You're unbelievably overconfident about Obama -- this type of attitude probably cost Gore and Kerry the past two elections.
I don't know if you were an adult during Vietnam and wondering if you or your friends would be one of the over 500,000 boots on the ground there, due to a draft this generation has never had to deal with... thanks to people in my generation, BTW. For some reason, I think not. "How can we beat our chests calling ourselves the most powerful country in the world when we retreat when things get ugly? Refer to Vietnam War." No, definitely not. You didn't have friends who were in the units that were constantly rotated in and out of the combat zone, while the majority sat on bases in relative safety, friends who were wounded in both body and spirit, or friends who came home hooked on the heroin they were practically giving away in Nam. You clearly have the bizarre (with all due respect) idea that we "lost Vietnam" because we chose to "retreat when things (got) ugly," instead of pulling out because we were getting our asses handed to us on a platter. You seem to have some romantic view of Vietnam that can only come from ignorance (again, with all due respect). Iraq is not Vietnam. In some respects, it is worse. Why? Because at least the reasons used by LBJ to pour hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans, draftees, into that charnel house were based on fighting the Cold War and, at first, had the support of most of our allies, even if they thought we were crazy to fight a war the French finally had the good sense to bail on. Bush didn't have a good reason to invade and occupy Iraq. In the geo-political realm of the 1960's, LBJ could initially make a good case for it. Really, the main thing comparable between Bush/Iraq and LBJ/Vietnam is the utter stupidity of the strategy used to fight the two conflicts. In that, they had a lot in common. And we had a 3,000,000 man military back then. Actually, over 3 million. The United States could put half a million in Vietnam and still cover our obligations and guard against the rest of the threats against our interests. Today, the numbers we had in Vietnam would just about cover the total number of boots we have in the Army. Are you willing to have a draft, so we can have enough people "on the cheap" to toss around the way Bush has? Are you willing to ditch our superb volunteer military so we can have several hundred thousand more conscripts? More to the point, are you willing to subject yourself and your family and friends to the draft? All because of a war Bush decided to fight simply because he felt like it, not because we faced a real threat from Saddam's Iraq? And if you think getting rid of Saddam was worth this nightmare, then I'm assuming you also want to send our military into Burma, into the Sudan, into Zimbabwe, into all the other nations crushed under the rule of brutal dictatorships. So you better get ready for a draft and be willing to go when called up, because that is the only way to even have a remote shot at having enough men and women in our military to do it. And we haven't even mentioned the disaster unfolding in Afghanistan, where Bush pulled out the resources needed to keep the lid on there, much less win it. Or the fact that the billions of dollars promised to rebuild that country have instead been poured into Iraq, which didn't have those responsible for 9/11 running around in it, despite the lies told to the American people and the world by Bush and Cheney and the rest of the clowns running this government. Enjoy your Sunday, by the way. Impeach Bush.
What? Where did this come from? McCain is more patriotic than Obama? Really? Which one's votes are closer to upholding the constitution? Why will leaving be for a lost cause? That certainly won't be the case if our leaving is what ultimately helps stabilize Iraq. As for going after Osama, McCain hasn't announced anything at all he plans to do to help make that happen. Obama, on the other hand has plans for using resources currently being wasted in Iraq into the search for Obama. I really don't understand how you came to the conclusions you did in your post.
It cost Hillary the nomination as well. Obama is probably the favorite, but it's too early to say for sure. For one thing, Obama was still losing primary contests to someone who couldn't even get the nomination anymore.
True, but Obama was fighting with one arm tied behind his back because he knew he would have to "make up" with Hillary and her supporters after it was over. At the same time, Hillary flailed away and went very negative without receiving any shots back at her. In the general election, Obama has already signified he will pound McCain at every opportunity until the very end. Not saying he will be known as a hatchet man, but come November, I think Obama's reputation as a non-negative campaigner will be gone. It's going to be a tough, nasty fight. Not nearly as nasty as the bloodbath Hillary vs. Romney would have been.
I'm very confident, it's true. I've also said why that is. In order to call me "over" confident, you're really going to have to poke some holes in the substance of my arguments. So far you haven't even tried. And calling my enthusiasm annoying doesn't quite rise to that level. Also, since you apparently didn't know, I didn't work for Gore or Kerry. But if you can't see the difference between their campaigns and Obama's, or the difference between 00/04 and 08, I don't know what to tell you. Your "argument" boils down to "it's going to be close just because." I honestly don't even know why you waste your time typing that and hitting send.
