Obama may make Iraq visit — but not with McCain

It’s almost entertaining, in an academic sense, to watch multi-faceted Republican attacks unfold before our very eyes. This week, for example, the GOP decided that it was really important that Barack Obama hasn’t traveled to Iraq over the last couple of years.

It started over the weekend, with Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of McCain’s most loyal lackeys, insisted in a TV interview that Iraq is vastly improved since 2006, and Obama should join John McCain for a joint-visit and a briefing from Gen. David Petraeus. Asked whether he’d be willing to take such a trip, McCain told the AP, “Sure. It would be fine.”

On Monday, Memorial Day, McCain pushed this meme, telling reporters Obama’s lack of Iraq visits means he hasn’t “had anything to do with” the war since 2006. He added that he’d like to travel to Iraq with Obama so he could “educate” the Illinois senator “along the way.”

Soon after, the Republican National Committee unveiled a clock on counting the days since the Obama last visited Iraq. RNC Chairman Mike Duncan argued that Obama’s lack of “firsthand” knowledge necessarily “disqualifies him from being commander in chief.”

And soon after that, McCain was in high dudgeon on the issue.

John McCain strongly criticized Barack Obama Wednesday for not visiting Iraq in more than two years and for turning down the Arizona senator’s suggestion that the two should make a joint trip to the country.

“Senator Obama has been to Iraq once — a little over 2 years ago he went and he has never seized the opportunity except in a hearing to meet with Gen Petraeus,” McCain said at a campaign event in Reno, Nevada. “My friends this is about leadership and learning.”

Again raising the issue of Obama’s willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, McCain also said of the Illinois senator, “he wants to sit down with the president of Iran but hasn’t yet sat down with Gen. Petraeus, the leader of our troops in Iraq?”

It’s amazing that McCain and the RNC think Americans are this stupid. Greg Sargent noted yesterday, “It’s hard to imagine they’ll get any real traction with something as transparently silly as this.”

The Obama campaign’s response included a couple of angles. First, on Tuesday, the campaign rejected the idea of a Baghdad stroll out of hand: “John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge.”

Yesterday, after McCain’s latest diatribe on the issue, the Obama campaign added: “On the day after the former White House press secretary conceded that the Bush administration used deception and propaganda to take us to war, it seems odd that Senator McCain, who bought the flawed rationale for war so readily, would be lecturing others on their depth of understanding about Iraq.”

By last night, though, campaign aides acknowledged that Obama has planned to take an overseas trip upon wrapping up the nomination, and Iraq “would obviously be at the top of the list of stops.” Obama told reporters, “I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders, I’m not there to try to score political points or perform. The work they’re doing there is too important.”

As for why this entire line of attack is ridiculous, McCain and his foolish friends seem to believe the only way to understand U.S. policy in Iraq is to go to Iraq. That’s absurd.

Last year, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Lindsey Graham had a rather heated discussion on “Meet the Press” about Iraq. In one contentious exchange, Webb told Graham, “You know, you haven’t been to Iraq.” Graham snapped back, “I’ve been there seven times.” Webb, a decorated veteran and a former Secretary of the Navy, replied, “You go see the dog and pony shows. That’s what congressmen do.”

Jonathan Finer explained shortly thereafter that Graham isn’t the only one basing opinions on scripted, uninformative tours.

Policymakers should be commended for refusing to blindly trust accounts from diplomats, soldiers or journalists. But it’s worth remembering what these visits are and what they are not. Prescient insights rarely emerge from a few days in-country behind the blast walls. […]

It goes without saying that everyone can, and in this country should, have an opinion about the war, no matter how much time the person has spent in Iraq, if any. But having left a year ago, I’ve stopped pretending to those who ask that I have a keen sense of what it’s like on the ground today. Similarly, those who pass quickly through the war zone should stop ascribing their epiphanies to what are largely ceremonial visits.

McCain knows this. He’s hoping you don’t.

“It’s amazing that McCain and the RNC think Americans are this stupid.”

Unfortunately, Americans keep reinforcing that opinion.

  • McCain’s subtext is that Obama is too chicken to go into a war zone. Obama’s people missed that and instead thought it was actually about visiting Iraq to get information, then they caught on and took corrective action. However, their first negative reaction followed by a change in plans makes Obama look hesitant. McCain’s comment that Obama will talk to Iran but not to our troops is especially telling. You can pretend that everyone will see through McCain’s maneuvers, but I think he has successfully added to the portrayal of Obama as duty-shirking and unpatriotic — that is the meme being developed here. Obama is not effectively countering that meme. I don’t understand why his staff thought they could make a statement refusing to go to Iraq? That was majorly stupid.

    Timing of Obama’s one and only trip to Iraq suggests that it came largely because he had decided to run for president. Voters will see through that too. In contrast, Clinton has been to Iraq three times, most recently in Jan 2007. Since two of those trips will be perceived as gratuitous, she earns points for bravery and concern for the troops and our success in Iraq.

    Your arguments about what the people will and will not think rely on everyone believing Obama’s self-serving explanations, living in isolation from other information, and already holding a favorable attitude toward him. He isn’t winning anyone new with his reactions to McCain’s attacks because he clearly doesn’t know how to appeal to anyone outside his current sphere of true believers. He is doing a great job of portraying himself as a wimpy professor and McCain is giving him plenty of opportunity to show that side of him — a side that won’t have broad appeal. Saying that he will go to Iraq after he wins the nomination shows a disdain for the concerns of the voters. He is saying “I don’t need to show you what I’m made of — just vote for me and I’ll put Iraq on my list of travel plans and get around to it later.” This, about a war that is a major concern for so many families with kids fighting, and a drag on our economy. That isn’t how you win an election.

