McCain can win in one of two ways.

He can continue to try to make an honest case for continuing the war in Iraq, much as he's done over the past year, acknowledging that this isn't a popular view, but hoping that his power of persuasion will carry the day. He can supplement this with his relative experience in military affairs compared to the Democrats, and with his biography. He can further make an equally honest case for the free market as the better solution to our current financial crisis, as opposed to the sort of increased regulation that both Democratic candidates are calling for.

This would be known as "campaigning on the issues." And win or lose, it would leave a clean taste in our mouths.

Or he can steal Hillary's notebook, listen to some of his more sleazeball advisors, and try to demonize Obama on a personal level, seizing upon every word of Obama's that can be re-formatted into a Halloween mask, in order to scare those voters whose attention span is strictly limited to sound bites.

I'm betting on #2.

If the polls show him behind, you get bet your last dollar the GOP will pull out all the stops to paint Obama as a more cleancut-looking version of Al Sharpton.

Which, if it happens, will undoubtedly be spun as reaching out to the "values" voters.

I love it! The lefties (who largely feel exactly like Obama does) are already beginning to spin the defeat that even they know in their hearts is going to happen.

The final consolation they'll use to make themselves feel better will be to convince themselves that America was simply too racist to elect a multiracial candidate.

Joey, if Obama loses it will have far more to do with Hillary provoking a sense of righteous indignation among her more impressionable followers that she was somehow cheated out of the nomination by a pretty boy fawned over by the media (the Ferraro line) than it will have to do with race per se. If enough of the bitter women sit it out in November, it'll be all she wrote.

There's obviously a small segment of the electorate that won't vote for Obama because he's black, and another segment who will tell you, "I would have voted for Obama, if not for Rev. Wright, if not for the flag pin, if not for his disrespecting religion, if not for throwing his grandmother under the bus," yada yada yada. Most of these people are Republicans like yourself, who wouldn't vote for a liberal Democrat if he were as white as they are.

Obama and McCain have seven more months of campaigning to do. If McCain can convince voters that our national security requires the war in Iraq to be fought the way it has been for the past year, more power to him. If he can convince people that more deregulation of the financial markets is a great thing, bully for him there, too.

And if Obama can't succeed in making those the central issues of the campaign, as opposed to the bullshlt about Rev. Wright and this latest bit of fluff, he'll have nobody to blame for it but himself. He knows what the Republicans are like. It's not as if he can't be expecting to be coldcocked. The question is how he'll evolve a strategy to combat it.

I don't even know what a conservative is supposed to be at this point. The chattering classes have being using it as a shorthand for "whatever George W. Bush wants" and that's probably not the most accurate use of the term, but it'll do for now. I know that conservatives in the media are very good at latching onto things that either are popular or that they think are popular and at disavowing things that turn out less well than they had hoped. And there are theocons and neocons and paleocons and they disagree about a lot of things.

They do all seem to think that the well-off don't have it easy enough, that most of the problems of the world can be solved by bombing brown people, and that (if you leave some of the more "libertarian" sorts out) that gays are icky.

Answer Guy, your mistake may be in thinking that contemporary Republicans have anything to do with conservatism. The Republican party was simply the more convenient of the two major party vehicles through which American corporate gangsters and their shills could fatten. Don't think "political party", think Borgias, or Corleones.

Gays aren't just icky, they're a threat to the American family! How they're a threat, though, or how, to a conservative, what they do in private is anyone elses business, or why the federal government should pass laws forbidding the various states the right to marry gays, isn't entirely clear to me.

Andy's correct; anybody who has a clue as to who's going to win in November might as well bet the farm on the 2009 Super Bowl while they're at it. I remember in April of '04 being 100% sure that Bush would be re-elected, but (a) that was partly despair and (b) I work in Texas, which somewhat colors my day-to-day impression of things. My sense in April 2008 is that Texas is actually in play this year. The Republican Party is overwhelmingly strong here, but they have a candidate that the evangelical right isn't crazy about and that the ex-military voters who are so prevalent here are going to distrust wrt to a war that has fatigued and disillusioned them. Electoral-Vote.com concurs, showing Texas at the moment as "Barely GOP" if Obama faces McCain. That's Texas, mind you.

I don't think I could ever sit through any of Heston's movies

The best ones are probably Touch of Evil and Planet of the Apes, though I have never seen Will Penny, which was Heston's personal favorite. I remember the Three and Four Musketeers movies fondly; Heston is part of an ensemble cast there and is good, as I recall. And though the Tim Burton Apes movie is not very good, I thought Heston was an exceedingly good sport to appear in it. In fact he struck me as a thoughtful, modest, well-educated guy, able to play the most Gargantuan roles and still laugh at himself.

Gays aren't just icky, they're a threat to the American family! How they're a threat, though, or how, to a conservative, what they do in private is anyone elses business, or why the federal government should pass laws forbidding the various states the right to marry gays, isn't entirely clear to me.

arkitekton, you have to understand: Those are "values" conservatives, AKA righteous agents of God Himself. They're merely channeling His Biblically-revealed wishes. The Republican Party is God's Collective Servant.

Andy's correct; anybody who has a clue as to who's going to win in November might as well bet the farm on the 2009 Super Bowl while they're at it.

FWIW the current betting odds are (according to linesmaker.com) Hillary 5 to 1, McCain 7 to 5, and Obama 2 to 3. But it's still a sucker's game at this point to try to predict a winner.

I love it! The lefties (who largely feel exactly like Obama does) are already beginning to spin the defeat that even they know in their hearts is going to happen.

I'll be stunned if Obama doesn't crush McCain in the general election.

The final consolation they'll use to make themselves feel better will be to convince themselves that America was simply too racist to elect a multiracial candidate.

I don't know if that's true, but you can be sure the GOP'll have a big get-out-the-vote effort for those folks who are.

Strangely enough - for a decidedly liberal Democrat - I think Obama has a real shot at stealing measurable portions of the reliable GOP base: evangelicals.

Lord knows that they have no love for McCain, and ironically, I think the Wright imbroglio could help him in that regard. No - it won't cut into the megachurch crowd that spends Sunday watching videos of fighter jets, flags, and crosses mingled into some collage of quasi-religio-nationalism... but in some segments of the evangelical base, I think there is a growing dissatisfaction with the GOP as being more interested in lip service.

Despite his stances being at odds on the 'typical' evangelical issues, I think it's also true that Obama more so than Clinton or McCain has come across as "religious".

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying he's got any realistic shot at a majority, but I can easily envision a November postmortem by the GOP that bemoans lower-than-historical level support from this demographic.

My sense in April 2008 is that Texas is actually in play this year. The Republican Party is overwhelmingly strong here, but they have a candidate that the evangelical right isn't crazy about and that the ex-military voters who are so prevalent here are going to distrust wrt to a war that has fatigued and disillusioned them. Electoral-Vote.com concurs, showing Texas at the moment as "Barely GOP" if Obama faces McCain. That's Texas, mind you.


I think Electoral-Vote.com is too eager to flip a state's status. Notice while they have McCain struggling in Texas from a single poll in February, they also have Obama in trouble in New York simply because of McCain having a 2 point lead in the recent poll, despite Obama having leads of 11, 8, 13, and 14 going back to when that one Texas poll was taken.

The red/blue map should be pretty crazy in November, but I think it's too soon to really list something as nuanced as leaning one way or the the other. The more interesting observation is the number of states that *are* in play.

Lord knows that they have no love for McCain, and ironically, I think the Wright imbroglio could help him in that regard. No - it won't cut into the megachurch crowd that spends Sunday watching videos of fighter jets, flags, and crosses mingled into some collage of quasi-religio-nationalism... but in some segments of the evangelical base, I think there is a growing dissatisfaction with the GOP as being more interested in lip service.

