Score one for McCain on the campaign financing thing.

Score one for Obama on foreign policy/national security (and who expected him to take an early lead in this arena?).

I'm concerned that McCain will be able to capture the attention of the growing number of people who agree with Robert Samuelson of Newsweek.  He said "Obama is largely a stage presence defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views."

If McCain's intent is to undermine confidence in Obama's ability as commander in chief, he needs to do a better job than we've seen so far. At least that's my two-cents.

What happened yesterday should be seen as a warm-up, because if that's the best McCain can do, he's in more trouble than we thought.

I find it amusing that Hillary is running in Ohio on economics, when it was her husband tat caused all the problems in Ohio to begin with.  Anybody in Ohio who does not see this is totally blind.

Score one for McCain on the campaign financing thing.

Score one for Obama on foreign policy/national security (and who expected him to take an early lead in this arena?).

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:28 AM)

Paul,

I wouldn't necessarily give McCain a point on the campaign financing. He is currently in the process of doing everything he can to get out of public financing for the primary.

Also, he used public financing funds as collateral to obtain a loan to keep his campaign afloat. That means that if he would have lost New Hampshire and quit his bid for president, we the taxpayers would have been paying back the loan he took out.

All McCain is doing is giving us more spin from the double-talk express.

The more I hear from McCain about damn near anything, the more respect I lose for him.

The public financing thing IS more complicated than just accepting it. McCain is suggesting that he wants to force Obama into a situation where he can be swift-boated. What a scumbag. And he oversimplifies the situation in Iraq time and time again. Maybe he's just stupid, but either way I don't want him to be president.

So Jerry how's that NAFTA going for you folks down there in Texas? The giant sucking sound places like Ohio here is there good paying jobs being exported to third world states like texas with their poorly educated, low wage compliant worker bees

McCAIN YOU'RE VERY LUCKY MAN.....
THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES DO NOT MATCH THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS.[A WOMAN AND AN AFRICAN AMERICAN].
I SEE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS.

I say it is McCain vs voters and the over 1 million donors to Barack Obama's campaign so far. So Hillary, please step aside and let us tackle McBush 3.0. We say(as my teen would say) "BRING IT, MC/BUSH!!"

Will someone comment on what I think will happen with this campaign financing problem.  Can Senator Obama keep whatever he raises up though the convention?  If yes, can he spend all of that before he accepts the $85M of federal monies?  I cannot blame Senator Obama for taking time and thinking about this.  Who knew he would raise so much money.

All this kind of leaves Hillary further behind in the dust, eh? Who would have thought she'd be a distant memory?

I can't wait until Obama takes on John McCain about the idiocy of the Iraqi war.  John McCain is a heroic Viet Nam veteran and there is no arguing about that; he and other heroes of that conflict and past and subsequent ones, deserve our respect and gratitude.  But, in no way shape or form does that heroism convey, upon John McCain, any claim to scholarship on the geopolitical nature of the conflagration in Iraq.  

Only a deep misunderstanding would have confused the Al Qaeda efforts resulting in 9/11 with the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.  Only someone, severely misinformed, would ignore the fact that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before 2005 and then were only there because the Sunni welcomed their presence, wanting to utilize them as a military adjunct to their Sunni insurgency.  It's a civil war, damn' it!  Only a fool would attribute the relative improvement in Iraq to an addition of 20K combat troops.  General Patreous' success has been all on the political front.  He has facilitated the Sunni transition from using Al Qaeda as the military arm of the insurgency to that of supporting us (because the Sunni felt that their military adjunct was more detrimental than it was worth - sort of like the death eaters in Harry Potter).  And unfortunately, the Sunni are becoming inpatient with U.S. efforts to help form a political solution that represents their interests.  Is this the relative quiet before the storm?  Will this civil war heat up again?

The Republican Bush/Cheney/McCain mess can only continue if the assumption is made that Americans are too stupid to figure out the craziness of this chess game.  It's so Orwellian to talk about a perpetual war against Islamofacism, with Iraq as the center of the war on terrorism.  They say, "We fight them there, so that we don’t fight them here!"  What a bullshit line!  Al Qaeda is not an army; they have no country, no population, no resources to protect.  They are a political movement with the potential of millions of armed terrorists and unlimited oil money to finance them.  They seize upon any area of instability, like an infection, feeding on disruption of social order, like maggots feed on a wound.  We need to combat this group of thugs in a new way and not with the conventional way of thinking provided for by old military minds that lack the understanding of what constitutes this unrest.  We are the cause of the unrest and unless we help to solidify a political solution that will include the Sunni in the federal gov't. of Iraq this thing will explode all over again;  McCain might have his wish of a hundred year war.  

