I think the media is desirous that a black presidential candidate succeed

[Artful Dodger]

[cassiusclay]

black white green or purple, somebody has to put America first and spend money here vs over seas. my buddy just got back from barbados and he said they didn't want to take american currency, not a good sign when dollars printed don't go as far as other country's pesos.

[IDENTITY]

obama is obviously the most qualified, knowledgeable candidate with the best platform. he will get our troops out of iraq! and help our foreign policy.

[Artful Dodger]

most qualified? After two years in the US Senate?

Wow.

Tell me, what foreign policy experience does he have? What experience does he have, period?

Its amazing to me how many people think he is the best choice when he has absolutely no experience and is a blatant socialist. Oh, but he is an eloquent speaker. Lets not forget that. I guess delivering powerful speeches is what being President of the USA is all about.

[cassiusclay]

At this point if you ran you might win Dodger!

[janus]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

most qualified? After two years in the US Senate?

Wow.

Tell me, what foreign policy experience does he have? What experience does he have, period?

Its amazing to me how many people think he is the best choice when he has absolutely no experience and is a blatant socialist. Oh, but he is an eloquent speaker. Lets not forget that. I guess delivering powerful speeches is what being President of the USA is all about.

you failed to show how more experience in a pathetic government system is an somehow an advantage. while you are guessing what the presidency is all about, you might support your argument by providing specific examples of how the other candidates measure up to that guess if you dont want to sound like a typical redneck who doesnt like the idea of a black man with authority.

[BETenomics]

I am CANADIAN we already had a broad in power and I would vote for a black man if he had the good speeches

fact is this free enterprise is fucked we in NA live in and a black grey whatever sex wont help us

we are fucked

[kidslick]

Originally Posted by IDENTITY

obama is obviously the most qualified, knowledgeable candidate with the best platform. he will get our troops out of iraq! and help our foreign policy.

Not to sound like a racist

He would be assassinated within 2 months. I don't think America is ready for a black president. Those southerners are cleaning their guns as we speak

[Anti GWB]

Artful Dodger:

McCain refers to him as a "Straight Shooter"

However when you hear what he has to say …perhaps straight talk is not what he should be giving us. Lie a little …at least pretend you have a grasp on the actual facts. In other words be more like Ronald Reagan. At least Reagan made you feel like he understood.




What John McCain has been saying about Iraq is extremely troubling, and I don’t mean just his recent serial gaffe confusing Shiite Iran and Sunni Qaeda. The sum total of his public record suggests that he could well prolong this war throughout our lifetimes. Imagine another century — not because he’s the crazed militarist portrayed by us Democrats, but through sheer inertia, bad judgment and simple blundering.

This man does not have a grasp of the facts… any facts. So far his bizarre pronouncements have been drowned out by the Democrats’ infighting. They’ve also been underplayed by a press that coddles Ol’ Man Straight Talk and that rarely looks more deeply into the “surge is success” propaganda than it did into Mr. Bush’s announcement of the end of “major combat operations” five years ago. The electorate doesn’t want to hear much anyway about a war it long ago soundly rejected.

For the majority of Americans who haven’t met any of the brave troops who’ve been cavalierly tossed into the quagmire, the war is out of sight and mind in a way Vietnam never was. Only 28 percent of Americans knew American casualties in Iraq were nearing 4,000 last month, according to the Pew Research Center. The Project for Excellence in Journalism found that by March 2008 the percentage of prominent news stories that were about Iraq had fallen to about one-fifth of what it was in January 2007. It’s a poignant commentary on the whole war that Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the nonpartisan advocacy group, was reduced to protesting the lack of coverage.

That’s why it’s no surprise that so few stopped to absorb the disastrous six-day battle of Basra that ended last week — a mini-Tet that belied the “success” of the surge. Even fewer noticed that the presumptive Republican nominee seemed at least as oblivious to what was going down as President Bush, no tiny feat.

In Mr. Bush’s telling, Basra was a “defining moment in the history of a free Iraq.” He praised the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, and boasted repeatedly that the Iraqi forces were fighting “in the lead.” The Pentagon spokesman declared that this splendid engagement was “a byproduct of the success of the surge.”

It was a defining moment all right. Mr. Maliki’s impulsive and ill-planned attempt to vanquish the militias in southern Iraq loyal to his Shiite rival, the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, was a failure that left Mr. Sadr more secure than before. Though some Iraqi armed forces were briefly in the lead, others mutinied. Eventually American and British forces and air power had to ride to the rescue in both Basra and Baghdad. Even then, the result was at best a standoff, with huge casualties. The battle ended only when Mr. Maliki’s own political minions sought a cease-fire.
Mr. McCain was just as wrong about Basra as he was in 2003, when he said the war would be “brief” and be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. Or as he was in the 1990s, when he championed extravagant State Department funding for the war instigator Ahmad Chalabi, who’d already been branded untrustworthy by the C.I.A. (The relationship between Mr. Chalabi and the former lobbyist Charles Black, now a chief McCain campaign strategist, is explored in a new book, “The Man Who Pushed America to War,” by Aram Roston.)