The Wright flap is going to hurt him much less among regular churchgoers than the GOP likes to pretend. Everyone who goes to church on a regular basis has heard their pastor or priest or rabbi or imam say something they disagree with, and understands that you don't just walk out of church every time that happens.

I would bet that 95 percent of those people who thundered indignantly about how Obama should have marched out of his church are, at best, Easter and Christmas types.

The red/blue map should be pretty crazy in November, but I think it's too soon to really list something as nuanced as leaning one way or the the other. The more interesting observation is the number of states that *are* in play.

One thing that makes a race like this so hard to call is that in Obama you have a candidate who will bring out many first time voters, while at the same time he might well lose the Democrats an indeterminate number of people who buy into the bogeyman vision that Hillary has been attempting to smear him with. And with McCain, you have the oddity of a Republican candidate who in many ways---political views aside---has for the past 8 years been looked upon more favorably by Democrats than by Republicans. The Republicans are a lot better at patching over differences than the Democrats (even Grover Norquist is now holding his nose and working with McCain), but there's still a lot of Republican resentment over anyone who doesn't goosestep into the GOP line on their phony "values" issues.

IOW you've got more unknown factors here than has ever been the case. And this isn't even beginning to consider how the "real" issues like the war and the economy are going to play out. Maybe in the distant future the talking heads will get around to dealing with those issues, after they've run about ten more Limbaugh level soundbites into the ground.

"Everyone who goes to church on a regular basis has heard their pastor or priest or rabbi or imam say something they disagree with, and understands that you don't just walk out of church every time that happens."

I have no idea how the Wright controversy will play out 7 months from now.* However, I disagree that most regular church goers (or synagogue goers) have had a cleric say things as absurd, untrue and offensive as Wright has said. In my own case, I cannot think of a political comment ever made by a rabbi of mine which was objectionable. Wright may not be the only nut-job in the pulpit. But most American religious leaders are not of his stripe.

* My instinct is that the long-term effect on Obama will be to instill doubt as to Obama's central claim about himself: that he has good judgment. We know Obama has very little practical experience. As such, he is running on the promise that he has better judgment than his opponents have. By wrapping himself around Wright for as long as he has and in such an intimate fashion, he has hurt his own credibility.

I'll be stunned if Obama doesn't crush McCain in the general election.

Are you thinking electoral college, popular vote, or both? In any of those cases, I'll be stunned if you're not stunned. The slime machine has barely gotten started, ahd Obama and McCain are fairly even in polls.

arkitekton, you have to understand: Those are "values" conservatives, AKA righteous agents of God Himself. They're merely channeling His Biblically-revealed wishes. The Republican Party is God's Collective Servant.

And so they keep telling me--how could I have forgotten?

G.O.P: God's Own Party?

In my own case, I cannot think of a political comment ever made by a rabbi of mine which was objectionable.

You need to find a more exciting synagogue.

Strangely enough - for a decidedly liberal Democrat - I think Obama has a real shot at stealing measurable portions of the reliable GOP base: evangelicals.

You may well have a point. A good friend of mine who is ex-Army and arecent convert to evangelical Christianity, and who contentedly voted for Huckabee in the primary, told me with real conviction that he would vote Obama rather than McCain in the general because, as he put it, McCain is really a liberal. I didn't ask him what that would make Obama. This is also a guy who, to my chagrin, uses the "n" word when he gets angry, so if he's capable of voting for Obama, there may well be a lot of evangelicals will to do so, also.

By wrapping himself around Wright for as long as he has and in such an intimate fashion, he has hurt his own credibility.

I'm not so sure you're right on this, Rich. My sense is that people felt he handled it pretty well--distancing himself from Wright without trashing Wright. I think it's less likely that it feeds into a judgment issue and more likely that it feeds into, along with some of Michelle Obama's comments, lapel pin gate, not putting his hand over his heart for the pledge, and etc., a "he doesn't love America enough" issue.

Are you thinking electoral college, popular vote, or both? In any of those cases, I'll be stunned if you're not stunned. The slime machine has barely gotten started, ahd Obama and McCain are fairly even in polls.

There's very little that McCain has going for him at this point besides these highly dubious, almost irrelevant polls. All of the underlying polling data -- how do you feel about this issue, that issue, which party do you trust more, ... - favors the Democratic party and Obama in particular because he is a change candidate.

Bush the 3rd should be afraid of the upcoming mano a mano fight, not Obama. Barack has been dragged through the mud plenty. "Let's stay 100 years in Iraq, I know nothing of the economy, more of the same" is a loser. Media people that try to play McCain off as a maverick are fools. He will be effectively cast as Bush the 3rd, another ignorant Republican.

Media people that try to play McCain off as a maverick are fools.

Which doesn't mean they won't continue to do it. As Chris Matthews has said, "we're his base."

I have no idea how the Wright controversy will play out 7 months from now.* However, I disagree that most regular church goers (or synagogue goers) have had a cleric say things as absurd, untrue and offensive as Wright has said. In my own case, I cannot think of a political comment ever made by a rabbi of mine which was objectionable. Wright may not be the only nut-job in the pulpit. But most American religious leaders are not of his stripe.

Indeed. My rabbi says lots of things objectionable to me, but that's because Reform Judaism is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party. In terms of things which are controversial in the Wright sense, I can't remember ever hearing a single statement from the beema.

It's amusing but not surprising that the left keeps trying to pretend that criticizing Obama is a "smear." Apparently it's "guilt by association" to associate Obama with his own statements now. Attacking him based on his political allies, his attitudes, his political positions, his campaign advisors, even his own words are off limits.

But apparently people have no problem pretending that McCain said he wanted to be fighting in Iraq for 100 years, when he said the exact opposite.

Well, I have been in a dozen churches and I've been in none where the Pastor hasn't said something at least as objectionable to SOMEONE.

Wright just made the horrible mistake of addressing his predominantly black congregation with rhetoric that inflames white people.

I don't support such inflammatory rhetoric, but I've certainly heard worse from pastors in churches that I've been a part of. Of course, to be fair, I'm no longer a part of those churches and I'm not running for president.

people have no problem pretending that McCain said he wanted to be fighting in Iraq for 100 years, when he said the exact opposite

To me there's a kind of postman-always-rings-twice justice to that. McCain said he would be fine with an indefinite troop presence in Iraq along the lines of Japan or Korea. Except that in Japan and Korea we have always been clear about who we are helping defend those countries from. Since we don't seem to have much of a clue on that score in Iraq, the kind of lifetime commitment McCain is suggesting seems just as out-of-touch as a 100 years' war.

My rabbi says lots of things objectionable to me

Why didn't you walk out?

This is a serious question.

BDMG: and if one wants to criticize McCain's statement for demonstrating cluelessness about the Iraq situation, well, that may be true or not, but it's a reasonable line of criticism. But to criticize him for saying that he wants to be fighting in Iraq in 100 years is simply dishonest when his explicit point was that it was okay to be there for 100 years if there's no more fighting there -- like Japan or Korea.

To me there's a kind of postman-always-rings-twice justice to that. McCain said he would be fine with an indefinite troop presence in Iraq along the lines of Japan or Korea. Except that in Japan and Korea we have always been clear about who we are helping defend those countries from. Since we don't seem to have much of a clue on that score in Iraq, the kind of lifetime commitment McCain is suggesting seems just as out-of-touch as a 100 years' war.

More alarming to me is, he wants to be the military proxy of a third country? In the Middle East?! Hell, it's long past time to be getting out of Japan and Korea, let alone Iraq!