And of course the Bush/Cheney/McCain administration suggest a continued war, a war on terrorism (oxymoron)…what a great way for the executive branch to scare the general population of the United States into relinquishing all dissent, all liberty, in order to garner more control over a fragile democracy (all democracies are fragile; they are only as strong as the electorate that works to resist the take over of power by the oligarchic few).   With an impotent Congress as their lieutenants and a complicit judicial branch, the executive seeks to create the imperial presidency…right, Steve Hadley?   The oligarchy wants to concentrate the wealth and power of the country into the hands of the few.  They just can’t trust the inefficiency of the plebian democracy.

Look, John McCain, just doesn't get it.  But I think Barack Obama, the young upstart, does get it and will change the mindset that leads us into these wasteful imbroglios.  Of course Hillary didn't get it either and as recently as September of 2007 was willing to support yet another Bush fiasco of a resolution to use force against Iran; another attempt to broaden the war on terrorism.  At least, Obama called her out on her support of the 2002 resolution the other night and helped her to admit that this was a vote that she would like to take back.
Obama '08

Finally, Obama is sorting out for the public the McCain conflation of Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Al Qaeda who attacked the World Trade Center.  As Obama points out, Al Qaeda in Iraq emerged only after we invaded Iraq.  They wouldn't exist had we not attacked Iraq.  Meanwhile, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan has continued to gain strength.  This, my friends, is the policy Senator McCain wishes to pursue endlessly.

I'm not the Democratic nominee and I think McCain is proving himself to be a short-tempered typical bombastic, fear-mongering neocon. Why shouldn't Obama?

Opposing view: Both sides must agree
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.
By Barack Obama

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html


----
My 2 cents....With over 1 million donors to Barack Obama's campaign to date, all I have to say to what McCain is saying--to hell with Mc/Bush 3.0 whining. Frankly, Barack's campaign now is within the 'spirit' of campaign finance legislation.

Not only that but Obama wants a campaign finance agreement to be linked to a cessation of the use of 527's and it is imperative that McCain and the Republicans agree to this before Obama agree to federal financing for the general.
Obama '08

Obama wins so far on the Iraq issue, and he proved that McCain is in for a fight if he tries to one-up on the Iraq issue.  It's like Obama said to Clinton about her voting to invade Iraq: "The mistake was in driving the bus into the ditch in the first place. After it's in there, the options are somewhat limited for getting it out."  

The key to being a good leader is in making the right decisions to begin with.  This has been Bush's problem the entire time he's been in office.  We don't need another President who can't make good choices.

Obama has shown exactly what the Samuelson commentary put forth.   He was put down by Mccain and deservedly so due to his naive statement regarding Al-Queda in Iraq.  

Obamas response was to reach for deflection tactics in order to salvage his image.  making reference to his supposed opposition prior to the operation.    

This demonstrates that he could not really handle foreign policy matters  as such deflection strategies do not work on the world stage as it is less childish than the electoral stage(there is more at stake).  

He should have had the maturity to say that he misspoke and corrected himself in a more statesmanlike manner.

but there is a fundamental problem with his promises about Iraq.   Ifwe left abruptly as he suggests;  we could not go back as his action would waste all efforts for the past years, all the infrastructur that we have put in,  all the organization,  confidence built with the Iraqi citzenry, american lives,   all wasted by this man.    It would dilute our power world wide and give us less respect than what is perceived by the "the world hates us" crowd.

the world does not hate us; they fear us and our power.   Yet this is a grudging form of respect and an important tool of diplomacy and negotiating for our national interests worldwide.

Obama would serve to erode what we already have and actually bring down the US status worldwide.  This is what naive foreign policy would do.

we actually could not fgo back to Iraq if we left abruptly as it would become a totally hostile place if we lose our foothold.   it would be akin to a "Super afghanistan under the taliban" as we would give the extremists an immense propaganda victory as a gift as well as an improved environment to run their operations.

Obama's plan is flawed and not thought our.  it serves only to tell his supporters what they want to hear.  well actions speak louder than empty words. Mccain has demonstrated that he has savvy in foreign policy.  His ridicule for Obama is well justified and Obama's response demonstrates his deflectory style of dealing with attacks.  

The general election will bring out the Obama emptiness of promise while showcasing Mccais savvy in foreign and domestic affairs.

Mccain will eat him up when the issues really are examined carefully.

For the love of God! Obama has never "pledged" to take public funding, yest MSNBC and every other news outlet keeps reporting this. What Obama did was check a yes box on a less than important survey, then went onto explain he would sit down with the Republican nominee and discuss an arangement, which he will still do. If at that time he decides not to use public funding, then so be it. McCain is using it because he has to per his loan he took out against it. Potentially breaking the law per the, wait or it, McCain - Feingold bill!

PUNCH! PUNCH! ..... PUNCH!

And down goes the Cain.

That was just a prelude. Wait until he enters Obama's Webb and gets his military ass Webb-kicked.

