represent the wealthy, not the majority. Either the U.S. ruling class owns the U.N. decisions, or it just ignores them. The same is true for World Court or any of the stipulations of treaties like NAFTA.

The other side of the coin is that some laws are inconvenient for business and these 'extraterritorial' bodies do the business's dirty work for them.

Les

Clavos, re your #10: "And Christopher, Obama has, as you point out, 52% of the electorate behind him. That means, that at this point 48% are not behind him. I would say that 48% qualifies as "roughly 50% of the nation."

So you think that everybody who isn't actively supporting Obama is against him? I certainly don't. I think his support is far greater than that and it looks like he might have one of the most decisive victories for many a year.

Lisa,

Obama has the advantage in that at the least 80 percent of the countries outside the US of A support his presidency and think he would be the better candidate in terms of getting our country back on a good footing with them re diplomacy issues.

Here is something I think you might like. It's called:

Why "Conservatives" Can't Do Foreign Policy

If you do find it interesting, these two may also be worthwhile:

I have read some of Richard Hofstadter, whom the author cites. The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt

This essay by Werther*: When God is Pro War & Other Delicacies: Pseudoconservatism Revisited is fascinating to me. Just an aside: I disagree with what he says about liberals in the 1960's and 70s (normal is not necessarily right) but I do think his suggestion that being for "normalcy" at such a time gave Reagan an advantage.

I do think this guy is exquisite in his examination of his own conservative culture. This essay is scathing, but in my opinion, it sheds a precise light on what happened to conservatives and what we really have now.

*Werther is the pen name of a Northern Virginia based defense analyst

I think that everyone who isn't saying to the pollsters that they will vote for him are NOT supporting him, no. There ARE minor candidates, and significant number of people (like Les, e.g.) who don't support anybody.

The bottom line is, according to the polls you cite (others show lower support for Obama), only 52% support Obama, so Arch's statement is not off the mark, especially since he qualified it with "roughly."

I think his support is far greater than that and it looks like he might have one of the most decisive victories for many a year.

As you say, you "think;" there's no verifiable evidence at this point for your optimism.

The decisive poll is Tuesday.

"So you think that everybody who isn't actively supporting Obama is against him? "

No it's most likely that a great deal of them are politically apathetic or suspicious of all politicians. But of course it's no surprise that you attribute some type of latent Obama support to them Christopher.

The idiots that support him are going to have to learn the truth the hard way.

McCain has been tested?

For WHAT?

I suggest a rabies test. We have a lot of rabid yellow street dogs in the Third World, and he sure looks like one to me.

If he's referring to his stint as an extra in The Deer Hunter, he needs to be reminded that that was 30 years ago.

HMMMM. Maybe a test for Alzheimer's would be wise, too.

Clavos,

I support the campaign of the Socialist Workers Party in this election. Their pres and v-pres candidates are Róger Calero and Alyson Kennedy.

Neither candidate is on the ballot in Illinois nor has official write-in status.

The party is on the ballot in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington State, and has official write-in status in California,
Connecticut, and Georgia.

Les

"The idiots that support him are going to have to learn the truth the hard way."

Too bad that McCain supporters will not likely have the same opportunity to watch him fumble as chief exec of the U.S.

If only both groups could learn the lessons at the same time, maybe we could find a more fruitful endeavor instead of supporting these turkeys.

Arch -

Ah, you're bringing up ACORN too? Dave Nalle tried to do the same thing, and I shot down EVERY SINGLE ACCUSATION he made against ACORN.

Actually, I didn't 'shoot down' those accusations - the FACTS did...some of which came from his OWN references. I'll give him E for effort, though.

Think you can do any better? Care to see if the right-wing propaganda in which you're so deeply steeped is as true as you think it is?

I mean after all, you're a big tough alpha-male ARCH-conservative, and I guess Ah-nold would probably call a wussy can't-we-all-get-along liberal old office bee-yatch like me a 'girly-man'...so I'm sure you'll trounce me from boast to boast - sorry - I mean, coast to coast.

Like Dave, you are an intelligent man, and I certainly won't misunderestimate you.

Actually, there's less sarcasm there than you think. I use the name 'Contrarian' because there are things Dems are wrong about, too...just a lot less than what the Republicans are wrong about. I do my best to deal in provable fact, and if I use flighty rhetoric, it's because that's where the facts are pointing. I really don't doubt you'll land a punch or three in there - sometimes I'm wrong, too...but howzabout it, Arch? You show me yours and I'll show you mine - facts and references, that is.

The ACORN nonsense is like the Chupacabra--a mythical animal that was passed off as real during the mid-90s financial crisis here in Mexico to distract folks from how grim things were.

It's the same smoke and mirrors, and will disappear as soon as this election is over.

Nobosy has heard squat about the Chupa since 1996....

Les,

If only both groups could learn the lessons at the same time, maybe we could find a more fruitful endeavor instead of supporting these turkeys.

