If McCain is the best they can throw at the democrats, I say let the games begin. Barack will eat his lunch.

e.

Although I don’t dislike him, Obama has not really made a case. His speeches are like a broken record with a skip, saying “change, change, change, change …”. He’s kind of like a cult figure here with the students. They can’t really tell you WHY he would make a good president, but say that he sure makes great inspiring speeches and they feel good about him anyway. The thing is, most of these students are barely even old enough to remember the Clintons when the Republicans cranked up their very effective and well oiled hate machine against them, and don’t realize that the same will be aimed at Obama. If they think that Obama is going to lift us to a peaceful political unification, they greatly underestimate their enemy and are sadly naive. We need someone who can play hard ball right now. First and foremost, the next president must have to have the guts to root out all of the political operatives that Bush has stuffed into the Federal Government.

If the voting all occurred at once (a single national primary) the candidate with the most money and visibility would have a huge advantage. This is a vetting process and while imperfect, I think it give Americans a chance to learn more about the candidates than a single primary.

Hillary’s campaign is off the tracks. Questioning Obama’s ability to be commander and chief on day one is completely disingenuous. When she and McCain are suggesting that the judgement he might make in a crisis are that of inexperience, we need to remember he is the only one of the three of them that has opposed the war from the beginning. To me that demonstrates superior judgement.

My favorite Clinton line from the last few days “we need sound solutions not sound bites” Now if that isn’t intended to be a sound bite….

Its coming unravelled. I don’t hate Hillary but I think she has simply not made her case as effectively as Obama at this point in history.

Count,

I am not so sure Hillary would be so quick to invade Iran. But I agree that Obama is the best hope for a diplomatic and lasting peace in the region avoiding violence.

e.

blog link

Perhaps Lisa Schiffron can get a job working for the Onion, as that’s where that piece really belongs.

If there is one thing we should all learn from this election is how MESSED up our democracy is. You would think after 225 years we would have it together. All this business with delegates, super delegates duper-duper delegates is nonsense!
All 50 states should vote on a given weekend. Add up all the votes at the end of the weekend (or use the electoral college system). At the end, whoever has the most votes or electoral votes wins! All of this is dragging out for months and months, wasting a lot of valuable resources like time and money.

hardheaded liberal: That quote is main one of its kind alleged from Churchill, and they have been debunked. Check maybe Snopes for such things. It could indeed express his attitude, and sometimes people put together little pieces of conversation and writing into a succinct “quote.”
Speaking of quoting without attribution in the Obama case: the guy he borrowed from says it was OK, so it perforce becomes OK since taking from a willing provider is not stealing.

McCain was against the incursion (or rather skeptical) of it to begin with if that means anything -shrug- Moreover he was one of the few R’s who is vocally anti torture, so I don’t know, we have some differing information.

The quote attributed to Winston Churchill is usually stated as, “A man who is not a socialist at [20...or so] has no heart, and the man who is not a conservative at 40 has no brain.” I don’t know whether Churchill ever said anything remotely like this, but the attribution to him comes easily because he was quite radical for British politics in his early 20’s, and then switched to the Conservative Party before he was 40. In other words, the quote is a summary justification of Churchill’s personal political journey, whether or not Winston ever spoke the words himself.

The idea that a candidate who supports long-term occupation of Iraq, who has joked about bombing Iran, who wants to appoint more judges like Scalia and Alito, and who is pro-torture except when he finds it rhetorically useful to be anti-torture can be called “more to the left” says something really depressing about American politics.

He is however somewhat more committed to fiscal sanity the Bushco. In fact he voted against the Bush tax cuts he now supports. I think this is going to be a big issue in the general. Sort of like Kerry being against the war and then for it.

Like the old saying goes: “There ain’t nothing in the middle of the road but a double yellow line and dead armadillos”

e.

By contrast McCain is quite atypical for a republican president. He’s fundamentally much more to the left than we are used too seeing. You’d have to go back quite a long ways to find a candidate in the same centrist mold, particulalry from the right.

I’ve come to realize that all this talk of invading Iran, nuking Mecca, string up all criminals, “if I’d have been at the latest school shooting I’d have taken his punk ass out in one shot” etc. is just a front to hide pathological insecurities that manifest themselves in finding imaginary monsters wherever they look. Chickenhawks was and is right on the money, but it doesn’t just apply to their foreign policy ethos, it pervades everything they do and say.

The same paranoid NRO Corner are now talking about Obama’s messianic tendencies, so it won’t be long before all those quivering conservative Christians will be quaking in their boots as he is finally unmasked as the real Antichrist.