Boots, libertarians have to develop thick skin; if we walked out of the room any time someone suggested it was the job of government to provide health care for everyone, the only place we could spend any time indoors would be the Unabomber's empty shack in Montana.

And reform Jews who are libertarians or conservatives would never be able to go to services.

people have no problem pretending that McCain said he wanted to be fighting in Iraq for 100 years, when he said the exact opposite

No, he didn't. He said what everyone thinks he said in between the lines: a peaceful, permanent American military presence can only be achieved by the extension and escalation of the present American commitment of money and lives. To claim that it can happen any other way is totally disingenuous.

Of course, McCain isn't going to be forthright about that sort of policy because that would guarantee his defeat in November. And since his defenders know that, they'll make statements like "he said the exact opposite" of what he actually said.

Boots, libertarians have to develop thick skin; if we walked out of the room any time someone suggested it was the job of government to provide health care for everyone, the only place we could spend any time indoors would be the Unabomber's empty shack in Montana.

Fair enough. I take it then that you don't think it was somehow Obama's obligation to walk out on his church.

BDMG: and if one wants to criticize McCain's statement for demonstrating cluelessness about the Iraq situation, well, that may be true or not, but it's a reasonable line of criticism. But to criticize him for saying that he wants to be fighting in Iraq in 100 years is simply dishonest when his explicit point was that it was okay to be there for 100 years if there's no more fighting there -- like Japan or Korea.

Democrats want us out, Republicans want us there for 100 years.

The public overwhelmingly wants to leave. McCain does not plan on that happening any time soon.
That is what I refer to when I reference McCain's quote.

bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

In fact, McCain has been entirely forthright about that sort of policy. He was criticizing Bush for not doing it years ago, and has said it repeatedly, so it's disingenuous of you to pretend that he didn't. But he didn't say he wanted to be fighting there in 100 years.

Well, I have been in a dozen churches and I've been in none where the Pastor hasn't said something at least as objectionable to SOMEONE.

I hear that. You're not going to believe this, but I was listening to a sermon once, and the preacher told us if we didn't accept Christ, we were going to be tortured after we died. Forever! Imagine that--the idea of a god who made us this haphazardly, and gave us these two-bit brains and uncertain hearts, and then decided that if we didn't come to the desired conclusion, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and believe in His infinite mercy, we were damned. Forever! It really was something to hear.

Since we don't seem to have much of a clue on that score in Iraq, the kind of lifetime commitment McCain is suggesting seems just as out-of-touch as a 100 years' war.

It's the part McCain omits, where it would take a decade, minimum, something like another 100,000 Iraqi and 10,000 American lives, and another 5 trillion dollars, just to maybe get to the point where the Iraqi state might be, sort of, peacefully policed, that gets me. Is he that disingenuous, or merely stone ignorant?

But he didn't say he wanted to be fighting there in 100 years.

100 years certainly falls under the category of "as long as it takes," another one of McCain's euphemisms. That his political opponents quickly jumped on the 100 years soundbite — and that they did it effectively — is the reason why he's had to claim that he was misquoted or it taken out of context. He wasn't, and it isn't.

Imagine that--the idea of a god who made us this haphazardly, and gave us these two-bit brains and uncertain hearts, and then decided that if we didn't come to the desired conclusion, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and believe in His infinite mercy, we were damned. Forever! It really was something to hear.

That's why Einstein couldn't buy into the mainstream God.

That's why Einstein couldn't buy into the mainstream God.

Great minds, eh? Did Einstein ever talk/write at length at the kind of god he believed in?

It's the part McCain omits, where it would take a decade, minimum, something like another 100,000 Iraqi and 10,000 American lives, and another 5 trillion dollars, just to maybe get to the point where the Iraqi state might be, sort of, peacefully policed, that gets me. Is he that disingenuous, or merely stone ignorant?

You just don't get it. McCain's position is very forthright: As long as it's peaceful, we're willing to stay as long as it takes. And as long as there's fighting, we're willing to stay as long as it takes.

Just don't ask what "it" is.

This position, of course, is violently opposed by all the libertarians out there, who rightly see the silliness in spending billions of American tax dollars to police a nation halfway around the world.

It's the part McCain omits, where it would take a decade, minimum, something like another 100,000 Iraqi and 10,000 American lives, and another 5 trillion dollars, just to maybe get to the point where the Iraqi state might be, sort of, peacefully policed, that gets me. Is he that disingenuous, or merely stone ignorant?

Again, that's an entirely legitimate -- if hyperbolic -- criticism. So people should stick to that, rather than the "100 years" thing.

(Although this discussion reminds me of the old joke, "They told me if I voted for Goldwater in 1964 that we'd get into a war. Well, I did, and we did." I think Obama voters are going to be shocked if/when he's elected, and it suddenly dawns upon them that we're not going to be out of Iraq the next day, or the next six months, or the next year. (Then Ralph Nader can run in 2012 on the grounds that there's no difference between the parties.))

Did Einstein ever talk/write at length at the kind of god he believed in?

IIRC, Einstein was something of a deist, believing God to be the great wonder and creator of the universe. Beyond that, he seemed to have struggled with the idea of just what God was. What he was sure God wasn't was malicious or vindictive fire-and-brimstone being that used to be so popular in churches.

Again, that's an entirely legitimate -- if hyperbolic -- criticism. So people should stick to that, rather than the "100 years" thing.

But as we've seen over and over, modern politics is waged through soundbites. Perhaps this isn't totally fair to McCain, but (1) it doesn't, as you claimed, say the opposite of what he meant, and (2) fairness in the use of other people's comments hasn't exactly been McCain's strong suit, either.

I think Obama voters are going to be shocked if/when he's elected, and it suddenly dawns upon them that we're not going to be out of Iraq the next day, or the next six months, or the next year.

They won't be surprised if they've read Obama's website, or his essay in Foreign Affairs. He's pretty clear that withdraw won't be total, and will take a good long while.

Again, that's an entirely legitimate -- if hyperbolic -- criticism. So people should stick to that, rather than the "100 years" thing.

Oh for chrissakes. No one has been attacking McCain for saying he was committed to "fighting" for another 100 years. You're just repeating this week's right-wing noise machine talking point if you believe that. What they've been attacking McCain over is exactly what he said about his willingness to leave troops there for that long, because (as Boots and others have pointed out) it encapsulates how open-ended his commitment is. And because he hasn't just said it once. He's repeated it and defended it when pressed on the point.

You're absolutely right, Chip. I've heard people criticize McCain for wanting to "stay in Iraq" for 100 years a lot more than I've heard them say he wants to "fight" there for 100 years.

Perhaps this isn't totally fair to McCain, but (1) it doesn't, as you claimed, say the opposite of what he meant, and (2) fairness in the use of other people's comments hasn't exactly been McCain's strong suit, either.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure if Obama and McCain shook hands before the general election and agreed to debate only the issues and none of the other standard BS, Obama would take that deal in a second. I actually think McCain would take that deal in a second too, but I don't know if the Republican Party would let him stick to it. I find McCain pretty unconvincing when he tries to take comments out of context, you can almost hear his conscience creaking. He's a very decent man and I hope my party treats him as such in the general election. Disagreement about policy should not engender personal attacks... I know it will frustrate the MSM to no end, but McCain v Obama could be one of the most informative elections in modern times.

You're absolutely right, Chip. I've heard people criticize McCain for wanting to "stay in Iraq" for 100 years a lot more than I've heard them say he wants to "fight" there for 100 years.

And the reason the RNC and their talking heads on the chat shows have been pushing back against this so hard this week, and pretended he's being attacked for something he didn't say, is that they know how damaging the actual words are. They're desperate to neutralize ALL discussion of McCain's "100 years" talk by claiming its based on a falsehood.