I wish that were true. At the moment, I am hearing more what Tom Hayden has been saying. I don't like what was being said by Palin (who is so clueless that it's obvious she was fed "her opinion") about Russia and Georgia. I don't like McCain's ties to Georgia's president or his Georgia lobbyist staffer.

In a nutshell, here is what should be said: the same Republican neo-cons who fabricated the reasons for going to war in Iraq are back, and now they have been paid to trigger a new Cold War with Russia that benefits John McCain. These are dangerous, expensive unwinnable games being played with American lives to benefit Republican politicians and their oil company friends.

I want to make progress toward a goal. Even if that goal is not exactly what I want. I have seen the word socialism come out of the closet and I think that is a good start. I don't want another Cold War.

Wow you managed to get through an entire post without alluding to Obama saving the world Glenn.

Were you sweating profusely as you hit the publish button?

Must have been tough for you huh?

You obviously want to engage in Dem vs. Rep argument. You're barking up the wrong tree. The only thing that makes McCain supporters less disturbing than Obama supporters is the fact that they don't have a messiahianic complex about who they support.

"I do my best to deal in provable fact, and if I use flighty rhetoric, it's because that's where the facts are pointing."

NO...treating Obama as a savior is where your [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] mind has led you. The facts haven't led any rational, independent thinking person there.

Comments regarding "McCain, Obama and the "Readiness" Test" by Barbara Barnett

Ms Barnett,

You write "Obama, too, has had to survive in poor conditions. Now I'm not equating being a POW with being a poor black kid, raised by his grandmother". The passage you wrote above is filled with bigotry. Why would you think and write that Senator Obama was a "poor black kid" who "had to survive in poor conditions" Could it be that you look at Senator Obama's skin colour and see things that aren't there?

These are the facts: 1)Senator Obama was raised in Hawaii by his grandmother who was a powerful bank executive (google her bio). 2)His grandmother attended both the University of Washington and Univ. of Calif at Berkley. 3) Senator Obama grew up in Hawaii where his grandmother sent him to private school. 4) His mother was an apparently well educated college graduate. 5) His father attended university both in Hawaii and at Harvard.

This sounds more like an upper middle class background, not the background of a "poor black kid".

You write about Senator Obama "pulling himself up by the proverbial bootstraps to the highest levels of education". I usually don't think of a second generation "Harvard" man that has a Berkley educated grandparent and who attended private school as someone who "pulled" himself up by his bootstraps. I think of such a person as a child of privilege. You would think the same of any such person with "white" colored skin, but fail to see this is also Senator Obama's background (you don't see past his skin pigmentation).

Ms Barnett, assuming that you were not being disingenuous, what possible reason could you have for writing that Senator Obama was a "poor black kid" who "survived" poor conditions? Ask yourself what other beliefs you have that are not based in fact but are instead based on emotion and assumptions.

I believe that reasonable and honest people of both the right and left could agree to the following evaluation of Senator Obama as a candidate for President: 1) He lacks management experience; 2) He lacks a record of accomplishment in either the Illinois legislature or the US Congress; 3)He lacks any background in national defense or foreign policy; and 4) His political views are on the left side of the Democratic party. Believing the above does not make me a racist. Any person of either the RIGHT or the LEFT could reasonably reject Senator Obama as a presidential candidate based on 1,2 and 3 above. Any person of the RIGHT or CENTER could reasonably reject Senator Obama as a candidate because of 4), his left leaning political views that are not representative of their own views and values.

Many Republicans and independents are frustrated and angered that they are labeled racists by liberal leftists who are making emotional decisions based on skin color instead of taking the time to think and objectively assess the candidates.

The world is already in another Cold War.

The difference is this time there are more blocs--so it's not the US against the Soviet Union but the US against:

1. most of the Middle East (the Saudis take US bucks but back their Muslim brothers, leaving Israel playing the gringos' cards)

2. the Russian Federation

3. most of Latin America

4. China (and its tail, N. Korea)

5. India is playing both ends against the middle, but will eventually side with the energy producers.

It seems that way to me moon :-(

Oh, I meant to post this 3 minute video in my reply to Les. Not that Les needs to see it. But, some interested others might learn something

BBC wakes up to Georgian `war crimes`

This readiness crap is just that: crap.

I don't get it. You've had a dull normal clearly damaged by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and subsequent cocaine abuse in the Oval Office for 8 years--who was READY, all right: ready to throw your tax dollars at the wallets of his cronies, contract the running of government to criminals, nuke the shit out of any country on the farthest reaches of the planet, spy on you and take away your basic rights--like habeas corpus, destroy the environment, and kill any number of you in the name of his crackpot genocidal Imperialism of the Sandbox.

He was ready to anything to advance his back ward (yep, that's back ward--the holding tank for the developmentally disabled whose fathers are not rich) fantasies of being One with HIS God (who is probably the Emperor of Ice Cream!)

