Patterico's Pontifications

9/27/2008

Footnotes to the First Debate

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 12:22 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

The AP’s Liz Sidoti filed this report on the first debate and here is the section I noticed (emphasis supplied):

“At times, both candidates struggled to keep their composure, and their dislike for each another showed through.

When Obama assailed McCain’s tax proposals and accused him of wanting to give another $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies, McCain smiled tightly, chuckled and said: “With all due respect, you already gave them to the oil companies.”

And, as McCain criticized Obama’s position on last year’s troop increase strategy in Iraq, Obama smirked, pursed his lips and muttered repeatedly: “That’s not true.”

Three thoughts: First, I’m sure there’s a common word that is used in lieu of “troop increase strategy.” I think it rhymes with Purge. Apparently both Obama and Ms. Sidoti prefer to avoid that word.

Second, I also noticed Obama’s smirks and gestures. It reminded me a little of Al Gore in the first Bush-Gore debate in the 2000 election.

Third, I agree Obama and McCain seem to dislike each other. Presidential campaigns can be heated, but McCain and Obama also had a run-in in the Senate that I doubt endeared them to each other. If you don’t remember it, let me refresh your memory regarding McCain’s Letter to Obama:

McCain’s Letter to Obama
February 6, 2006
The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senate

— DRJ

50 Responses to “Footnotes to the First Debate”

  1. Poseur is right.

    For example: it seems that McCain has been to every country we have interests in. People take Palin to task for not having a passport until last year.

    So, questions:

    How many countries (not counting North America or Western Europe) has Obama been to? Before running for President?

    Same for McCain.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  2. “their dislike for each another showed through.”

    — “each another”? Eek!

    Icy Truth (bd6c91)

  3. At first I was reluctently supporting my senior senator’s bid for the presidency. This letter is just another item that shows that he may have been the best candidate all along.

    EDP (c0cf47)

  4. Obama keeps comparing McCain to Bush instead of showing how he (Obama) would be better. I wonder how Obama would handle five years in the Hanoi Hilton. Come on Obama, do you really believe you can just talk and be nice to those who think the U.S. is the Great Satan? If the economy is all Bush’s fault, what have you and other Democrats in Congress been doing to regulate the mess? You can’t move money from the war to your social programs because Bush has been borrowing to fight the war. There is no money to move. It’s pay back time. There is no chance you can nationalize health care. There is no chance the Feds can take over improvement of the schools which are under local control. Where is your oil independence plan?

    You should talk to Palin. Okay, she’s not ready for press nonsense questions but she knows energy and security.

    Ed Metric (dbe4a4)

  5. If that letter is genuine, McCain lost me in the very first sentence: “I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere.”

    I don’t have the highest opinion of McCain already, but I never suspected he had such a whiny, passive-aggressive bitch side to him.

    I mean really, read that sentence again. He doesn’t accuse Obama of being insincere, even though it’s clear he thinks Obama was insincere, instead he apologizes for assuming Obama was sincere. Actually, he doesn’t apologize, he would like to but doesn’t actually pull the trigger and apologize, although he would like to. So lame it is ridiculous.

    I wonder how the “I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate . . .” formulation will work if McCain is President and he negotiates with the leaders of Iran, China or whoever. First they will laugh at his naive attempts to negotiate, then they will laugh twice as hard at his apology based on his assumption.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  6. It’s called subtlety, Aplomb. You wouldn’t understand.

    Evil Pundit (843b74)

  7. I think a subtle but huge mistake was Obama’s saying he was from Kenya (in essence he did)

    Another critical mistake was his not defending the 800 billion dollars in new spending which John maybe not yet – has tried to tag him with – but people are going to start wondering why Obama wants to spend more money than the bailout price tag of theworst financial crisis in American History.

    some 504eieio citizen advocacy group is going to splice and replay the 800 billion thing over and over again.