It's amusing but not surprising that the left keeps trying to pretend that criticizing Obama is a "smear." Apparently it's "guilt by association" to associate Obama with his own statements now. Attacking him based on his political allies, his attitudes, his political positions, his campaign advisors, even his own words are off limits.

But apparently people have no problem pretending that McCain said he wanted to be fighting in Iraq for 100 years, when he said the exact opposite.

Live by sound bite politics, die by sound bite politics.

The concept of a political smear isn't that difficult, David. It's twisting an opponent's words to pretend that he means something completely different than what you yourself know that he means---even if you play dumb and say that "we really don't know." McCain's "100 years" quote is merely the flip side of "elitist," in that those harping on it seek to limit any understanding of McCain's Iraq position, which I don't agree with but which is clearly a hell of a lot less simpleminded than that soundbite, taken out of context, would imply.

As for guilt by association, it's certainly legitimate to demand an explanatiion from Obama why he stayed in Wright's church for as long as he did. And it's certainly legitimate to wonder about the sort of "Christian" wackos whose support McCain has actively solicited.

But what merely cheapens the campaign is when it becomes obvious to anyone who listens that there is no similarity of views between Obama and Wright, or between McCain and Hagee, and yet the questions continue like a broken record, when there's really nothing more to be said.

You throw words like "political allies" and "campaign advisors" around both loosely and interchangeably, possibly because you want to be able to imply that a figure on one of a zillion campaign letterheads, even if removed, is somewhow giving Obama secret advice a la that Tom The Dancing Bug cartoon. I guess if that makes you happy, go for it.

In every election since 1788, every candidate has been supported by groups with whom he wouldn't particularly want to be associated with in the fullest light of day. These groups have their own agendas, and support one candidate or another on that basis, mostly as the lesser of two evils. Commonplace stuff. But what matters is the extent to which the candidate himself sets forth policy proposals that coincide with the extreme positions of those groups. And even more, how he acts once he's elected President.

Barry Goldwater was no racist, yet won the support of racists by his vote against the 1964 civil rights bill. His explanation was blunt: You go duck hunting where the ducks are.

Barack Obama is no black nationalist, yet he'll get the overwhelming support of black nationalists, for reasons of their own. He's not about to agree with them, implement their policies---or refuse their votes.

John McCain isn't a Christian nutball, yet he's asked for the active support of many of them, and continues to welcome that support.

All this is fair game for Swift Boaters on all sides, but pardon me if I think that people who keep raising these phony "issues" reveal far more about themselves than they do about the candidates. We see this here in every political thread.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure if Obama and McCain shook hands before the general election and agreed to debate only the issues and none of the other standard BS, Obama would take that deal in a second. I actually think McCain would take that deal in a second too, but I don't know if the Republican Party would let him stick to it. I find McCain pretty unconvincing when he tries to take comments out of context, you can almost hear his conscience creaking. He's a very decent man and I hope my party treats him as such in the general election. Disagreement about policy should not engender personal attacks... I know it will frustrate the MSM to no end, but McCain v Obama could be one of the most informative elections in modern times.

Amen to every word, brother.

McCain's "100 years" quote is merely the flip side of "elitist," in that those harping on it seek to limit any understanding of McCain's Iraq position, which I don't agree with but which is clearly a hell of a lot less simpleminded than that soundbite, taken out of context, would imply.

I think McCain's position on Iraq is very simple. That, by itself, does not make it a bad position to hold.

But let's not pretend John McCain is some sort of deep thinker. Nothing supports that.

They won't be surprised if they've read Obama's website, or his essay in Foreign Affairs.

Which I'm sure dozens of his supporters have. But the rest are going to be as upset as those people who voted for a Democratic Congress in 2006 thinking it would lead to an end to any of Bush's policies.

I've heard people criticize McCain for wanting to "stay in Iraq" for 100 years a lot more than I've heard them say he wants to "fight" there for 100 years.

Oh, come on. Speaking of disingenuous. They're using "stay in" to mean fight. (Almost) nobody cares about an "open-ended commitment" in the abstract; they care about open-ended fighting. (Almost) nobody would care if the U.S. had troops in Iraq for 100 years, if those troops were there only in a situation similar to those of the troops in Japan.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure if Obama and McCain shook hands before the general election and agreed to debate only the issues and none of the other standard BS

Where "the issues" are the things you care about, and "BS" are the things you don't.

Oh, come on. Speaking of disingenuous. They're using "stay in" to mean fight. (Almost) nobody cares about an "open-ended commitment" in the abstract; they care about open-ended fighting. (Almost) nobody would care if the U.S. had troops in Iraq for 100 years, if those troops were there only in a situation similar to those of the troops in Japan.

People care about the implications of staying 100 years, even if it's eventually peaceful, because there's a lot of fighting to do before then. Plenty of money being flushed down the toilet. Many people dying. That position is VERY different than the positions of HRC/Obama.

This has already been explained to you.

Which I'm sure dozens of his supporters have. But the rest are going to be as upset as those people who voted for a Democratic Congress in 2006 thinking it would lead to an end to any of Bush's policies.

Everyone is dumb except for David Nieporent. Nice to know.

Oh, come on. Speaking of disingenuous. They're using "stay in" to mean fight.

I'm sorry, what were you saying about how it's become off-limits to criticize Obama using his own words?

Although this discussion reminds me of the old joke, "They told me if I voted for Goldwater in 1964 that we'd get into a war. Well, I did, and we did." I think Obama voters are going to be shocked if/when he's elected, and it suddenly dawns upon them that we're not going to be out of Iraq the next day, or the next six months, or the next year.

This is one Obama voter who won't be shocked, any more than I'd be shocked if McCain found a way to disengage ourselves from the fighting once the domestic political cost to him became too much to bear. There are certain facts, both military and political, that can, and often do, override campaign promises. And Presidents, being supreme political animals, understand that---unless of course, they're complete ideologues to whom facts are irrelevant, which neither of these two are.

That said, there is a serious difference in the two candidates' overall approach and outlook, and the closer it appears come late in the campaign that one of them is likely to be elected, it would surprise me least of all to see the Iraqi factions adjust their demands and positions. I'm sure they read the polls, too.

Almost) nobody would care if the U.S. had troops in Iraq for 100 years, if those troops were there only in a situation similar to those of the troops in Japan.

Many people think that U.S. troops staying in Iraq would be in a different situation to those in Japan, in that they might continue to be the target of violence.

McCain's "100 years" quote is merely the flip side of "elitist," in that those harping on it seek to limit any understanding of McCain's Iraq position, which I don't agree with but which is clearly a hell of a lot less simpleminded than that soundbite, taken out of context, would imply.

I think McCain's position on Iraq is very simple. That, by itself, does not make it a bad position to hold.

But let's not pretend John McCain is some sort of deep thinker. Nothing supports that.

ian, to respect a candidate's thought processes doesn't require that we agree with them.

IMO McCain's position on Iraq is tragically misguided, in that I don't think he takes in account nearly enough the disastrous long range effects the Iraq war is having on the United States, beginning with the enormous amount of money thrown down a rathole, and going on to the ever-increasing cynicism it's produced towards our own government.

But however wrong I think his position is, it's hard to pretend that it isn't based on the not unshabby concept of American honor, and of keeping our commitments, however mistaken some of us may think those commitments were to begin with. And just because we can reduce that to a few plain words doesn't mean that there isn't an awful lot of "deep thinking" that can go into them. I doubt if "Love thy neighbor" or The Golden Rule were the product of shallow minds, however brief and "simple" their suggestions.