He was ready, all right--to bring on Armegeddon and snicker as he smeared in his private bathroom off the Oval Office.

He still IS ready. And he doesn't leave office for almost 3 months.

Won't you folks ever learn that the difference between being PREPARED (to govern) and being READY (to raise hell) is a gap wider than the Grand Canyon?

No one is ever ready to be President. It is a job for which no one can actually prepare. That is the cunundrum.

Actually, one CAN prepare--spiritually and morally--to be a leader.

Which is another reason why the post should be UNPAID.

Hugo Chavez doesn't draw his presidential salary. Why should the president of the US?

The salary of the Mexican president was increased in 2000 by Vicente Fox to be the highest in the world.

Venezuela's president is a leader who inspires people, helps people of other countries instead of bombing the shit out of them, and is uniting South America to take on the role of Resources Leader of the planet.

Vicente Fox was--and still is--a mean-spirited shitkicker whose claim to fame was fracturing the Spanish language, conducting a Dirty War against his opponents, fighting with half of Latin America's leaders and marrying a rapacious little troll who squandered the people's money on designer clothes and jewels and thought she was going to be president.

Chavez was prepared--morally and spiritually-- and even his training in the military and his teaching taught him social strategies. And in his ten years in office he has CONTINUED preparing himself to be a leader in a difficult time for this planet.

Fox was READY--to steal, to bail his family and even the shirttail relatives of his little tootsie out of bankruptcy and into private jets and millionaire's clubs, to run his ranchero mouth all around the planet, to tell campesinos that it was great that they couldn't read, that t.v. would give them all they needed, to promote his fundamentalist catholicism and impose CocaCola with the end of a gun barrel if necessary and to spend 3 to 4 billions of dollars on a "21st century library" that has never been in operation because it is falling down and water has leaked in and destroyed the books --all so his contractor cronies could cash in.

Fox and Bush are very much alike--ignorant and proud of it yet ready to shoot from the hip. Their birthdays are 4 days apart.

What you get from these READY guys is a country in ruins.

If READY is what counts, go for it. Again.

I just read that Palin did a interview on fox She said when Mccain wins he is going to expand the war into Iran a start up the draft. God help us all if these to win.

In 2012 if the GOP is looking to lure people like myself who have abandoned them and McCain this year back to the fold they're going to have to do better then they will have to do better than caribou barbie.

This talk of her being the GOP frontrunner in 2012 disheartens me. The GOP needs another Ronald Regan not another George W. Bush.

Arch,

The 1980 Reagan would totally be out of his element now, never mind 2012. You will not see another Ronald Reagan.

Les

Considering that the US economy hit the toilet because:

1. Nixon abolished the gold standard

2. Ronald Reagan decided to cast The Chicago Boys in bronze and deregulate everything

I would like to hope that Gringos have learned their lesson.

But I very much doubt it.

Moon,

"Considering that the US economy hit the toilet because:

"1. Nixon abolished the gold standard"

Actually, it was the other way around. Nixon went off the gold standard because of substantial weakening of the U.S. economy, compared to some of its rivals.

Les

Les,

I remember the early 70s economic trough well, as I was making my living trading Lebanese currency--which was still backed by silver at the time.

Nixon went off the gold standard in the misbegotten strategy of making money worth nothing and thinking it would pull the US out of the trough. It didn't.

Nixon wento out of the Oval Office, but the damage was already done--and it wasn't Watergate.

Nixon went off the gold standard because the value of the dollar was worth much less than the guaranteed gold exchange rate. Foreign holders of dollars were cashing in their greenbacks for gold. If something weren't done, the U.S. would have had its gold reserves totally depleted.

So?

Nixon's response was to make the dollar worthless.

And nothing but piles of paper have been printed ever since--all of which led up to Reagan's giving free rein to big businesses, and finally to Black Monday.

So....the dollar was becoming worthless BEFORE Nixon detached it from gold. The U.S. could not afford the charade of pretending the dollar had a certain fixed exchange rate with respect to gold.

Arch -

So you wanted to decry ACORN...but you didn't want to back it up when called on your 'fictitious vote' accusation, huh? 'sokay - you're not the first one. There's a whole Republican hierarchy that's just as reluctant to back up their accusations.

Where did I ever claim or even infer that Obama was some kind of 'savior'? I did NOT do so - that is only in your mind. Such would be heresy to me and to the Church of which I am a member.

What I DID say was that he, unlike McCain, can LEAD the world, and that all McCain could do would be to bully the world to obey him...and if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that already.

Nah...I'm long used to false accusations and insults from holier-than-thou 'christians' on religious forums - and like them, it looks like all you're doing is thinking of just how spiteful you can sound, somehow believing that your insults do anything more than reflect your own personality.

Personally, I have no need to use insults. I have no urge to beat down those around me just to make myself feel better or more important.