    Big Spender, Big Ideas –

    EricPWJohnson (c00a5d)

  8. Good use of my 90 minutes. Watching the two candidates slugging it out. On the whole, this has not been a game-changer for McCain. And that’s not good. He needed to get in there and smash Obama out on the foreign policy front. He didn’t. Both men seemed to be toe to toe on this. A draw with Obama is a failure for McCain. And notice how that “Reaction Graph” kept going up each time Obama spoke. Especially the green one that indicates the reaction of independent voters. McCain’s only strong foreign policy argument is the success of the surge. But he fails to realise that that does not justify the blunder of invading Iraq on false or misguided intelligence. He also draws too much attention to his years of experience. The danger is that it will only serve to point to his age.
    I think Obama got what he wanted. He proved that on the national security front, he was no rookie. His points were clear and concise.
    Read this and tell me what you think.
    Your Mileage May Vary, though.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  9. Re McCain’s letter:
    I think it’s a matter of context. As I understand it, there is a superficial cordiality that is employed in the Senate, where one will address another with something like,”the esteemed senior senator from the state of X does not seem to understand….” when the undercurrent is, “That old jack— keeps lying about…”

    Obama has only rhetoric and anti-Bush sentiment to run on. He thinks that since Bush’s approval rating is so low that all he has to do is say “90% Bush!!” But, the Dem-led Congress has an even lower approval rating, and Obama is really only an Illinois State Senator who was in the US Senate for less than 150 days before he began the job of running for President (which he had stated he would not do during his Senate campaign.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  10. Comment by love2008 — 9/27/208
    Consider the source CBS, I will have to use my own judgment because if I rely on the msm these days I will be lost. As to the letter, I remembered that this is about a bipartisan issue which Obama who was a freshman senator then initially supported and I digress that McCain was impressed and convinced with Obama’s sincerity as he is good in first impression and when the party leadership reigned him in he backed out and I believe a big disappointment for McCain.

    Mary L (7c2ddc)

  11. Every time Baracky talks about his leadrship in the Senate, McCain should refer to this letter.

    Was Baracky really on record warning of Russian aggression a couple years ago?

    JD (5f0e11)

  12. well Obama did go to Pakistan in the early 80s with his drug dealing arab college friend. Not sure what international relations he fostered there or if he wants attention called to that trip.

    eaglewingz08 (98291e)

  13. McCain lost me in the very first sentence

    Presuming he ever had you in the first place.

    Yeah, sure, whatever.

    ThomasD (1659da)

  14. Being from a military background and family, McCain puts a lot of value on honor and a person being true to their word. As his letter shows, he took Barry’s double-dealing as an indication of Barry’s personal lack of character.

    And certainly Barry’s background and actions to date (his contempt for facts and the First Amendment) underscore McCain’s assessment.

    Darleen (187edc)

  15. Aplomb —

    If that letter is genuine, McCain lost me in the very first sentence
    — That letter and the circumstances surrounding it, which clearly illustrate that when Obama says “bring the two sides together” he only means ‘convince the other side to vote my way’, has been common knowledge for awhile now.

    I don’t have the highest opinion of McCain already, but I never suspected he had such a whiny, passive-aggressive bitch side to him.
    — You would prefer that he be openly hostile, displaying some of his legendary temper? (ie: “your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were meaningless and insincere.”) What good would that accomplish? He’s challenging Obama to live up to the spirit of bipartisanship without getting in his grill about it.

    Actually, he doesn’t apologize, he would like to but doesn’t actually pull the trigger and apologize, although he would like to. So lame it is ridiculous.
    — Evil Pundit was dead-on in his response to you. You identified McCain’s method as being passive-aggressive, but you can’t seem to grasp why he presented his message in that manner. McCain was challenging HopeyChangey to reach across the aisle for real, as opposed to talking about it publicly and entrenching himself on the left when it comes down to hammering out a compromise.

    Icy Truth (b40a74)

  16. but I never suspected he had such a whiny, passive-aggressive bitch side to him.

