You Can Put Lipstick on a Community Organizer

[Kramer]

<<Did I say that McCain-Feingold was his total product?
<<He isn't a one trick pony , or a do nothing Senator, he has a long record which you are as free to peruse as anyone .>>

I wouldn't characterize his record of Congressional achievements as "long," at best I'd say it's very modest and very little of it had any practical effect on the lives of average Americans.  Considering that he's had about 40 decades to make his mark in the Congress, it was an exceedingly modest mark that he made.

Obama's had a very short run in the Senate.  Junior Senators are assigned very modest and unglamorous work to do, far from the headlines and the public glory.  I don't hold it against him that he did not shake the earth to its foundations to date from his position as a junior Senator.  Few if any other Junior Senators of his length of service have ever done so.

Keeping in mind that Obama has been running an underdog's campaign, first for the nomination and now for the Presidency, it is not surprising to me that he was not able to involve himself more accurately in the legislative business of the U.S. Senate.

I think you're setting ridiculous benchmarks for a junior Senator in the midst of an audacious campaign and ignoring the salient points of this campaign - - McCain is an old, tired, washed-out guy with very modest accomplishments to show for three or four decades of Congressional service.  To this very day the defining moments of his life are things that happened, or allegedly happened, 40 years ago on the other side of the earth.  He's dumb, with a vicious temper. 

Obama is youthful, optimistic, innovative (especially in his campaign) and a man of impeccable intellect and intellectual accomplishment.  He's a skilled and persuasive speaker.  I realize that to some extent, this forum tends to downgrade Harvard-educated lawyers and Professors of Law, but in most venues, they are valued for their wisdom, knowledge, savvy and ability to get things done.  Here, for some reason, these qualities seem to take back seat to the ability to kill, skin and cube a moose.

I really think you ought to give both of these guys some serious consideration.  I think you really underestimated Obama - - he is much better qualified than McCain to fill the office.

As a State Legislator BHO frequently voted "present".

How is this up to even a low standard?

In what way am I setting the bar to high in that I want the elected to do the job they were elected to do.  I was not comparing Obamas small Senate record with McCains long Senate record , I was compareing BHO's habit of avoiding contraversy by haveing no input to contraversy to McCains famous feistyness.

Another thing to think about his his anti war stand. He acts like it was such a brave act:
1. he wasn't even in the us senate at the time to vote on it
2. he said he was against it coming from a liberal district so big deal, like it took a lot of guts to take that stand.

[Michael Tee]

<<Another thing to think about his his anti war stand. He acts like it was such a brave act:
1. he wasn't even in the us senate at the time to vote on it
2. he said he was against it coming from a liberal district so big deal, like it took a lot of guts to take that stand.>>

Everybody couldn't be in the U.S. Senate at that particular moment in time.  Whatever position he occupied was an elected position and his patriotism was put on the line.  He stuck his neck out with that oppositional voice.  "Soft on terrorism" is easy for ANY political opponent can say, even at the level of municipal government.

I think it took guts for any elected official to buck the President when he was beating the war drums. 

And even leaving aside the issue of courage, it sure as hell speaks to his foresight.

[Kramer]

<<Another thing to think about his his anti war stand. He acts like it was such a brave act:
1. he wasn't even in the us senate at the time to vote on it
2. he said he was against it coming from a liberal district so big deal, like it took a lot of guts to take that stand.>>

Everybody couldn't be in the U.S. Senate at that particular moment in time.  Whatever position he occupied was an elected position and his patriotism was put on the line.  He stuck his neck out with that oppositional voice.  "Soft on terrorism" is easy for ANY political opponent can say, even at the level of municipal government.

I think it took guts for any elected official to buck the President when he was beating the war drums. 

And even leaving aside the issue of courage, it sure as hell speaks to his foresight.

OK so let's try a different approach. If when he was running for the US Senate he would have said something like this (I think Justice Thomas is a great SC Judge & GW Bush is a good guy) do you think he would have been elected or not?

[Michael Tee]

<<If when he was running for the US Senate he would have said something like this (I think Justice Thomas is a great SC Judge & GW Bush is a good guy) do you think he would have been elected or not?>>

I think what you are missing is that there are a lot of people who think that George W. Bush is the scum of the earth and would still back him on the war out of a misguided sense of "patriotism."  So I think there's a big difference between saying Bush is a good guy and saying you'll back him on the war.

I think he could have lost by simply praising Bush, as you are implying, but might also have lost by not backing Bush's war.  At least:  at the time he took his anti-war stand, a lot of Democrats like Hillary and Biden were going along with the war out of sheer cowardice and Obama took his stand at least aware of the possibility that his lack of what many would consider "patriotism" could cost him big-time further on down the road.

[Plane]

"... at least aware of the possibility that his lack of what many would consider "patriotism" could cost him big-time further on down the road."

It still might.

When Chamberlain took this stand , didn't it cost him later?

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is absolutely NO connection between Juniorbush's pre-emptive strike against unarmed Iraq and Chamberlain's agreements on the Sudentenland.

Hitler had an army, Saddam had a pitiful assortment of soldiers that were easily defeated in a few days. Hitler had modern weapons, Saddam had nothing, compared to the US. Great Britain was allied with France as well as neighboring Poland. The US is half a world away from Iraq. Hitler had aircraft that threatened both France and the UK. Saddam had absolutely no way to attack Americas in the US.

There was no reason to start the Iraq War and even less to start it with no plans as to how to end it. Seldom have deliberate ignorance, deception and stubbornness of a leader been in such a deadly combination as in Juniorbush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and his Neocon advisors.