I, sir, am a liberal. Walk with me. Let's you-and-I examine facts and references as between men who are created equal before we go hurling insults and accusations. Can you do that?

What I DID say was that he, unlike McCain, can LEAD the world

An unwarranted assumption, since The Messiah has yet to lead anything...

Glen,

Obama's military policy is very little different than Bush's. What Obama is advocating is already under way.

The U.S. will still use its military might to get its way regardless of who wins Tuesday.

Les

John Rider -

Did you miss the part where Obama's mom had to go on food stamps for the two of them to eat?

And have you ever spent much time in Southeast Asia? I have. He lived in Indonesia - and NOT in a particularly nice place. He knows - as do I - what real poverty is, and what it's like to be the only one for miles around to be of a particularly foreign color.

Maybe you did know all that...and if you did, that means you were trying to deceive others by making it seem as if Obama had never known poverty.

McCain, on the other hand, while he did spend five years as a POW (as he never fails to remind anyone who will listen), grew up with a particularly privileged silver spoon in his mouth (as anyone who has a clue of the lives of flag-officer families can tell you). Other than his time as a POW (yes he WAS tortured...but he also had access to medical care and food), McCain has NEVER, repeat NEVER - as child OR adult - had to worry about money, food on the table, and good medical care.

Colonel David Hackworth - the most decorated military man in American history - said that McCain wasn't a POW 'hero', but a POW survivor. Why? Because McCain admitted that FOUR DAYS after McCain was taken prisoner, in strict violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, offered to give 'military information' to his captors if they would just get him to a hospital.

By his admitted actions, McCain did not have the courage THEN...and by his flip-flop on torture, does not have it NOW.

Clavos -

If you are in a position of leadership, and if the great majority of people have a good impression of you, then you stand a very good chance of being able to LEAD those people.

That is why Reagan was able to lead much of the world.

What does the world outside of America think of Obama? Of McCain?

Les -

It was OBAMA who proposed a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Bush (in front of the Israeli KNESSET!) and the Republicans ridiculed him for it. Now what is the Bush administration working on? A timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

It was OBAMA who proposed late last year that we send two more brigades to Afghanistan because of what was happening there. Did Bush listen to him them? Of course not. But now that things are getting truly dicey there, guess what? "We need to send more troops to Afghanistan right away!"

No, Obama's military policy is NOT the same as Bush's...but Bush has been forced by events to emulate Obama's policy.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Glenn,

"No, Obama's military policy is NOT the same as Bush's...but Bush has been forced by events to emulate Obama's policy."

Forced by events to emulate Obama's policy? You have an exaggerated view of the importance of Obama.

I never said that Obama's military policies were the SAME as Bush's. I said very little different. In the bigger picture of things, McCain would follow very similar policies. Neither of the three, Bush, McCain nor Obama have many major choices.

The military is playing as big of a role as it has been of late BECAUSE of the economic crisis. This crisis is deepening and the use of military will also deepen. You will NOT see Obama altering that.

Les

RE# 41

Joan,

It appears that Palin made a comment during the interview, thus:

"...OK, we're confident that we're going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?"

There is video here for it.

So, it is all speculation regarding that single comment. As the thought goes, was it a slip based on information she knows? And if so, there will have to be a draft.

I personally am inclined to think she simply meant Afghanistan and Iraq.

Clavos' needle seems to be stuck on this messiah thing.

Clavos: "An unwarranted assumption, since The Messiah has yet to lead anything..."

Eh, Cabron, you've got it wrong .... come on, he was a great community organiser.

I believe the community is now very organised


[Stan, why are you (a) impersonating a lawnmower and (b) commenting under multiple user names? You know we frown on that sort of thing here.

Dr Dreadful
Assistant Comments Nazi Editor]

Clavos' needle seems to be stuck on this messiah thing.

IF he gets elected...

You're gonna get SOOOOOO tired of my stuck needle.

That's what YOU think, fellow editor...!

If you are in a position of leadership, and if the great majority of people have a good impression of you, then you stand a very good chance of being able to LEAD those people.

Haven't seen a "great majority of the people" so inclined yet, Glenn.

In fact, the race is pretty close so far.

That is why Reagan was able to lead much of the world.

Reagan led the world???

Not even his most mindless supporters really believe that. Hell, half of the americans think he didn't lead the US.

What does the world outside of America think of Obama? Of McCain?

Doesn't matter, they're not voting. And we're voting for president of the US, not the world.

Don't be such an arrogant american. In Mexico, who you elect won't put any more tortillas on the table.

Most of the rest of the world (China, India, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, e.g.) cares even less.

Hey, lawnmower,

To you, it's chingón.

That's what YOU think, fellow editor...!

Care to elaborate, Doc?

Les, Moon, Clavos... exactly where did you acquire the delusion that everything you utter is fact and everyone else's thoughts are mere opinion?