Shame, shame McCain, using the good senator from Illinois as your battering post to TRY to make you look presidential... Ha... 1. we know that you don't have the finances & 2. Please get a grip... just because you went to war in Vietnam does not make you understand what is going on in the world today... Shame, Shame McCain  the little man who tried to make a big name...

Obama supporters...fight this ridiculous fear mongering among the GOP who are using "Hussein" as a weapon by co-opting the name for yourselves.  We must show that we embrace our candidate and don't run or hide from anything about him, most especially his MIDDLE NAME.

And let's give score 2 and 3 for Barrack Hussien who is friends with some of the most questionable muslims in existence.In fact, he just got a big endorsement from one but he really didn't want the endorsement, folks. Funny how the media and Obama never say his middle name, yet we hear Hilliary Rodham all of the time.Maybe this doesn't concern anyone else but certainly concerns our family. I live in Az. and will never vote for McCain after his "amnesty bill" and cuddling up with Ted Kennedy.
As for Obama, where is his experience in foreign policy??where is his experience in anything? He has none and little more in any other area. This is a man who will waltz into Washington, say "here I am, the golden boy". Love me cause the media has convinced the voters to love me? Move over all your lobbyists cause even though I took millions from you, I am writing you off now!!? All you pharmacutecial power groups can just get up and leave now cause the golden boy is here. And even though you gave me millions in support, I don't need you anymore. Oh, sure....
So check the RECORDS of all of these candidates backgrounds, then you can say Obama is great at talking, talking, talking and doing nothing because that is his record as a senator! McCain will keep the war going and let all of the illegals be supported by your taxes to pay for teaching their kids spanish and taking care of them on welfare.
Hilliary will be quite liberal but her record pales   compared to Obama's liberalism.
And last but not least, let us look at the media with their bias that presents Obama as a great candidate, Hilliary is no damn good and John McCain is too old.
Could it be they do this because most of the owners of the channels like Ted Turner are known extreme liberals. Nah, they are SO FAIR AND balanced.Any voter who believes the media and their half-truths and spin can buy the golden gate bridge for $27.50 these days.
We are independents and after checking backgrouds of all 3 of these candidates, God help us all. This country deserves better and that includes Obama. And just a as last comment, anyone who thinks that Obama is parellel with Martin Luther King is crazy. King walked his talk. Obama just talks and sells his "dream". I just know that when Obama goes over to Pakistan and says to the leader "here I am, the golden boy. You do what I say or else" , they will fall all over him. Uh huh honey!!Keep buying that golden gate bridge.

This is just McCain's newest tactic because he knows he won't ever get near the support Obama will have. He still under the delusion that over spending is what created the HUGE loss for republicans in 2006. Note to John McCain: It's the war stupid.

"Mccain will eat him up when the issues really are examined carefully." -- Greg Hoo, Pinecrest, fl

One flaw in your thinking Greg. The Republicans do not examine the issues carefully, they just play the fear card over and over.  The hope card will trump every time.  Ronald Reagan was the last Republican to play the hope card. It trumped the Democrat's "we've got problems that need solving" card.

I think McWar is quickly running out of gas; the economy affects everyone right now, not a made up war. If the bleeding heart republicans want to fight someone else battle, have their sons & daughters sign up.
I agree with Obama's statement, the people of Iraq will start fighting for themselves when they know they have to. When Obama keeps tieing McWar to Bush, it will be a blood bath in debates.  People are more worried about their house and their job, than the republican pitch... "You'll only be safe if a republican stands watch." No, you'll only be safe if a leader can talk to other nations, bring UN forces back in the game, and encourage young people to actually join the military. The military is shrinking because nobody likes what the republicans are doing, no likey...no joiny.

Barack is wise to wait and see what McCain tries to pull with regard to campaign finacing.

New McCain Slogan - "A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama!"

I think McWar is quickly running out of gas; the economy affects everyone right now, not a made up war. If the bleeding heart republicans want to fight someone else battle, have their sons & daughters sign up.
I agree with Obama's statement, the people of Iraq will start fighting for themselves when they know they have to. When Obama keeps tieing McWar to Bush, it will be a blood bath in debates.  People are more worried about their house and their job, than the republican pitch... "You'll only be safe if a republican stands watch." No, you'll only be safe if a leader can talk to other nations, bring UN forces back in the game, and encourage young people to actually join the military. The military is shrinking because nobody likes what the republicans are doing, no likey...no joiny.

Fellow Democrats, wake up and smell the Republican Tricks. The only reason why Republicans are crossing the line and voting for Sen. Obama in the Primaries is because in November, he is the Democratic Candidate they CAN beat. So, if you want a Democratic White House, join the team with a GREATER CHANCE OF WINNING !!!!!

Here's a little tidbit for yall under the McCain war hero spell.