The big problem with the 100 years thing is it shows how McCain's idea of "victory" is a fairy tale. There is no way conditions in Iraq will be good enough for there to be a permanent US base. Even a peaceful Iraq where all the factions negotiate a political settlement wouldn't be able to have a base. This is a serious situation, and people like McCain who hold on to the fantasy of somehow having a peaceful, democratic, US-friendly and anti-Iran Iraq and who advocate fighting until we achieve that are essentially fighting for an indefinite war. Furthermore, McCain's need to seperate the situation in Iraq into a good guys vs. bad guys narrative where us and Maliki's government are the good guys and Iran and the Sadrists are the bad guys is the type of view that would prevent him from helping to create a real political settlement.

"Many people think that U.S. troops staying in Iraq would be in a different situation to those in Japan, in that they might continue to be the target of violence."

If Iraq becomes completely pacified -- say 5 years from now -- there really would be no reason for us to have permanent bases inside Iraq.* We have bases in Kuwait, Turkey, Bahrain and Qatar, and we have a large naval presence at all times in the Persian Gulf. So we could easily respond to any flare ups in the neighborhood, if necessary.

The reason for us to remain in Iraq is that hostilities are ongoing and our absence would create a vacuum of power, and that vacuum would be filled by enemies. On a cost-benefit basis, the question to my mind is this: is the benefit of leaving (knowing that chaos would ensue) greater than the cost of staying? I tend to think it is. But I am not naive to think our leaving would not make things much worse for Iraq.

* The Iraqi Kurds view the U.S. very favorably and see us as their best friend and protector. As such, they may want us to remain in Iraqi Kurdistan permanently to keep them safe from Turkey.

"McCain's need to seperate the situation in Iraq into a good guys vs. bad guys narrative where us we and Maliki's government are the good guys and Iran and the Sadrists are the bad guys"

Forget good guys for a moment: Do you have any reason to think that Iran and the Sadrists are not bad guys?

But however wrong I think his position is, it's hard to pretend that it isn't based on the not unshabby concept of American honor, and of keeping our commitments, however mistaken some of us may think those commitments were to begin with.

On the other hand, there's a real problem with the idea that we'll win in Iraq if we just "want it enough", if only we had the "will to win". This isn't sports, and Petraus isn't Magic Johnson, yet we're being treated to the type of weak analysis that's brought us to this point in Iraq.

The problem is, Iraq is not Japan, and it's not Korea. It's Vietnam. There are no clear cut enemy combatants in enemy uniforms fighting from enemy positions. It's a shadow enemy fighting a guerrilla insurgency from among a population that is ambivalent at best about us being there. There'll be no 38th parallel that will clearly mark an armistice, and frankly, the Japanese occupation worked so well because the country was already war-weary, and we essentially said, "Surrender or we will utterly destroy all of your cities. Old folks, women, children -- everything gone." And, luckily for us, the rallying point for almost all the fanatics, the Emperor, cooperated.

There's none of that in Iraq. Just a lot of people who don't want us there, some of whom resent us for not letting them kill their ideological rivals.

This is one Obama voter who won't be shocked, any more than I'd be shocked if McCain found a way to disengage ourselves from the fighting once the domestic political cost to him became too much to bear. There are certain facts, both military and political, that can, and often do, override campaign promises.

I agree. But that's why it's so disingenuous of you to keep acting in these various threads as if it's unfair to look at anything about Obama other than his stated positions.

That said, there is a serious difference in the two candidates' overall approach and outlook,

I know. But every time someone here talks about Obama's "overall approach and outlook" you throw a hissy fit.

IMO McCain's position on Iraq is tragically misguided, in that I don't think he takes in account nearly enough the disastrous long range effects the Iraq war is having on the United States, beginning with the enormous amount of money thrown down a rathole, and going on to the ever-increasing cynicism it's produced towards our own government.

The funny thing is, McCain would almost certainly agree with you on the issue of "increasing cynicism it's produced towards our own government." As Matt Welch and other libertarians have pointed out, McCain is almost obsessed with the notion that people should look upon the government with reverence. But as a libertarian, I view that as a good (side effect) of the process.

The reason for us to remain in Iraq is that hostilities are ongoing and our absence would create a vacuum of power, and that vacuum would be filled by enemies. On a cost-benefit basis, the question to my mind is this: is the benefit of leaving (knowing that chaos would ensue) greater than the cost of staying? I tend to think it is. But I am not naive to think our leaving would not make things much worse for Iraq.

Rich, the question is at what point would it NOT be worse in the short term for us to pull out? I suppose the answer to that is "when Iraq becomes completely pacified," but is there any evidence that we're anywhere near that point? Is it even on the distant horizon that the Iraqis themselves will ever be able to reconcile their warring factions, to the point that violence wouldn't jump up within a week after the last U.S. soldier left?

I hope that during the general election, Obama (or even Hillary, God forbid) keeps raising these questions, not to beat a dead horse, but to force McCain to make some sort of projection beyond "we don't know" when our combat troops can leave. It's bad enough that we've had one President to whom we've apparently given a quasi-blank check, with no accountability whatsoever for his actions beyond his own conscience. But it'd be far worse for us not to demand that a candidate be explicit as to what sort of "progress" would be enough for us to declare "victory" and leave, as we finally did in Vietnam---or what sort of disaster would be enough for us to know when to fold 'em, much as the French did in Algeria. If we don't have the nerve to demand this of a candidate, we certainly won't have any credible basis for demanding it of him once he's elected. This is not our first rodeo.

And THAT's a hell of a lot more of a serious question than whether some of McCain's supporters hate Catholics or whether Obama an an "elitist" who harbors secret black nationalist sentiments.

Forget good guys for a moment: Do you have any reason to think that Iran and the Sadrists are not bad guys

Well, i'm not willing to label all of the millions of sadrists as bad guys, but I do agree that Sadr himself and Iran are not so great. However, Sadr's political movement may be the most popular in the country now, and no matter how we feel about Iran we have to accept that the Iranians are going to have a lot of influence in Iraq, so just calling them bad guys and saying they need to be defeated is not productive. But the real ridiculous thing is how war supporters continue to talk about fighting Iranian influence while talking about the need to stand by Maliki's government in their fight against Sadr, ignoring the fact that Maliki and his allies are far more linked with Iran than Sadr is.

is somewhow giving Obama secret advice a la that Tom The Dancing Bug cartoon.

I was just looking at exactly that...


And just in case Sam M. is around...


One for David

This is one Obama voter who won't be shocked, any more than I'd be shocked if McCain found a way to disengage ourselves from the fighting once the domestic political cost to him became too much to bear. There are certain facts, both military and political, that can, and often do, override campaign promises.

I agree. But that's why it's so disingenuous of you to keep acting in these various threads as if it's unfair to look at anything about Obama other than his stated positions.

I'd see nothing at all wrong with demanding of Obama exactly what I'd demand of McCain about explaining his position on Iraq, much along the lines of what I wrote in the post I just put up a minute ago. But I also know that in both cases, what's fair to demand of either candidate is their overall approach to Iraq, not a "promise" of any specific "guaranteed" withdrawal date. The two candidates should be pressed on how they'd likely interpret and react to various types of "facts on the ground," however. That's an entirely fair question to ask of both candidates. The question is whether these questions will be repeated to the point of forcing the candidates to actually come up with real answers, or whether we'll be overly worried about the candidates' feelings, or our own feelings of decorum.

That said, there is a serious difference in the two candidates' overall approach and outlook,

I know. But every time someone here talks about Obama's "overall approach and outlook" you throw a hissy fit.

David, what the hell are you talking about? I've never once said that there's anything wrong about asking Obama about that. Believe it or not, I want to know as much as I can about the positions of all three candidates, not just in position papers but in how they'd react to questions concerning cases where two ideals might be in conflict.