How influencial can you possibly be with an attidute that exudes "I'm right and your wrong-so you deserve to be discarded and belittled at every opportunity"?

a conversation is an exchange of ideas, a forum where one learns from the other, but have you really changed any minds? are there any converts you can point to?

The only people you "converse" with seem to be likeminded and closed-minded quasi-intellectuals who already agree with you.

Makes for a very boring interplay

clavos, i think you missed the point. whoever was talking about "leading the world," which is a bit of an overstatement, was saying that obama commands respect from many world leaders. he wasn't talking about the u.s. election.

obama is well-liked around the world, unlike bush. he is respected. sure, a lot of countries aren't going to suddenly change their behavior towards the united states just because he is president, but a lot of countries will.

being the president of the united states should put you in a position of leadership (not THE leader, but A leader) in the world. because of other nations' views on obama, he would bring more consensus to the world, or at least a more positive consensus in their views on the united states.

we live in a world economy and in a world that is much smaller, in many ways, than it was even 10 years ago. we need a leader that the world can respect, and given our choices, it appears (at least to me) that obama is the better choice between the two. and the world agrees.

you could say that you don't care what the world thinks. but that's probably not true. i think we all know that an obama presidency will (at least at first) regain us some good will.

Glenn & Les.

At this point everyone's military policy in Iraq is the same, because since the success of the strategy changes which coincided with the surge, the march towards a conclusion of the Iraq war has been pretty much inevitable, and it's more on the Iraqis than it is on us, so everyone's strategy is just to wait and let it resolve itself.

Dave

I didn't miss the point, zing. I just disagreed with the hyperbolic Messiah worship.

However, props to you for making a much better point in a much more thoughtful and measured way.

I still stand by my original assertion, that it remains to be seen whether or not he can lead the US, let alone the world, since he's never led anything yet.

true, he hasn't lead jack shit yet.

still, because so much of our politics centers on things outside of our borders, i'm inclined to believe that obama, merely by have world opinion on his side, would be a great boon to our nation.

(ESPECIALLY in the middle east, in which he can play up his name as crassly as republicans have been for the last year or so.)

but yeah, you shouldn't go on about hyperbolic this-n-that when you're the only one using the word "messiah." what other words do republicans use for him? oh yeah, "terrorist," "arab," "nigg..."

don't use those either. that's hyperbole. or hatred. or something.

and i'm not saying that you have or would use those words. it's just that no one is calling obama "messiah," except for republicans, who have also used negative words such as those above. all (ok, most of) the hyperbole is coming out of one side.

Oh please, zing.

The hero worship on the part of all his avid supporters right here on these threads (never mind the truly partisan garbage sites like Huffington and kos) is hyperbolic beyond reason.

It's why I use the Messiah thing (my use of which, btw, is intended to be sardonic, not hyperbolic) aside from the fact that Farrakhan literally said it, a lot of those supporting him attribute near messianic powers and qualities to him in their paeans. The whole thing transcends politics and has ludicrously become literally religious in tone.

The Messiah label is entirely appropriate, IMO.

He's just another fuckin' pol, and one who has at least some clay on his feet, to boot.

I have to agree with Clavos. He has made a correct accounting of this and makes a solid argument. And I do not see the harm in is opponents admitting it. Whats to be afaid of.

@ #64:

For now, let me just refer you to para 3 (and, if you wish, 4) of the comments policy, Clav.

Then again, perhaps my expectations for the level of discourse in the Politics section are unrealistic - !

Franco, I can see your point. From the POV of a center-left-oriented person like myself, I guess it would be akin to the boot-licking loyalist (there's always one, no matter who the president is!) who stands up and pronounces publicly, without a hint of irony, their belief that George W. Bush is the greatest president of all time. It's that annoying, right?

But seriously - with Obama, is it really as pervasively hyperbolic as you claim?

And is it really all that outrageous to express admiration for a political candidate?

To say the least Doc!

For an example from the Bush presidency, think Harriet Miers.

(No wonder he wanted her on the Supreme Court - he could do no wrong in her eyes!)

Glen,

Yes I did miss the information that Senator "Obama's mom had to go on food stamps for the two of them to eat". A quick look at the internet found that Senator Obama made reference to his mother and food stamps in a 2006 interview with noted journalist Joe Klein in Time Magazine. Mr. Klein quotes Senator Obama as saying "For example, I was going to a fancy prep school, and my mother was on food stamps while she was getting her Ph.D." (Time Magazine).

On a personal note, when I was at University at about this same time, I knew students who applied for and received food stamps. Most lived in nice housing, drove nice cars, and seemed to have plenty of cash.

If you can direct me to any references talking about how Senator Obama, his mother, and his sister (you forgot his younger sister) were having difficulty finding food to eat, please let me know how to access them. I could not find them in a quick search of the internet. I find it shocking that Senator Obama's grandmother (the bank vice president) and the directors of his fancy prep school would let young Obama go hungry.