    Perhaps you’ve never actually witnessed Senatorial exchanges on C – SPAN. When one Senator starts his riposte with “While I sincerely respect the Honorable Senator…” – it usually means something far more nasty as the underlying subtext to follow. McCain thought Obama stabbed him in the back during that incident – and since that was indeed the case, he’s not going to forget about it.

    It’s something called standing on principle and honor – not sure if you can grasp that concept.

    Dmac (e639cc)

  17. I also noticed Obama’s smirks and gestures. It reminded me a little of Al Gore in the first Bush-Gore debate in the 2000 election.

    Also, Obama was the first to talk over the opponent when it was McCain’s turn to talk, just as Gore kept interrupting/overtalking Bush.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  18. “McCain lost me in the very first sentence”

    Then you can vote for the “freshman” in the Senate…that suit you better Mr. Aplomb?

    Richard Romano (b96fd9)

  19. Only one Senator was wearing a flag lapel pin, and it wasn’t McCain.

    TurkishDelight (b8c7e2)

  20. “Being from a military background and family, McCain puts a lot of value on honor and a person being true to their word.”

    His campaign has been called the most dishonest in living memory. He’s lied left and right. He even lied to Letterman and Letterman went off and did a 5 minute bit on that. Look it up.
    His lies have cost him his old “base” the American press corps.

    And here’s a list of contradictions and flip-flops

    McCain got pissed because Obama backed a democratic bill, that’s all. Meanwhile he’s hiredTucker Eskew who was responsible for the following

    Used “push polling” by calling Republican voters and asking them “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” It was disgusting enough to use such a race-baiting tactic to begin with, but to use McCain’s child – whom he and his wife adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh – because they thought her dark skin might fool a bunch of ignorant, right-wing Southerners, shocked even hardened political pros.
    Had leaflets distributed by local religious fanatics describing McCain as “pro-abortion” and “the fag candidate” (because McCain was the only Republican presidential candidate to meet with the gay Republican men’s group, Log Cabin Republicans).
    Circulated rumors that McCain had cheated on his wife and refused to denounce local right-wing groups that went after his wife, Cindy, as a “drug addict” due to a problem she had once had with prescription painkillers. Indeed, the night before the South Carolina primary, a GOP operative appeared outside a McCain campaign event with a stack of leaflets calling her a drug addict and a “weirdo.”
    Impugned his courage and patriotism in the worst possible way. Team Bush constantly referred to McCain’s alleged “temper problem” and implied that he was mentally unstable based on his time spent as a POW. Rove himself was even accused by the McCain camp of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war.”
    Used Ted Sampley – yes, the same guy who participated in the swift boating of John Kerry in 2004 – to compare McCain with ‘the Manchurian Candidate’ and to suggest that he had only escaped death while in captivity by collaborating with the enemy.

    I thought Obama was mediocre last night, but the mediocrities who are the “undecideds” seem to think he won.
    Maybe that was his strategy, I don’t know. People are idiots.

    Readnek (105b91)

  21. Only one Senator had to look down at his bracelet because he forgot the name on it, and it wasn’t McCain.

    Darleen (187edc)

  22. In small communities—and the Senate is a small community composed mostly of bloviating gasbags–word soon gets around as to who you can trust, and who you can’t. McCain was telling Obama–you poisonous little schmuck–you’re off my “A” party list. So yes, I gather that McCain doesn’t like Obama–and has good reasons for that dislike.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  23. Readnek, actually it is Obama who is running the most dishonest campaign in history – a campaign that is making Nixon look like a boy scout – most recently lying about McCain’s participation in the negotiations for a financial sector bailout.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  24. Oh, yeah, McCain is running a dishonest campaign

    And who is running those thug Truth Squads?

