Your strawman attempt is hilarious. 1. Did Obama say he favored a policy that later was responsible for taking out Al-Qaeda's #3? He sure did. It doesn't matter if someone else also favors it. What matters is that it was a good idea, and Obama's judgement was validated. 2. Tj, and possibly you as well mentioned being scared about upsetting an ally, who nuclear capabilities. So now the scared crew is claiming someone else who had the fortitude to advocate what you could not, is weak on terror, is a laugh.
I think the war thing hasn't come up too much, because the perception is that the war is going better than before. That's how McCain won his primary in the first place. Without the Surge and the cease-fire from al Sadr, McCain would not have won. I think the buzzsaw McCain faces is that, if Bush pulls back troops and the Mahdi Army escalates violence in Iraq, Americans will find a renewed zeal for ending the war and McCain will get buried.
The people for whom getting out of the war is a huge issue are already on Obama's side. So it may work to rally his base....be he risks making himself vulnerable to being seen as 'weak' on terror if he hammers this....plus there's the perception that McCain 'knows about war.' So I don't see it as a big Obama/McCain issue this summer -- although it is absolutely an underlying issue against the GOP overall -- which McCain has to overcome to win in November.
Like most presidential elections, I think the the war issue will be a bout a 50/50 tossup. Half the people will think we should keep a significant presence in Iraq to justify the 4000 dead and the trillions spent and because they don't want Iraq to be perceived as a US loss. Half will want to draw down our troops because they see the Iraqis as a disparate collection of unwilling and corrupt religious zealots undeserving and unappreciative of our efforts. Each point can be equally valid depending on your point of view. For the pro-war voter it is probably the most important issue, for the anti-war it may not be the most important issue, in fact the anti-war voter may be looking at it more as an economic issue. So I think actually the even split on the war will not decide the election. It will come down to which candidate the large group of middle class citizens sees as promoting their economic well being. Are they feeling scared and want to lean on a more socialized system or are they confident that a more deregulated system offers them more chances to succeed. Me, I just want to elect someone that will quit making the US look like the world's dumb, entitled, unempathetic, self-aggrandizing fratboy living large on Daddy's dwindling trust fund.
worst post of the year. You liberals think your schit doesn't stink. Self righteousness at its finest
Scoooooooooore! I actually thought it was a pretty nonpartisan post between McCain and Obama. Either can be restorative of our 12 years of dunce presidents.
Actually polls tend to favor the challenging party many months prior to the election, only to have the incumbent party improve in standing as the election draws near. If that story holds, Obama is dead in the water. He may already be, as whites are turned off by his appointed advisor with racist, anti-semitic and bigoted beliefs. Hillary obviously has data that suggests Obama can't win. His patriotism is very weak, his experience is non-existent, and his policies are far out of the mainstream. The libs will regret their choice.