Glen, I was not trying to deceive you. Today is the first day I have heard that Senator Obama was ever near the receiving end of food stamps. The main point I was trying to make was that Obama is a child of privilege.

Glen, I was not trying to make it seem as if Senator Obama has never known real poverty. I have no motivation to do so. There is nothing particularly noble in being the poorest of the poor. Knowing real poverty is not a qualification for the presidency. Why are you trying to make it seem that Senator Obama has personally experienced real poverty? I have seen no evidence that he has. Why is that important to you? You are confusing seeing poverty and having intellectual knowledge of poverty with experiencing real poverty. There is no comparison. I believe the Senator has seen real poverty, especially in Africa and Indonesia, but he has never "known" it.

No Glen, I have not spent much time in Southeast Asia. I have spent a few weeks now and then in Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. Where I have seen poverty is in Africa. I lived in one of the less desirable sections of Lagos for over three years and saw people as poor and as miserable as any in the world. They exist in the millions.

Senator Obama's stepfather was by all reports a geologist who worked with and for the Indonesian government and Mobil Oil. Most the many geologist I know who lived and worked in Indonesia liked it very much. They lived in good housing, had maids, cooks, houseboys, and drivers. At the very least, as a professional, Senator Obama's stepfather should have been providing a middle class to upper middle class life style to his family. (I will admit I have not read the senators book, so I don't know for sure). Many of these same professionals who worked in Indonesia have also lived in Lagos Nigeria and tell me living in Indonesia is much better.

Glen, you say you know what real poverty is. What is your definition? My definition of real poverty are the people I saw sleeping in the dirt under motorway bridges in Lagos Nigeria. You can tell who is really poor because their clothing becomes dark with grimy dirt. People who have only one set of ragged cloths have little opportunity to take off their cloths and wash. Even these people are better off then some of the rural people I have seen far to the north. Again, what is your definition?

Finally: Glen., What to say about your diatribe on Senator McCain. It is illogical,emotional, and contradictory. You write " McCain has NEVER, repeat NEVER - as child OR adult - had to worry about ... good medical care" (your emphasis, not mine). You then go on to accuse him of treason by writing that McCain "offered to give 'military information' to his captors if they would just get him to a hospital". It sure sounds like he was worried about good medical care to me. Do you think you might want to re-think that a little.

I would agree with you that being a prisoner of war does not make McCain qualified to be president. You have to realize that McCain being a prisoner of war does not make Obama qualified either. Neither one is fit to be President of the United States.

P.S. It is my understanding that Colonel David Hackworth is not the most decorated military man in American history. I always thought that that honor went to the disabled war veteran and Hollywood actor Audi Murphy. Isn't Hackworth no. 2?

John Rider,

You are correct when you say Hackworth is not the most decorated soldier in history. He was (I have heard, but never investigated) the most decorated soldier in Vietnam. He was also one of the Vietnam soldiers most subjected to disciplinary measures.

From what I've read, he was a brave soldier, but not a good soldier, in the sense that he had much difficulty following lawful orders.

Audie Murphy IS the most decorated US soldier in history. The VA Medical Center in San Antonio, TX is named for him.

Clavos' repeated attribution of the cognomen 'messiah' to Obama brings to mind that while Obama has never claimed divine purpose to his campaign, the current temporary occupant of the Whitehouse has. Didn't W say something like God revealed to him that he was destined to be Pres.? Now that's chutzpah!

One could fairly say that McCain HAS been tested and is ready: to surrender to the North Vietnamese, as he did in 1969 when he offered to give military info in exchange for hospital care 4 days after his capture. Is that the McCain plan, surrender? Or is it some kind of exaggerated belligerence to expiate his guilt?

Jet,

"...have you really changed any minds? are there any converts you can point to?"

First of all I am not trying to present anything original here. What I present is generally a classic Marxist perspective, and yes, I do find it taken more seriously than it used to be.

This is just a reflection of what can be seen in the population as a whole, especially, but not limited to, the working class.

Generally agreeing with Dave's 67, I would like to point out similarly with the deepening of the economic crisis there are more people that agree that capitalism is the problem.

Again, agreeing with Dave's 67, that's generally the point I was trying to make with Glenn. That it is not the particular personalities, but the objective circumstances that are primary.

I suspect you Jet do not agree with my, and other's, perspectives. Try taking on the content instead of whining about the participants.

Les

One could fairly say that McCain HAS been tested and is ready: to surrender to the North Vietnamese, as he did in 1969 when he offered to give military info in exchange for hospital care 4 days after his capture.

You are, as always, absolutely right, bliffle.

McCain is a cowardly weasel, and anyone who votes for him is equally craven.

RE Glenn and zing:

Obama will be better for Foreign relations.

...with the surge, the march towards a conclusion of the Iraq war has been pretty much inevitable.

What Iraq war Dave? Remember? There is no Iraq war.