    Darleen (187edc)

  25. Only one Senator was wearing a flag lapel pin, and it wasn’t McCain.

    Comment by TurkishDelight — 9/27/2008 @ 7:53 am

    Only one Senator spent time in the Hanoi Hilton, and it wasn’t junior. The pin on Obama was, in my humble opinion, a prop just like the bracelet. Actions speak louder than words or pins or bracelets. All the O-man has shown me is that he is a socialist at heart and is as disingenuous as the day is long.

    PatriotRider (339d92)

  26. He even lied to Letterman and Letterman went off and did a 5 minute bit on that.

    Yeah, how dare he burn that Lefty Hack Latterman, that’ll really piss off all those independent voters who just love them some has – been, warmed – over schtick from a guy who’s lost over half of his audience over the past few years? Latterman’s still whining today about being “treated as an ugly date.” Gosh, that’ll teach McCain not to treat his supposed bettors with the condescending disdain they so richly deserve.

    Dmac (e639cc)

  27. One of the funniest comments was when McCain described the reason he wore a bracelet. Obama retorted “I got a bracelet too”

    Joe - Dallas (d7c430)

  28. Looking back, I think McCain rode Obama down regarding the Iranian question – Obama never answered his charge of allowing a face to face with the nutjob, he just hemmed and hawed until he appealed to Lehrer to please change the subject, and quickly. Obama also made a huge boner with his reference to Kissinger agreeing with his stance, which McCain quickly responded to with incredulity and ridicule – and now Kissinger has responded in kind:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/tws_exclusive_kissinger_unhapp.asp

    That’s gonna leave a mark – look for McCain’s campaign to tie that can to The Messiah’s backside at every opportunity. “Judgement to Lead?”

    Dmac (e639cc)

  29. #21 – I missed the part where the Messiah had to look at his bracelet because he didnt remember the name. That makes his comment even funnier.

    Joe - Dallas (d7c430)

  30. Hey number 5. We all know what astroturfing is, so you don’t need to give us another lesson.

    TimothyJ (8fb937)

  31. What I love is all the liberals and more pessimistics trying to use CBS polls and other MSMs to prop up that Obama held his own???

    What did anyone expect? That they were going to say that the most “intelligent” man ever was going to lose? Please, the surest sign that Obama got his clocked clean is that his media groupies are not having multiple O’s all over TV this morning. If Obama had looked anything more than high school level doofus last night, the MSM would be leading a parade down Pennsylvania Ave this morning.

    Additionally, I thought Obama was the smartest presidential candidate in all of history? That is what every leftist across the globe has been bellowing for a year, how is it ever possible the “One” could lose a debate??? Funny, I have never heard of Jesus losing?

    And what was the idiotic wrap-up from Obama? “My father was from Kenya?” This is a debate about foreign policy, not a recital of his “memiors”.

    LogicalUS (742bd0)

  32. In the next debate (on domestic issues), McCain needs to hammer on his centrist views and bipartisanship and accomplishments. Bashing Obama plays badly with the center, which has got to be his target (Palin holding the Right). Rather he should simply focus things on his experience and willingness to cross the aisle and challenge Obama to match. Everytime Obama tries to claim bipartisanship he only makes it worse. More rope.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  33. It’s amazing to me to to read how the left view of the 1st debate was a win for Obama. You can hear them say, “Don’t confuse me with any facts”

    John Marok (fc043d)

  34. “No, Senator Obama, On This One You Were Wrong and McCain Was Right”
    And this from someone who knows more on this subject than either of them, or any of you, even “Teflon” Don.
    And neither Obama, nor McCain, nor the rest are interested enough to care.

    Readnek (105b91)

  35. I remember that letter when it came out. It was brilliant.

    As to the debate, I remain confused. I saw all Obama’s debates with Clinton. I still have not seen or heard Barack Obama utter a single memorable, interesting, meaningful or amusing line or idea in a debate. Where does his image as a dynamic man or a practitioner of “new politics” come from?

    rrpjr (6135a4)

  36. My dad’s a WWII vet, in his 80’s, and a retired UAW member (from GM). Pretty much a classic Reagan Democrat except he voted “D” back then.