This does, however, become a bit harder to achieve in the midst of the reams of gobbledygook about Rev. Wright, Rev. Hagee, and various charges of "elitism."

But the real ridiculous thing is how war supporters continue to talk about fighting Iranian influence while talking about the need to stand by Maliki's government in their fight against Sadr, ignoring the fact that Maliki and his allies are far more linked with Iran than Sadr is.

At this point, Maliki's faction is probably more tightly linked with Iran than than it is with the U.S. The more the U.S. props him up, the more it advances Iranian interests in the country.

Not that I'd expect McCain to understand this, since (as he demonstrated again in the Petraeus hearings this week) he continues to be confused about the differences between Sunni and Shi'ite, let alone about the differences between factions within those sects.

But again, as your earlier prediction about Hillary Clinton showed, you are, uh, a bit "out of touch" with those of us who favor Democrats.

Personally, I don't give a rats behind who it is that you guys favor. There's barely a dime's worth of difference between them, neither one of them is even remotely qualified to be the President, and it seems close enough to 50-50 to me that it's essentially too close to call.

And let's not forget that Obama hasn't even clinched the nomination yet. I haven't yet discounted the possibility that Hillary will be handed the nomination by the superdelegates, and/or the Michigan and Florida delegations being seated in a last-minute smoky backroom deal.

As far as my earlier statement about Obama never getting elected President, I'm so confident about that I'm willing to wager money on it right now. I don't need to hear even one more stupid, gratuitous insult from him, his wife, or his moronic pastor/uncle/soul brother.

I'm so confident about that I'm willing to wager money on it right now.

Go for it.

Electoral-Vote.com concurs, showing Texas at the moment as "Barely GOP" if Obama faces McCain. That's Texas, mind you.

Bob, I'm not sure Electoral-Vote.com is all that reliable. In the name of objectivity they use different pollsters for each week in a given state, so that over six weeks, for NY, you get six methods that probably vary at least slightly. They even put NY in the Republican camp this week, for crying out loud, based on one Marist College poll.

And, you bet: Touch of Evil is a terrific film.

As far as my earlier statement about Obama never getting elected President, I'm so confident about that I'm willing to wager money on it right now. I don't need to hear even one more stupid, gratuitous insult from him, his wife, or his moronic pastor/uncle/soul brother.

In that case maybe you should stay off YouTube for fifteen minutes and practice your "SERENITY NOW!!!!" chant. And if that doesn't work, go with "HOOCHIMAMA!!!!"

If it worked for George's dad, it might work for you. Just steer clear of Lloyd Braun.

As far as my earlier statement about Obama never getting elected President, I'm so confident about that I'm willing to wager money on it right now.

I'd wager money on it too. I've learned to never, ever, underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.

Now I know that I can't be possibly be wrong; I've been seconded by Baseball Think Factory's standard bearer for conservatism.

nobody would care if the U.S. had troops in Iraq for 100 years, if those troops were there only in a situation similar to those of the troops in Japan.

Other people have addressed the deeper problems with this statement, but I'd also add that it seems extremely ethnocentric.

As far as my earlier statement about Obama never getting elected President, I'm so confident about that I'm willing to wager money on it right now. I don't need to hear even one more stupid, gratuitous insult from him, his wife, or his moronic pastor/uncle/soul brother.

Real classy.

Bob, I'm not sure Electoral-Vote.com is all that reliable. In the name of objectivity they use different pollsters for each week in a given state, so that over six weeks, for NY, you get six methods that probably vary at least slightly. They even put NY in the Republican camp this week, for crying out loud, based on one Marist College poll.

They just use the most recent poll, regardless of who the pollster is. If there's more than one in the same week, they average it.

If there's a Marist poll showing McCain over Obama (but not over Clinton), then they report it. That has nothing to do with whether E-V is "reliable." Of course the Marist poll could be wrong, but it's within the error margin anyway so one shouldn't take it too seriously. That having been said, McCain has been polling relatively strongly in much of the the Northeast for a while; it's not just one poll.

This does, however, become a bit harder to achieve in the midst of the reams of gobbledygook about Rev. Wright, Rev. Hagee, and various charges of "elitism."

Andy, whether or not the charge is accurate in the case of any particular candidate, if that accurately describes someone, it is part of his overall approach and outlook. Not to one particular issue, but to all of them.

This does, however, become a bit harder to achieve in the midst of the reams of gobbledygook about Rev. Wright, Rev. Hagee, and various charges of "elitism."

Andy, whether or not the charge is accurate in the case of any particular candidate, if that accurately describes someone, it is part of his overall approach and outlook. Not to one particular issue, but to all of them.

I defy anyone to translate that paragraph into English.

Pretending that you're asking in good faith, rather than just your usual attempt to dodge the question:

I'm saying that, assuming the charge that Obama is elitist is accurate, it's not "gobbledygook," but a legitimate accusation which reflects on his "overall approach and outlook." You've finally admitted that talking about a candidate's "overall approach and outlook" is valid, so it's a reasonable issue to discuss.

Of course Obama is elitist--he was selected by one body of elitists to challenge a slate of other elitist candidates so they could determine which particular elitist would go against the elitist chosen from another even more starkly elitist group of elitists.

That's like saying that out of all primates, you don't like Andy because he has a nose. (My apologies to any nose less primates.)

Andy, may have a nose, but it is no more egregious a nose than the rest of ours (except for mine, which is hardly a nose at all).

In Obama's case, he certainly seems the lesser of all elitists.

Pretending that you're asking in good faith,

Trust me, it was. It doesn't hurt to use a proper name now and then.

I'm saying that, assuming the charge that Obama is elitist is accurate, it's not "gobbledygook," but a legitimate accusation which reflects on his "overall approach and outlook." You've finally admitted that talking about a candidate's "overall approach and outlook" is valid, so it's a reasonable issue to discuss.

Sure, and I'll call you and raise you. This is fun.

Assuming that the charge that John McCain is a raging warmonger is accurate, that's also "a legitimate accusation which reflects on his 'overall approach and outlook.'"

And assuming the charge that Barry Goldwater hated black people is accurate, that's also "a legitimate accusation which reflected on his 'overall approach and outlook.'"

We can now begin a discussion on these two equally valid topics. Who cares about real issues when you can wing it with assumptions and speculation?

It's so much fun when charges against people you don't support can just be assumed rather than need to be proven. Proof is so yesterday.

Of course Obama is elitist--he was selected by one body of elitists to challenge a slate of other elitist candidates so they could determine which particular elitist would go against the elitist chosen from another even more starkly elitist group of elitists.

I like this a lot. What makes it even better is that it comes on the heels of about 100 posts (not yours, E-X, I'm referring to this thread) of extraordinarily elitist and facile dismissals of positions other people hold rather dearly. Whether it's belief in God, opposition to gay marriage, for or against Iraq, nobody here seems to see any irony in dismissing those positions on the basis of imputed ignorance and/or evil motivations and then demanding greater nuance and understanding regardings one's favorite pol. Consider me disgusted by the "general tone of the site." You'll be happy to know I'm an optimist and think the general public's handling of these issues usually exhibits more depth and tolerance than the #### spewed here.

Rich, the question is at what point would it NOT be worse in the short term for us to pull out?"

I think when the Iraqi government (namely its police and military) are fully competent, able to fight the enemy without our guidance and supervision. But the problems in gettting to that point are still enormous. Perhaps most problematic is that a large number of the men in these bodies have loyalties to their clan or sect which confuse their public roles.... Sitting here thousands of miles away, it seems like that point of competence is quite far off.

"I suppose the answer to that is "when Iraq becomes completely pacified," but is there any evidence that we're anywhere near that point?"