Well, for everyone else there is. But surely not for you.

Dave sez:

"At this point everyone's military policy in Iraq is the same, ..."

Yes, because everyone is taking their advice from Petraeus. I suppose they have to because he's the commander in Iraq. Somehow I suspect that CinCs like Roosevelt and Churchill would be less generous toward Petraeus, since they often challenged the judgements of their famous generals.

I suspect that The Surge is less a military move than a promotion device for Petraeus (in which purpose it has succeeded grandly), and it will collapse once the US payroll that bribes the insurgents is removed. That, or Al Sadr decides to go back on the warpath.

John Rider: "Singapore, Malaysia".

No John, you're right ... you won't see too much poverty in those two places, Singapore especially, nor in Hong Kong. Nor that much crime.

They have the highest standards of living overall in Asia. Thailand's getting better, especially in Bangkok, and while it's not great and on a par with the Philippines and Indo in terms of its poverty, it's still not the abject poverty you might find in Africa.

Interesting that the places with the best standards of living and more than a nod to rule of law are the former British colonies, Malaysia being a double success story as a Muslim state (Burma, of course, being the tarantula in the woodpile and going in the opposite direction and remaining one of the two true basket cases of asia).

You also won't feel unsafe walking around Kuala Lumpur, which kind of lays to rest some of those old religious and racial stereotypes.


[Stan. Knock it off. Pretty please. You know what I mean.
Dread
Comments Ed]

"...everyone is taking their advice from Petraeus. I suppose they have to because he's the commander in Iraq."

Before he was commander in Iraq he had to be confirmed by the Senate. In the confirmation hearings, he made it perfectly clear what his intentions were, including the surge. He also made it clear that a vote for confirmation was a vote for what he was advocating.

He was confirmed 95 to 2. Obama can not truthfully claim that he did not support the surge from the beginning. Obama DID vote yea on the confirmation.

John Rider -

my bad - it's Audie Murphy. But hey, Hackworth DID receive something like 10 Silver Stars in his 100+ medals.

And Kudos to your reply! It's not often that I get corrected by a conservative (that's an assumption on my part that you are one), with facts and references, and with a large measure of professional courtesy. For the several things that I said that were wrong, I apologize. Please accept my sincere gratitude for the correction (I make it a practice to sincerely thank someone - even if I really don't like him - for proving me wrong in anything).

Are you sure you're not a liberal? Or at least an independent? Just kidding. (mostly)

When it comes to my 'diatribe on McCain', his offer of military information is from his own admission...and ANY senior military worth his salt can tell you that an offer of military information - regardless of medical need or even torture - is dishonorable and is considered "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"...which is precisely what Colonel Hackworth accused McCain of doing.

McCain led a privileged life. Do you know what happens to pilots who crash their jets more than once? McCain crashed his jets three times before he was shot down.

He was also near the bottom of the class at Annapolis. Hey - don't get me wrong - I was offered Annapolis myself by a senator. I didn't accept the offer (thank God!), but I respect any who made it through any military academy. But the reason this is of interest is that one must wonder if his four-star dad had anything to do with his successful completion of Annapolis, just as his dad's four stars are VERY likely to have kept McCain flying after THREE crashes.

One last thing to consider about McCain and his near-the-bottom academic performance at Annapolis - he STILL doesn't use the internet, and not even e-mail.

This is a guy who apparently has even LESS intellectual curiosity than Bush! Remember that both of them have shown that even with two wars going on in the Middle East they don't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a and the importance thereof...

...and I'd LOVE to quiz Ms. Palin on how the Sunni/Shi'a schism affects Middle East politics....

John -

P.S. Been to Hong Kong and Singapore - love them both - and I own a house and a business in Southeast Asia - and I've been to Mombasa a few times and Nairobi once. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the poverty in Africa is far worse than in Southeast Asia...

...but in Southeast Asia - remember how you mentioned the maids, houseboys, cooks, etc.? Even the lower middle class have maids there. In Asia, just because someone has maids and houseboys doesn't mean they're well-to-do. It just means that the maid and the houseboy are really poor and are willing to work for next-to-nothing-plus-a-little-food.

And what really kills me is that - at least in Thailand and the Philippines - the people there are as a whole happier than here in America. They smile more, they laugh more, their elderly grow old in the same house watching their grandchildren and great-grands every single day. I see them scraping by for meals, for clothing, for money, and they certainly have all the human problems we do with relationships and rivalries...yet as a people they are happier than we are here in the greatest nation on earth, busting our butts until we're seventy-something looking forward to which nursing home our kids are going to put us in.

Now how did I get from John McCain to nursing homes. Is that a, um, "Freudian Progression"?

All of what you post above is correct, Glenn.

And yet, millions of (admittedly stupid) amurricans are voting for him.

Go figure.

Re Comment #88, one must wonder if . . . [Senator McCain's] four-star dad had anything to do with his successful completion of Annapolis.