    His view of Obama has long been simply, “That boy don’t know what he’s getting into.” And he’s not using “boy” in any racial sense but in terms of naivity and inexperience.

    That’s just the point the McCain is hammering on. His example of “How’s that gonna go? ‘I’ll burn Israel!’ We reply, ‘No you won’t!'”

    That was sweetly put and right to the point.

    Overall, Obama obscured his positions deliberately and made unsubstantiated attacks against McCain.

    Whitehall (7fd130)

  37. I haven’t seen anyone comment on the fact that Obama claimed his cooperation with McCain on lobby reform, the subject of that letter, as one of his “bipartisan accomplishments.” I guess he forgot that he had lied and ditched the cooperation on that one. I notice he hasn’t made that claim again. This is a man who thinks saying something is an accomplishment.

    Mike K (155601)

  38. No, he didn’t forget. But he hopes that we do.

    PatriotRider (339d92)

  39. “But he fails to realise that that does not justify the blunder of invading Iraq on false or misguided intelligence. ”

    it’s moronic to follow Obama’s illogic here: Ignore that obama was and is wrong on the surge, ignore that he is wrong on timetables, ignore that he is wrong on meeting with foreign leaders without preconditions, he is wrong on how to deal with pakistan, he is wrong on how to approach our allies and adversaries.

    It’s bizarre, foolish and backwards looking to give credit to Obama for that decision over 6 years ago, while he was busy voting ‘prsent’ in Illinois senate, and not discredit for his mistaken policies today in Iraq and elsewhere.

    I thought McCain smoked him in the debates, but what the heck do i know, I actually want a President who will keep us safe and knows the world rather than a President who is expert at pointing fingers, abusing facts, using a teleprompter, and 20/20 hindsight. Apparently some people will be thrilled at the empty suit who would have in 2002 ignored the CIA intelligence. Fascinating.

    Freedoms Truth (cfa2f1)

  40. As to the debate, I remain confused. I saw all Obama’s debates with Clinton. I still have not seen or heard Barack Obama utter a single memorable, interesting, meaningful or amusing line or idea in a debate. Where does his image as a dynamic man or a practitioner of “new politics” come from?

    He wrote works of semi-fiction semi-autobiographies that paint picture of him in a different light from most politicians, enabling him to say mundane political things and make it sound interesting because a half-black guy is saying it. This kind of work is stock-in-trade for the grifters on the left – Turn policies into “narrative”. what obama/Axelrod did was lift/expropriate most of the rhetoric used by the left in the past and grafted it in interesting and creative ways on to Obama’s campaign. Chavez’s “Si se puede” is not “yes, we can”. Alinksy’s “change” is Obama’s “change”. the nutball Rev Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” becomes Obama’s “Hope”. Not to mention his lifting of the ‘fierce urgency of now’.

    It’s an original act of amazingly mundane and unoriginal plagiarism.

    His “new politics” is code word for “left politics” – he’s a former left-wing community activist and most liberal Senator in the U.S.Senate who is selling the same ol’ leftwing slogans and liberal agenda in the new wineskin of the mocha empty suit Obama.

    Freedoms Truth (cfa2f1)

  41. I watched the whole thing. Haven’t quite come to a conclusion on whether or not it will help either much if at all.
    McCain seems to be targeting the 40+ crowd more than any other. Stability, experience, principle, etc. all appeal to this group more than the younger set. (If you are under 40 don’t be offended, soon enough you will be saying things like “young people just don’t have much respect for tradition anymore…”)
    Recall McCain’s acceptance speech and his delivery – Palin has the base excited as well as many young Republicans and I think McCain feels his best target is that older group.
    Obama hurt himself with this group by being too familiar with McCain. When I go home to see my parents I still address their peers as Mr and Mrs.
    I read about a dozen reviews this morning and watched the fox guys after the debate but no one seemed to pick up on one particular incident. When Obama said “your president” I think McCain could have had the smackdown moment by reminding him that Bush is our president and for someone wishing for change and a less partisan atmosphere his comment speaks volumes to the true beliefs he has.