I don't think it has to get that far for our exit to not produce a perilous vacuum. But these things run together. If the Iraqi security services were fully competent (or even half competent), then we would not see the levels of violence that we are still seeing.*

"Is it even on the distant horizon that the Iraqis themselves will ever be able to reconcile their warring factions, to the point that violence wouldn't jump up within a week after the last U.S. soldier left?"

I would guess that it's still a long way off.

"I hope that during the general election, Obama (or even Hillary, God forbid) keeps raising these questions, not to beat a dead horse, but to force McCain to make some sort of projection beyond "we don't know" when our combat troops can leave."

That's fair. But it's also fair to press the Democratic nominee on what they believe will happen in Iraq and the region at large, should we leave before the Iraqi military and police are fully competent?

"It's bad enough that we've had one President to whom we've apparently given a quasi-blank check, with no accountability whatsoever for his actions beyond his own conscience."

What do you think ought to happen to Bush for his poor decisions? Afterall, he was re-elected after getting us into this mess.

"But it'd be far worse for us not to demand that a candidate be explicit as to what sort of "progress" would be enough for us to declare "victory" and leave, as we finally did in Vietnam---or what sort of disaster would be enough for us to know when to fold 'em, much as the French did in Algeria."

Maybe McCain could say what I suggested: When the Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and fighting its enemies without our assistance, we could leave. And as such, that is our goal: to get them to that point.

"If we don't have the nerve to demand this of a candidate, we certainly won't have any credible basis for demanding it of him once he's elected. This is not our first rodeo."

My feeling is that the American people will not base their votes on this basis, regardless of the questions asked or the answers given. The economy will be the most important issue. Whichever candidate the marginal voters believe will do the best job in turning our economy around will win. That belief is based in small part on "program," and in larger part on a gut "confidence."

* Levels of violence have come down dramatically in the last year. I read that civilian deaths are 20% of what they were 12 months ago. Most of that reduction, it is my understanding, is due to the Sunni Arab accord with the U.S. and less to do with better performance of Iraq's army.

We can now begin a discussion on these two equally valid topics.

See, here you seem to be implying that it isn't valid because Obama isn't actually elitist. (If only that could just be assumed rather than needing to be proven.)

Who cares about real issues when you can wing it with assumptions and speculation?

Oh, drat. Here you spoil it again by claiming that whether he's elitist isn't a "real issue."

It's so much fun when charges against people you don't support can just be assumed rather than need to be proven. Proof is so yesterday.

And here you're back to your usual circular trick of pretending that since you didn't want to talk about an issue in the first place, it isn't "proven" so we don't need to discuss it. But of course you refuse to accept his own words as evidence in support of the claim!

So it's even more precious: we can't look at what Obama says as evidence he's elitist because it hasn't been proven that he's elitist! And since it hasn't been proven, it isn't a "real issue" and we shouldn't talk about it at all!

Too clever, Andy. If you were a talk radio host and I were a caller and you could just shout me down like that. But since you're not and you can't, it won't work.

When I first read Obama's words, they immediately called to mind Thomas Frank. And lo-and-behold, it seems that Obama has said them in the past, and has explicitly related them to Frank, as Josh Marshall found.

I think when the Iraqi government (namely its police and military) are fully competent, able to fight the enemy without our guidance and supervision.

Who are "the enemy"?

At this point, Maliki's faction is probably more tightly linked with Iran than than it is with the U.S. The more the U.S. props him up, the more it advances Iranian interests in the country.

In the short term, yes. But in the long term, the only way to weaken Iranian influence in Iraq -- assuming that's a goal -- is to strengthen the central government of Iraq. (As long as Iraq is fragmented, some faction will have an incentive to seek Iranian backing.) That means Maliki. (Forcing Maliki out, even if it blocked Iran in the short term, would just have the effect of undermining the central government.)

I suppose the enemy are any unlawful forces using violence in Iraq.

When I first read Obama's words, they immediately called to mind Thomas Frank. And lo-and-behold, it seems that Obama has said them in the past, and has explicitly related them to Frank, as Josh Marshall found.

Actually, it's Rose--not Obama--who brings up Frank.

Of course Obama is elitist--he was selected by one body of elitists to challenge a slate of other elitist candidates so they could determine which particular elitist would go against the elitist chosen from another even more starkly elitist group of elitists.

I like this a lot. What makes it even better is that it comes on the heels of about 100 posts (not yours, E-X, I'm referring to this thread) of extraordinarily elitist and facile dismissals of positions other people hold rather dearly. Whether it's belief in God, opposition to gay marriage, for or against Iraq, nobody here seems to see any irony in dismissing those positions on the basis of imputed ignorance and/or evil motivations and then demanding greater nuance and understanding regardings one's favorite pol. Consider me disgusted by the "general tone of the site." You'll be happy to know I'm an optimist and think the general public's handling of these issues usually exhibits more depth and tolerance than the #### spewed here.

JC, that point would be better taken if it weren't for the fact that what is mostly being decried is the cynical attempts of politicians, in this case specifically Hillary and McCain and their risible charges of "elitism," to exploit those sincere beliefs for narrow partisan purposes. Obviously such a bogus charge, loaded as it is, can't just be left sitting there. It has to be answered, and not just in the dawdling Kerry-style manner. You can't let junkyard dog misrepresentation and demagoguery go unrebutted. If Democrats haven't learned that lesson by now, they never will.

Point in fact: Do you yourself seriously see Obama as an "elitist," and if so, on what concrete evidence beyond conjecture about what you think his recent words might have meant?

-------------------

"I hope that during the general election, Obama (or even Hillary, God forbid) keeps raising these questions, not to beat a dead horse, but to force McCain to make some sort of projection beyond "we don't know" when our combat troops can leave."

That's fair. But it's also fair to press the Democratic nominee on what they believe will happen in Iraq and the region at large, should we leave before the Iraqi military and police are fully competent?

That's also a fair question that should be confronted and answered. It is an important one. This is clearly a choice between the lesser of two evils, not a choice between ice cream and codballs.

"It's bad enough that we've had one President to whom we've apparently given a quasi-blank check, with no accountability whatsoever for his actions beyond his own conscience."

What do you think ought to happen to Bush for his poor decisions? Afterall, he was re-elected after getting us into this mess.

I can only hope that the people who voted for him are happy with what they got. And since he never attended a church with a black nationalist preacher, I guess it's understandable that we really couldn't have "known" anything about him other than that he was a good person to have a beer with.

But as for what "ought to happen to Bush" himself, however, that's up to the judgment of history. There are no other ways to punish ex-Presidents.

"But it'd be far worse for us not to demand that a candidate be explicit as to what sort of "progress" would be enough for us to declare "victory" and leave, as we finally did in Vietnam---or what sort of disaster would be enough for us to know when to fold 'em, much as the French did in Algeria."

Maybe McCain could say what I suggested: When the Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and fighting its enemies without our assistance, we could leave. And as such, that is our goal: to get them to that point.

Of course it might be also nice for him to give us some sort of a rough idea as to how long we should be willing to wait for this Day of Miracles to happen.

"If we don't have the nerve to demand this of a candidate, we certainly won't have any credible basis for demanding it of him once he's elected. This is not our first rodeo."

My feeling is that the American people will not base their votes on this basis, regardless of the questions asked or the answers given. The economy will be the most important issue. Whichever candidate the marginal voters believe will do the best job in turning our economy around will win. That belief is based in small part on "program," and in larger part on a gut "confidence."

The job of "us" (or the media) is to ask the questions and insist on answers. Beyond that, it's up to the voters to decide. If they want to decide on the basis of other issues, they can't say that they weren't informed.

I suppose the enemy are any unlawful forces using violence in Iraq.