[Michael Tee]

<<It still might.

<<When Chamberlain took this stand , didn't it cost him later?>>

Your argument seems to be that if Chamberlain was accused of lacking patriotism for trying to avoid war with Hitler and the charge stuck later, the same thing could happen to Obama, that by not supporting the war the charges of lack of patriotism could stick later.

First of all, Chamberlain's patriotism was never put in question, as far as I know.  He was charged with accepting the word of a liar in exchange for a very brief period of peace, and then having to face a much strengthened liar after he'd used the peace bought with his lies to strengthen himself.  Patriotism was not the issue, being a sucker was.

Your analogy is kind of intriguing, because both situations depend on the lies of war-mongers and the credulity of those who are taken in by them, although in Chamberlain's case, the liar and the sucker are each heads of independent nations negotiating with one another; in Obama's case, the liar is the leader of the nation, the suckers are the elected representatives of the people of the nation, and Obama is the anti-Chamberlain, the guy who not only was not taken in by the war-monger's lies but actively stood out all too alone in the crowd as the one who refused to go along with them.

[sirs]

And ironically, McCain actively stood out all alone, in his support of the surge, which Obama now himself agrees has been a success in providing the means for the diplomatic negotiations to get traction, and subsequently providing a light at the end of this tunnel which starts bringing troops home.  A military tactic he was on record condeming and claiming all the strife and worsening of the war it would bring.

Couldn't have been more wrong 

[Xavier_Onassis]

The most wrong thing was starting this stupid war.

If McCain had been totally alone in advocating the surge, there would not have been one.

[sirs]

Problem is there was a war, and we're not playing "make believe".  If Chamberlain were to have been allowed to continue to run things, we might be all speaking German or Japanese.  If Eve hadn't eaten from the forbiden tree, we might all be living in the Garden of Eden

Instead of playing in the land of "if", let's play in the land of the here & now, the land of reality vs imagination.

There was a war, McCain was right on with the surge, and largely the only one.  Obama was dead wrong

[Michael Tee]

Is the surge gonna bring back the 4,000 dead hillbillies, restore the health of the 30,000 maimed and crippled hillbillies, bring back the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and put back half a trillion bucks in the U.S. Treasury?

Obama was right and McCain and all the others wrong on an issue of monumental importance and unacceptably high cost:  to make war or not.

McCain MAY have been correct on the surge, which brings no comparable benefit, except that the ever-boastful Americans may finally have some bragging rights (We won!!!) after five years, against a tiny Third World nation of some 25 million people.  Some bragging rights.  The dead remain dead, the injured remain injured, the $500 billion remains wasted and the bill for the rest of it ($3 trillion, according to Nobel-Prize-winning economist John Stieglitz) will be coming in over the next three or four decades.

It reminds me of a comment I read somewhere that even the worst fascist dictatorship in the world must have at least one worthy accomplishment to its name, even it it's only a sensible traffic regulation.  McCain's judgment was right - - on the surge.  BFD.

And BTW - - it is WAY too early to tell how the surge is working out.  Maliki's government apparently is already arresting the leaders of the Shi'ite gangs which were feuding with al Qaeda in Iraq.  This would be good if it solidifies Iran-Iraq ties, better if the Persians, Shi'ites and Sunnis all smooth out their differences enough to recognize that the main threat to the region is American imperialism, and take steps to consolidate a united front to resolve the problem.

[sirs]

Is the surge gonna bring back the 4,000 dead hillbillies, restore the health of the 30,000 maimed and crippled hillbillies, bring back the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and put back half a trillion bucks in the U.S. Treasury?

No more than Midway would bring back all those lost at Pearl Harbor.  No more than Okinawa would bring back all the lives lost in WWII, nor replace the $$$$ used to pay for that war

Again, it is what it is, there WAS a war.  That IS the reality.  In the current reality that the rest of us are living in, McCain was right in supporting the surge, which has brought the Iraqi security under enough control in order for the diplomacy to go forward

Obama was dead wrong, and his condemnation of the surge translates into one that never would have occured under his Presidency = more death, and longer duration of American involvement (since now he's flipped on his original platform of pulling all U.S. forces within 16 (or was it 14?) months, regardless)

[Michael Tee]

<<No more than Midway would bring back all those lost at Pearl Harbor.  No more than Okinawa would bring back all the lives lost in WWII, nor replace the $$$$ used to pay for that war>>

Obviously the difference is that WWII HAD to be fought, since there were real attacks and invasions and massacres by the Axis forces.  We fought in response to the invasion of Paris, the Rape of Nanking, the attacks on London and Pearl Harbor.  Those were real, they weren't lies.

THIS war did not have to be fought, it was based on lies (you call them "honest mistakes," I know) and in any event on nothing real.  There was no threat, there was no invasion, there was no attack.  So everything spent on the effort is pure waste and no gain, as Obama pointed out it would be when nobody else was listening. 

THAT'S why his judgment is superior to McCain's, Hillary's and Biden's and that's why HE and not they is going to be the next President of the USA.

[sirs]

No it didn't.  It was a choice, and it was the right choice.  Iraq was also a choice, and given the intel at the time, was also the right choice.  Simple as that

[Michael Tee]

<<No it didn't.  It was a choice, and it was the right choice.  Iraq was also a choice, and given the intel at the time, was also the right choice.  Simple as that>>

Yeah, you go with that, sirs.  And if you have any influence on the McCain-Palin campaign, tell them to go with it too.  Tell the American people that the decision to invade Iraq showed real good judgment and Obama's a schmuck for opposing it.  Please do.  Tell them that's the kind of judgment America needs four more years of.