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  42. VOR2,

    Good point. I think you are right that McCain’s debate performance might appeal to older voters. If so, then I think Obama’s interruptions and grimaces could also factor in.

    It seems like the pundits go back and forth: Sometimes they claim most American voters are polarized and only 10% or less are undecided. Other times they indicate 20-30% may be undecided. My feeling is that voters who already support one of these candidates had their opinions reinforced by the debate so, ultimately, the real questions are:

    How many true undecideds are there?
    What do they think about the candidates after this debate?
    Are they going to vote?

    DRJ (c953ab)

  43. Obama IS a television performer. It’s neither good nor bad. This is a guy who gets coached and groomed between takes, and that’s what you see on screen. It could win elections, here. It’s not genuine, it’s artifice. The times we live in.

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)

  44. As Tina Fey would say, ‘this just in.’

    300 Retired Generals And Admirals Endorse John McCain For President

    ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today announced that 300 retired generals and admirals from around the country are endorsing John McCain for president. The retired generals and admirals announced their support with the following letter:

    “We have had the honor and privilege of serving as career officers in the United States Armed Forces, and of serving shoulder to shoulder with so many of the fine young men and women who are the backbone of America’s Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. It is that experience that informs our judgment that John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to serve as America’s Commander-in Chief from the day of his inauguration.

    “Our next president will confront national security challenges as significant as those faced by any administration in at least a generation. Success will require a leader with proven tenacity, judgment and courage. It will also require a leader with detailed knowledge of our military and other instruments of national power, and with years of experience dealing seriously with foreign leaders.

    “John McCain’s entire life has been devoted to the service of America. Throughout a long and distinguished career in the military and in Congress, he has repeatedly displayed the courage and integrity to place America’s interests first — regardless of personal cost. And he has demonstrated the experience and wisdom to lead America — and, importantly, our allies — in effectively dealing with complex and vitally important national security challenges around the world.

    “We unequivocally endorse him to continue his service to the country as the next President of the United States.”

    McCain: 300 military endorsements

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)

  45. Well, the Great Uniter doesn’t seem to like anyone. McCain, Hillary, Bill. Lindsay Lohan. Clingy, bitter white people.

    He does like his volunteer militia working on the Truth Squad. (Hey, do those rules apply to his own lies… or is he exempt?)

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)

  46. VN, to a certain group of Americans the endorsement of 300 retired generals and admirals will be an enormous selling point.

    To another group of Americans (those younger and those who have only seen the unfolding of the Iraq via Daily Kos and MTV ) it will be just another kiss of death for McCain because obviously the military is yet another part of the collective enemy.

    And who is the CoC? It always comes back to Bush.

    Dana (4d3ea0)

  47. sigh. You’re right. It’s like Jeremiah Wright. Which should matter A LOT, the fact he’s a flaming racist, possibly worse than Michelle Obama and William Ayers. (Well, not really. They all hate with Unity.)

    Obama’s close associates and spouse get a free pass. But not whitey. It’s all smoke and mirrors. That’s why the rough edges for a Veep are okay with me: Sarah Palin was actually successful at reform. She walked the walk. It’s not just some campaign B.S. like Obama’s trying to sell. (Let’s see those Annenberg papers.)

    At least McCain and those 300 have kept things safe so creatures like Obama can launch a Truth Squad. WTF!

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)

  48. A debate with a liar is not a fair contest.

    Obama is a liar, at his best. I hope I am wrong about his worst.

    The family of the soldier whose name is on Obama’s bracelet has asked him to stop wearing the bracelet.

    Don Meaker (7f28f0)

  49. “The family of the soldier whose name is on Obama’s bracelet has asked him to stop wearing the bracelet.”

    Well, knowing Obama he’ll send out the Truth Squad to deal with this poor family’s harsh words.

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4150 secs.