But that's everyone. And the biggest reason that every large Iraqi political party has a militia is because of America. It may even be truer to say that every large Iraqi militia has a political party. This is the natural result of 4 years of chaos. And now you want to destroy every political grouping and faction? If this is even feasible, how many Iraqis will have to die for this, and to what purpose and end?

I would point out that this is not what the Americans have been doing since the surge. Their policy now is to recognise that the army and (particularly) the police are dominated by the militias of certain groups (especially SIIC) and so now they are trying to incorporate other militias into the police (not a perfect policy but frankly a realist one). Basically they are trying to incorporate everyone into the Iraqi state. (They of course have a historic problem with Moqtada Al-Sadr because he had the nerve to stand up to them, and because they tried to murder him in a particularly disgraceful way.) So far from viewing the "unlawful forces" as "the enemy" they are trying to legitimise them.

Assuming that the charge that John McCain is a raging warmonger is accurate, that's also "a legitimate accusation which reflects on his 'overall approach and outlook.'"

And assuming the charge that Barry Goldwater hated black people is accurate, that's also "a legitimate accusation which reflected on his 'overall approach and outlook.'"

We can now begin a discussion on these two equally valid topics.

See, here you seem to be implying that it isn't valid because Obama isn't actually elitist. (If only that could just be assumed rather than needing to be proven.)

I'm only saying that if we can be required to "prove" that Obama isn't "elitist," it's no less right and proper to be required to "prove" that McCain isn't a congenital warmonger. By the standard you apply to Obama, McCain's "assumed" warmongering is an equally valid "issue" to debate.

Who cares about real issues when you can wing it with assumptions and speculation?

Oh, drat. Here you spoil it again by claiming that whether he's elitist isn't a "real issue."

It's a "real issue" the minute someone introduces evidence beyond their own interpretation of Obama's words. Evidence from his past record, for instance. Until that point, it's no more of a "real issue" than John McCain's "warmongering."

It's so much fun when charges against people you don't support can just be assumed rather than need to be proven. Proof is so yesterday.

And here you're back to your usual circular trick of pretending that since you didn't want to talk about an issue in the first place, it isn't "proven" so we don't need to discuss it. But of course you refuse to accept his own words as evidence in support of the claim!

So it's even more precious: we can't look at what Obama says as evidence he's elitist because it hasn't been proven that he's elitist! And since it hasn't been proven, it isn't a "real issue" and we shouldn't talk about it at all!

Nothing wrong with "looking at what Obama says as evidence." But again, the "evidence" here lies wholly in your "interpretation" of his words. At some point you might want to tell us what, exactly, was so "elitist" about them, beyond the fact that you disagreed with them.

And while you're at it, you might explain why we should or shouldn't also be "debating" whether John McCain is a warmonger, or whether the Holocaust was a hoax, or other equally illuminating topics of conversation. After all, there are two sides to everything.

Too clever, Andy. If you were a talk radio host and I were a caller and you could just shout me down like that. But since you're not and you can't, it won't work.

David, trying to shout you down would be like trying to blow out the Sun. Can't be done, and no point trying.

So far from viewing the "unlawful forces" as "the enemy" they are trying to legitimise them.

That is not in conflict with what I said. If the enemy become incorporated into the government, they are no longer "unlawful," as long as they recognize the chain of command.

This is how the Israeli military was orignially formed. Rather than fight a civil war with his Jewish enemies, David Ben Gurion successfully incorporated these "terrorists" into his regime.

Nothing wrong with "looking at what Obama says as evidence." But again, the "evidence" here lies wholly in your "interpretation" of his words.

Yes? And?

Why exactly do we need more than Obama's words as evidence of Obama's thoughts? (*)





(*) Unless you're claiming that he was being insincere and didn't believe what he said. But that doesn't seem to be your argument.

Rich -- but remember the Altalena affair.

Andy:

Basically I agree with Nieporent that - for whatever reason - Obama has become critique proof for many. He's not guilty by his 20 year close association with a bigoted, racially divisive and conspiratorial pastor, he's not elitist despite his condescending comments that attribute people's views on faith and guns and what else to their resentment, he's not thorough-goingly liberal despite an utterly liberal voting record, and so on. Look, the guy's a fascinating speaker and a very interesting political figure because of his ability to remain composed and articulate in an inarticulate age; I agree. But, it's funny that a guy who took 30 minutes to contextualize and plead with us to understand his enduring fondness for a tribalist pastor can be so utterly dismissive of the views of those with whom he disagrees.

So, I liked E-X's nonsensical poke in the eye of these kinds of games. Sure, Obama's another elitist. He earns more than 95% of the population, went to a fancy Ivy League school, and has insulated himself from the rabble - except when consorting with them is politically expedient. I don't begrudge him any of that, but let's not pretend he's some blue collar guy or some guy plugged into the blue collar world. I hate when we play these games with our politicians. I never gave a #### that George Bush, Sr. didn't know the price of bread.

In the short term, yes. But in the long term, the only way to weaken Iranian influence in Iraq -- assuming that's a goal -- is to strengthen the central government of Iraq. (As long as Iraq is fragmented, some faction will have an incentive to seek Iranian backing.) That means Maliki. (Forcing Maliki out, even if it blocked Iran in the short term, would just have the effect of undermining the central government.)

We probably won't have to force Maliki out. From everything i've read it seems that the Sadrists are going to crush the Maliki/ISCI alliance in the Provincial elections and that whenever the next Parliamentary elections are Maliki will be gone.

And what exactly do you mean by "strengthening the central government"? and how would that help limit Iranian influence?

What exactly does it mean that Obama may be an "elitist"? Does it mean he plans to continue the Bush Administration policy of targeting all its efforts toward helping the most well-off in American society?

I take it to mean that he doesn't understand people he claims to understand and that instead he offers insulting and dismissive explanations of the reasons they hold their views.

I take it to mean that he doesn't understand people he claims to understand and that instead he offers insulting and dismissive explanations of the reasons they hold their views.

It'd be even more insulting if he were wrong.

Right: People are pro gun control and believers b/c they're bitter.

Right: People are pro gun control and believers b/c they're bitter.

Are you literate?

A politician who didn't understand that a lot of working-class people are bitter about their government should be disqualified from running for president.

Some people are. Probably enough of them to sway the vote in PA.

Are you literate?

Do you have a point? You seemed to imply that Obama's reduction of people's views to their "bitterness" was correct. I disagree.

Do you have a point? You seemed to imply that Obama's reduction of people's views to their "bitterness" was correct. I disagree.

And you seem to have adopted the most tendentious reading possible of Obama's comments, in the same ridiculous way Hillary has.

Obama: "So it's not surprising then that [white working class voters] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yeah, it's tendentious to find condescending the reduction of people's views to their ostensible bitterness.

Do you have a point? You seemed to imply that Obama's reduction of people's views to their "bitterness" was correct. I disagree.

No, I implied that Obamas message that people often cling to some issue that's based in anger or is of very little consequence in response to frustration is correct. Your interpretation of what he said is incorrect.

Have you heard someone say that Mexicans are trying to "steal American jobs"? I have. Have you heard someone say that we should eliminate trade agreements because foreign goods are cheaper? I have. How many voters are single issue voters with abortion or guns as the central issue? There are millions. We know things like racism and xenophobia flare up in times of stress. It happens during plagues, during famines, and during recessions/depressions. Obama is in fact correct when he says that a lot of people in Pennsylvania have been promised help, have not gotten it, and have responded with anger or by feeling irrational about issues that don't matter that much.

What's really angering is all the people calling him elitist that quite clearly have no idea what he's talking about. It's not condescending to say "I know you're angry because your government has ignored your plight, and I know it's frustrating to watch your town slowly die because there are no jobs. I am willing to help in whatever way possible."