This rhetorical spear has too ends, be warned!
-------------------------------------------------

Is John McCain a hero or a traitor?
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-03-25/news/
What a question.
In post-Monica politics, there aren't many taboos. Enter the presidential sweepstakes, and it's open season on every detail of your life. Everything except the hero status of a man who endured a broken leg, two broken arms and five and a half years in North Vietnamese prison camps.

Even McCain foes who carp about his youthful philandering, his grandstanding, his political flip-flopping, his membership in the Keating Five, his wife's drug addiction, don't question his war heroism.

So the Earl Hoppers of the world are dismissed as crazies, wackos, extremists--and perhaps it's a deserved label. Then again, to paraphrase another Arizona senator: Extremism in defense of a lost loved one is no vice. Who couldn't imagine themselves single-mindedly demanding the truth about a vanished son or husband?

McCain says he understands. "Those people who are family members, at least I have--I hope I feel--sympathy and some understanding for their zealotry on this issue," McCain tells New Times. "If I had a brother or a son who was in this situation, then clearly I think I would feel very strongly about it."

Not every POW/MIA activist despises John McCain, and among those who do, there are gradations of disgust.

Many activists don't like the way McCain has behaved since he was freed. They abhor his support for the normalization of relations with Vietnam, his apparent lack of respect for them and their cause. They say he has unfairly attacked those he says prey on the family members by selling them false hopes in the form of faked pictures of their loved ones, even though in some cases McCain has been proved right. And most of all, the activists feel McCain has used his POW status to spring up the political ranks, with his eye on the presidential prize.

But a few have let their ire take them even farther. A handful of POW/MIA activists are critical of McCain's behavior during the war. They believe that John McCain did not return from Vietnam a hero. They say his own clumsiness caused his limbs to be broken as he ejected from his plummeting warplane. They claim McCain was never tortured in prison. They accuse him of collaborating with not only the North Vietnamese but with Communists in the Soviet Union and Cuba. They quote unnamed sources who say McCain had a wife and children in Vietnam.

Some even claim he was broken and brainwashed by the Communists and then returned to the U.S. to amass political power and carry out the Reds' wishes. Why else, they ask, would McCain support normalization? Why else would he have embraced onetime North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin during hearings into POW/MIA issues? (They circulate a photo of that traitorous act as evidence.) Why else would the North Vietnamese have erected a monument at the lake in Hanoi where he was shot down in 1967?

All these claims disintegrate upon close inspection--they cannot be proved or disproved--with one tenuous exception: two former POWs who say they were senior officers at a camp where McCain claims to have been tortured tell New Times they knew of no such torture during that time at that camp. McCain has denied that he ever reported to these men.

the facts are out there just look for them, McCain was found not involved in wrong doings in congress by his piers which had Obama as well as other Democrats to investigate, and as far as a president we as a country need a firm stand not a pronoun speaker, Obama has at no time been able to prove his accomplishments in congress or has he really done anything while there???? He collects lots of money for campaigns but how about money for the poor or to help our economy none so far and even his record doesn't show any minor let alone major successes, Obama is not ready to run this country just ruin it with no knowledge of what it really takes.

I am an Obama supporter, but am a bit concerned that the media's coronation of him as the presumptive nominee might result in a low turnout of his supporters in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday. I think that Texas will decide whether Barack or Hillary is the nominee. I know that many think Obama has it in the bag because he has won so many states, but I fear that he will lose the " Big Mo" if Hillary pulls out wins, even razor thin, in Ohio and Texas. She will argue that, yes, Obama has won MORE states, but that she has won all of the BIG states with the exception of Illinois, Obama's home state. She will further argue that these states will decide the general election, thanks to the stupid electoral college which gives the BIG states more weight. Obama will get Vermont, but Clinton will get Rhode Island,so Obama can ill afford for her to win a trifecta of RI, Texas, and Ohio. For some reason, Ohioans love her. She still holds a ten point lead there, so I think she carries that state. It comes down to Texas and I am concerned that the Hispanic vote will carry her there. If that happens, this is a dog race again because she will then have the  "mo" going into Pennsylvania, yet another  BIG state, which is leaning toward her. I believe that the superdelegates are waiting to see if she can pull these BIG states out Tuesday and if she can, they will not jump off of her ship. Trust me, I hope that the optimism about Obama is merited, but  I am concerned. Can someone from Ohio please tell me why she is so favored there given that the Clinton administration was responsible for Nafta , which caused the loss of so many jobs there? Barack supporters, get out and vote Tuesday because we can not be sandbagged into taking this for granted!!

Did anybody read the artical that compared McCains speaches of the last few years to those of the last few months? The author, supposedly an expert in the field, claims to see early signs of Alzheimer's. Has anybody checked to see if McCain is medically fit to be president for 4 years?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):