Senator McCain was graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958. His father was promoted from captain to rear admiral in 1958 or 1959.

I didn't want you to wonder about this too much. Whatever influence Captain McCain may have had on his son's time at Annapolis, it was not as a "four-star" dad.

Dan(Miller)

Dan -

Good point. Thank you. Sorta kills that particular inference of nepotism, doesn't it? But I still think the influence kept McCain flying after three crashes.

Clav, re Comment #71

Senator Obama is also as Moses and Martin Luther King, Jr. Cornal Garnett Henning, an AME bishop for parts of Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, thanked God for having "given us a Moses and a Martin called Barack Obama."

Any idea where I can get one of those nifty "In Obama we Trust" T-shirts?

Dan(Miller)

PS to Comment #93,

Perhaps, like Moses, Senator Obama would lead us out of Egypt and to a new and glorious reality where true peace reigns. I guess we should hope for the best.

Dan(Miller)

Some Obama supporters can be accused of excess hyperbole, comparing Obama to Messiah and Moses, etc., but, AFIK Obama himself has not claimed those glamorous attributes.

On the other hand, we have a sitting president who seems to claim that god wanted him to be president.

And yet, Dave and Clavos didn't protest such inferences. IIRC.

Audie Murphy IS the most decorated US soldier in history. The VA Medical Center in San Antonio, TX is named for him.

Audie Murphy is definitely the most decorated US soldier of WW2, but I thought Mad Anthony Wayne was the most decorated US soldier of all time.

Dave

AFIK Obama himself has not claimed those glamorous attributes.

True. Never said he did.

On the other hand, we have a sitting president who seems to claim that god wanted him to be president.

And yet, Dave and Clavos didn't protest such inferences. IIRC.

1. As always, I don't speak for Dave.

2. If he's claiming it, he's not inferring, he's implying.

3. I didn't protest it, because IMO, "god" is a figment, so I don't care that he claims a mandate from god - I know it's not true, and you might as well try to bail the ocean out with a teacup as stop any pol from lying; that endeavor comes under the rubric of wrestling with a pig (or putting lipstick on one).

Bush's delusions of being a messenger of god predate my activity on BC, which started in 2004. After that date Bush deliberately played down any messianic aspirations.

As for the characterization of Obama as a Messiah, from what I understand it originated with discussion of this Newsweek cover in which his image was photoshopped to look vaguely like a halo was radiating from behind his head.

Dave

Hey bliffle -

Didja notice that when you pointed out Bush's Ima-Messenger complex, Clavos and Dave had to spin their way out of that one? The tragic thing is that they believe their excuses were logical and sensible.

(hm - Bush...complex...in the same sentence - something just doesn't work there)

Uh Dave, perhaps you missed my article of September 12, 2006? On page two you'll see that I did indeed cover Bush's claim that God ordained that he should be president. Bush Announces Vision Of "Third Awakening", An Apocalyptic Fight Between Good And Evil... God Help Us All

And Jet, did I write anything in that comment thread to defend or support his claim?

Dave

dave--i worked at newsweek when that cover came out, and i saw that cover every morning when i got in, after every cigarette, after lunch and on my way out the door in the evening, at my desk, at my bosses desk, at co-workers' desks, in the conference room and in the stacks for a solid week, and never once--never once!--did i think it looked like a halo. it never crossed my mind. not to say it doesn't look slightly like a halo when you point out that it looks slightly like a halo... but sheesh. it also looks like he's got a large chunk of the back of his head missing, but no one is saying it looks like an assassination attempt.

Doc: "Knock it off. Pretty please. You know what I mean."

Doc, I've just bought a new cortacesped ... a Victa :) Seems like it works in nicely with the US election.

Stop being the serious Pom, Doc. We're here to have fun too ... I'm not replying to my own posts.

@#99,

Glenn, pay attention -- I am an atheist. ANYONE --the pope, billy graham, george bush, mother teresa, martin luther king, jesse jackson, you, bliffle, ANYONE who claims to have a communication with "god" is full of shit in my book.

Capsice?

#74 -- Dr Dreadfu

But seriously - with Obama, is it really as pervasively hyperbolic as you claim?

Doc, you missed it. I shared Clavo's use for the word sardonic, not hyperbolic

Here is what he said.

"It's why I use the Messiah thing (my use of which, btw, is intended to be sardonic, not hyperbolic) aside from the fact that Farrakhan literally said it,"

Clavos spins,

"I didn't protest it, because IMO, "god" is a figment, so I don't care that he claims a mandate from god - I know it's not true,..."

You don't care that the man is ruled by 'figments'? Isn't that considered a dangerous delusion?

You don't care that the man is ruled by 'figments'?

Nope.

Isn't that considered a dangerous delusion?

Yep.

yawn....

ZZZZZZZZZZ...

Clavos, Condor:

Are you two guys sleeping together?