As for Basra, Mr. McCain told Joe Klein of Time in January that it was “not a problem.” He told John King of CNN while in Baghdad last month that Mr. Sadr’s “influence has been on the wane for a long time.” When the battle ended last week, Mr. McCain said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the cease-fire, declared a cease-fire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a cease-fire.” At least the last of those sentences was accurate. It was indeed the losing side — Maliki’s — that pleaded for the cease-fire.

Perhaps all these mistaken judgments can be attributed to the fog of war. But Mr. McCain’s bigger strategic picture, immutable no matter what happens on the ground, is foggier still. Like Mr. Bush, he keeps selling Iraq as the central front in the war on Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda was not even a participant in the Basra battle, which was an eruption of a Shiite-vs.-Shiite civil war. (Al Qaeda is busy enough in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the actual central front in the war on terror.)

Mr. McCain is also fond of portraying Mr. Maliki’s “democracy” in Iraq as an essential bulwark against Iran; his surrogate Lindsey Graham habitually refers to Mr. Sadr’s Mahdi Army as “Iranian-backed militias.” But the political coalition and militia propping up Mr. Maliki are even closer to Iran than the Sadrists. McClatchy Newspapers reported last week that the Maliki-Sadr cease-fire was not only brokered in Iran but by a general whose name is on the Treasury Department’s terrorist list: the commander of the Quds force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

So this is where this latest defining moment in Iraq leaves us: with victories for Iran and Mr. Sadr, and with Iraqi forces that still can’t stand up (training cost to American taxpayers so far: $22 billion) so we can stand down. The Baghdad Green Zone, pummeled with lethal mortar fire, proved vulnerable once again. Basra remains so perilous that Britain has had to suddenly halt its planned troop withdrawals. Tony Blair had ordered the drawdown a year ago, after declaring that “the next chapter in Basra’s history will be written by the Iraqis.”

The surge is a success in exactly one way: American forces, by putting their lives on the line and benefiting from a now-defunct Sadr cease-fire, have reduced violence in Baghdad (though only to early 2005 levels). But as the Middle East scholar Juan Cole has written, “the ‘surge’ was never meant to be the objective but rather the means.”

None of the objectives have been met. Remember that “return on success” — as in returning troops — that Mr. Bush promised in January’s State of the Union? We will end 2008 with more Americans in Iraq than the 132,000 at the time the surge began. Even Gen. David Petraeus said last month that there has not been “sufficient progress” on the other most important objective, Iraqi political reconciliation. Mr. Maliki’s move against Mr. Sadr in Basra, done without even consulting Iraq’s “democratically elected” Parliament, was an attempt to take out his opponent by force rather than wait for the October provincial elections.

Not that other metrics are any brighter. At last, oil production sometimes reaches prewar levels. But a third or more of the oil, as The New York Times reported, is siphoned off to the black market, where it finances the insurgency. Our own defense department is forced to pay $3-$4 per gallon for gasoline in Iraq, the neighboring citizens of Saudi pay $1.13 The projected date for turning over security operations to the Iraqis — first set for the end of 2006 by Iraqi officials, then moved up to the end of 2007 and July 2008 by our own Defense Department — is omitted entirely in the latest Pentagon report.

“We’re succeeding,” Mr. McCain said after his last trip to Iraq. “I don’t care what anybody says.” Again, it’s the last sentence that’s accurate. When General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testify before Congress again this week — against the backdrop of a million-Iraqi, anti-American protest called by Mr. Sadr — Mr. McCain will ram home all this “success” no matter the facts.

The difference between the Democrats and Mr. McCain going forward is clear enough: They want to find a way out of the morass, however provisional and imperfect, and he equates staying the disastrous course with patriotism. As Gore Vidal stated “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. Mr. McCain’s doomed promise of military “victory” in Iraq is akin to Wile E. Coyote’s perpetual pursuit of the Road Runner, with much higher carnage. This isn’t patriotism. As the old saying goes, doing the thing over and over again and hoping you’ll get a different result is the definition of insanity.

John McCain is not qualified to be our next president. - RealNews.us

[Anti GWB]

More of what a lying ass Bush clone he has become:

McCain Strolls Through Baghdad Market, Accompanied By 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, 2 Apache Gunship

Think Progress » McCain Strolls Through Baghdad Market, Accompanied By 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, 2 Apache Gunships

Sen. John McCain strolled briefly through an open-air market in Baghdad today in an effort to prove that Americans are “not getting the full picture” of what’s going on in Iraq.