You get upset when you are even slightly questioned about Obama -- I currently support him, but i'm not afraid to take a hard look beneath the JFKish exterior. You're naive to think that McCain is not going to improve his message and make this a close race -- that is my point to you.
Uh, yes he most certainly is. Let's see... He served honorably in the military, he endured over 5 years of torture for our nation, he supports the troops and their efforts, he honors the national anthem, he does not attend a church that hates America and hates whites, he puts country over party by reaching across the aisle and working in a bi-partisan fashion.... Unfortunately, you can't say any of those things about Obama.
this is the new republican talking point, heard on televsion this morning. you guys do a great job of getting of your message I have to admit
Obama served the nation as well at home. He turned big wall street money to work as a community organizer, and civil rights lawyer helping to protect Americans' rights. That's very patriotic. He's worked hard in the Senate to work in a bi-partisan fashion on laws that will benefit our nation. He's worked to not allow the dismantling of our constitution and that is of the most American things that anyone can do. Unfortuantely McCain has been lacking in this area. McCain's service to America is certainly patriotic, to say one is more patriotic than the other is just ridiculous.
Can someone tell me what the frick is "community organizing"? Please tell me what that means. Is the South Side of Chicago 'organized' today? That's funny.
I'm not even a little bit upset, especially since the criticism isn't just without merit -- it's without criticism. I am also not afraid to look beneath the exterior, and what a stupid paper tiger that is. I'm fully conversant in his positions and history on each of the issues as I am regarding McCain. Suggesting that my support is based on superficialties is just stupid. I may well be naive (I certainly think you are), but not in this case. I fully expect McCain to improve. I just don't think it will be enough ultimately to make for a close race. I've said why; you haven't. If "that is [your] point to me," well, you really don't have one. My posts regarding Obama are optimistic -- I admit that freely. They're optimistic because I'm optimistic. The difference between you and me here is that I have said why. My posts include analysis, not just cheerleading. You are free to disagree with that analysis but it would mean a lot more if you'd say why. "You're naive" is not an argument. Neither is that simpleminded JFK stuff. The question that started this thread is "HOW" can McCain beat Obama which has been extended to include "how" can he make it a close race. You don't even attempt to say how, you just say he will. If there's a superficial take in this thread, that's it. Anyway, glad to have your vote. For the moment at least.
This ought to put to rest the notion that Obama is further left on the political spectrum that Gore or Forbes Kerry -- if Bats is riled up enough to actually work for the guy... Look under the hood Bats -- there's more than just a superficial marketing campaign. Some nasty stuff in fact. HO HO HO
I have wondered about his too.. What did Obama actually do day to day as a community organizer? Anybody know? it sounds noble but I have never met one of these people
You just don't get it -- you look at Obama like a pop star who is completely invulnerable to Republican attacks leading into Nov. -- btw ~ many of the attacks will be legitimate. You shouldn't be so dismissive of others points of view.
No, Cheetah. I don't. This is a thing that you imagine and want to be true so you keep saying it. Show me evidence that I look at Obama as a pop star. Show me evidence that I think he's invulnerable to attacks of any sort. I never said anything akin to either of those things. In fact, I am so obsessed with politics that I read every single article, by everyone, on the race. You keep saying I hold superficial views here, I keep proving I don't and you keep saying it anyway. If I dismiss your opinions it is because they are imaginary. I have said why I believe Obama will win handily and I have said so in detail. You, conversely, have said "nuh uh." Why wouldn't I dismiss such a shallow response? If you want me to give your point of view more credence why don't you start by having one?
Good thing he doesn't work for the campaign, then. I always crack up, whether it be in sports or politics, at the notion of the confidence of fans/supporters having anything to do with actual results.
Me too. If this stuff made any sense at all, basso would have already "won" the Iraq war all by himself.
why should it be only "attacks" that could win this for mccain? isn't it possible, as it has been in every election in my lifetime (first vote 1976) that the candidate with the superior message will win?
Man...I feel bad now. Sorry for the tone of my response. I'll do my best here. My history may not be exact since I was not alive at the time. In the early 1960s, Communists were trying to take over Vietnam. The was a resistance movement out of South Vietnam. We sent "peace keepers" over there. Over time, it escalated into a full scale "conflict" as there was never a decaration of war. During this time the communists (Viet Cong) took many POWs (McCain was among these) and routinely tortured them to get information. McCain was a POW for five years. Somebody please correct me if I am mistaken on any of this.