NBC’s Nightly News provided further details about McCain’s one-hour guided tour. He was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” Still photographs provided by the military to NBC News seemed to show McCain wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.

[Anti GWB]

2 videos that sum up Johnny McBush:

YouTube - John McCain vs. John McCain

YouTube - John McCain & Miss Teen SC on Economics


America right now does not need John McBush and Obama will mop his
ass up real good during Debates when McBush gets truly exposed as
how clueless he has become on most issues

[IDENTITY]

anti - id appreciate if you please articulate your views instead of links which are too lengthy.

[Anti GWB]

Artful:

this country is in terrible shape due to failed Bush policies .... and you
think McCain is qualified?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/21/short-on-econo...
At a recent meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Republican presidential candidate John McCain admitted he "doesn't really understand economics" and then pointed to his adviser and former Senate colleague, Phil Gramm - whom he had brought with him to the meeting - as the expert he turns to on the subject, The Huffington Post has learned.


Phil Gramm? Hmmmm....let's take a look at Phil Gramm for a moment, shall we?

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2002/...
Gramm both looks like a snapping turtle and has the personality of one. When he ran for president in 1996 and finished fifth in Iowa, all the profiles written of him included the line "Even his friends don't like him."

Self-righteous and strident, Gramm demonized his opponents and used bitter, polarizing rhetoric. During a Senate debate over Social Security, a member pointed out that the proposal under consideration would hurt 80-year-old retirees. "Most people don't have the luxury of living to be 80 years old," Gramm scoffed, "so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them." Well, there is that.

[Jeff Jones]

Auntie GWB-

You've still missed the Poker Forum with this stuff.

[Anti GWB]

Idenity:

Simple .... McCain is a Bush suckup and anyone voting for McBush is
comfortable with complete meltdown on all fronts

He is clueless on economics .... he lies about everything and crawled
into bed to get the endorsement of a Rev who makes Wright look tame
and now his wife's finances are off limits??? .... 2004 Kerry's wifes
sure were not

McBush has gotten the usual GOP free ride from the Media .... Obama
aint gonna take his shit and love how Obama's camp fires back
immediately and his comment yesterday that McBush's role in the
Keating 5 scandal was fair game was excellent !!!

Bet on McBush to win ...You will lose as Obama has been under fire since
day one and has handled it with class


THE ONLY ONES WHO CARE ABOUT A PASTORS COMMENTS ARE FOLKS LIKE
JONES WHO ARE SWEATING THEIR ASSES OFF AS THE GRAVY TRAIN RIDE IS OVER WHEN OBAMA IS SWORN IN

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by janus

you failed to show how more experience in a pathetic government system is an somehow an advantage. while you are guessing what the presidency is all about, you might support your argument by providing specific examples of how the other candidates measure up to that guess if you dont want to sound like a typical redneck who doesnt like the idea of a black man with authority.

The fact that he's half black has nothing to do with the fact that I think he make a terrible president. He is a socialist. He thinks we can "talk" to Iran. He thinks big government and higher taxes will solve our problems. He voted against a ban on partial birth abortions. He is a member of a church espousing black liberation theology (which is some really scary shit if you really look at what they believe). He and his wife believe, down deep in their hearts, that America is a mean, racist country.

This man will not represent what the majority of the people in this country stand for and will be a disaster as the leader of the free world.

[Seymour]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

The fact that he's half black has nothing to do with the fact that I think he make a terrible president. He is a socialist. He thinks we can "talk" to Iran. He thinks big government and higher taxes will solve our problems. He voted against a ban on partial birth abortions. He is a member of a church espousing black liberation theology (which is some really scary shit if you really look at what they believe). He and his wife believe, down deep in their hearts, that America is a mean, racist country.

This man will not represent what the majority of the people in this country stand for and will be a disaster as the leader of the free world.

Well, at least you know he's on the clock from day 1 - when there is no "change" after 3.5 years he is history - but yes, it will suck moose dick for 4 years - he's about as bad as it could possible get - if he gets elected it's a combo of racisim (reverse) and a Bush backlash - personally, I'm not too worried about Barrack Husein Obama getting elected - he's gotten trounced in all the major swing states - and he literally hands FL and PA and probably OH to McCain - I don't see him stealing any swing states of significance

[pioneer]

Seymour,
I hope and pray that you're right. This election should be a no-brainer for the Dems but in reality it's very much of a toss-up. It's pretty obvious that the strongest Dem ticket is HRC on top and BHO on the bottom. That ticket might ensure a Dem stranglehold on the WH for 16 years, but the Dems refuse to even consider it...luckily for us!

[Jeff Jones]

If Obama selects Hillary and Bill as his Vice-President, he better hire a food taster.