  • On August 31, 1967, Governor [George] Romney made a statement that ruined his chances for getting the [GOP] nomination. In a taped interview with Lou Gordon of WKBD-TV in Detroit, Romney stated, “When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I’d just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.”

    Maybe Lindsay and Senator Angrypants can take him rug shopping with half the Airborne Rangers in tow. That’ll show everybody what’s safe!

  • McCain’s an idiot to bring this up, given the YouTube spot that’s been running all over the ‘net showing him wearing body armor during his walk through an Iraqi neighborhood, superimposed over him insisting, after arriving back home, that the place was perfectly safe and he didn’t have to wear armor at all.

    I think the DNC needs to put together a 30 second spot highlighting some of McCain’s most recent remarks about visiting Iraq, and then showing that one particular juxtaposition. That’s honestly all it would take. Run that ad from now to November and I’d be surprised if McCain pulled 40% in the general. Really.

    Americans are famous for their gullibility, but you have to work within our own enormous capacity for self delusion. When it’s clear we’re being lied to, we get really pissy about it. Obama just needs to make it clear that McCain is lying over and over again.

  • yeah, black-hole Mary, Obama’s trip to Iraq was JUST a political stunt, but the trips MCCain & Graham and other Republicans have made are strctly based on how much they luuuuuuv our troops. Why the fact that these men keep voting for better wages to support our soldiers’ financially and make sure VA hospitals are well-staffed & equipped to deal with their injuries… oooooh, that’s right, they don’t give soldiers jack-squat.

    They did get great deals on rugs though

    Do…things…get heavier when they get closer to you?

    When it comes to

  • I think it’s adorable that Mary still believes people here bother to read her drivel.

  • norbizness said:
    Maybe Lindsay and Senator Angrypants can take him rug shopping with half the Airborne Rangers in tow. That’ll show everybody what’s safe!

    Obama needs to remind everyone about how McCain called the streets of Baghdad safe — after he took a walk surrounded by 100 soldiers and protected by three helicopters. (Actually, the corporate-controlled media should be the ones to pull out the video and remind people about it, but . . . . )

    Obama needs to say he understands that our soldiers are too important to put at risk for a phony photo opportunity. And it wouldn’t hurt to get another shot in about the G.I. Bill by saying that the soldiers who protected McCain’s wrinkled, Depends-coverd ass deserve to be able to go to college if they’re ever allowed to come home.

  • You are right, Mary. Clinton totally has the upperhand in the Iraq war debate. Obviously, the American populace has been amazed by how out in front of this issue Clinton has been and how she hasn’t based all her decisions on political calculations at all.

    /snark


  • “My friends this is about leadership and learning”

    Kind of rich of McCain to talk about “learning”, and about “educating” Obama, considering he still confuses Shia and Sunni, still confuses Al Qaeda with Shia insurgents, still thinks we’ve negotiated with Iran during the Bush years, and still mistakenly thinks Ahmadinejad is the reigning power in Iran.

  • McCain and his foolish friends seem to believe the only way to understand U.S. policy in Iraq is to go to Iraq.

    I think this was an absolutely brilliant move by Lindsay on behalf of McCain, leaving Obama no option but to visit Iraq — in the process, acknowledging that he hadn’t been there for a while AND putting Obama in the subservient position of doing what McCain says he should do. This kind of alpha-dog behavior fits perfectly into the perception of Rs as macho, Ds as weak (see Glenn Greenwald’s new book).

    Who knows, McCain may already have a cameraman lined up to get a shot of Obama riding in a tank.

  • You’ve got to make those trips. Obama doesn’t understand that. Yes, they are political stunts, but it WILL lose him votes. He took a stand that was worse than refusing to kiss babies or eat hoagies.

    TR, I don’t read you either. Nothing I say will change your mind. However, if you Obama supporters continue to live in a bubble of delusion, your guy will drag the Democratic party down the tubes in the Fall. Obama showed he was a neophyte and he got out-maneuvered by McCain, with a lame and tardy correction. Unimpressive. He’s got to do better if he wishes to impress super delegates and convince the party he can win. THEY at least are experienced enough to know that there are some call-outs you cannot refuse. Refusal to admit Obama screwed up here shows how much cool-aid you all have drunk.

  • I don’t understand why his staff thought they could make a statement refusing to go to Iraq?

    Right, you don’t understand. The statement was about a Democrat not jumping like a frightened rabbit to comply with every Republican piece of transparent posturing. You know, jumping to do things like banning flag burning and creating a gas-tax holiday (DOMA/DADT, welfare reform, NAFTA, media deregulation, etc., etc.)…the kind of wimpy subservience to Republican demands that’s always been the Clintons’ specialty.

    But what you really don’t understand is what Americans actually think about Iraq right now and how out of step your and McCain’s perceptions of it are with the American people. One gets the feeling that you’re mummified in 1975, especially but not solely when it comes to military matters.

  • “he wants to sit down with the president of Iran but hasn’t yet sat down with Gen. Petraeus, the leader of our troops in Iraq?”

    So what was the confirmation hearing? stand-up comedy?

  • Run of the mill voters don’t blame Clinton for getting us into the war, the way some progressives do. They are aware of the things she does on the Armed Forces Committee and Foreign Relations Committee to support the troops. That’s part of how she won the popular vote in Texas and why some people who register Republican in those states might support her. These military families are the folks you all insult by assuming they do whatever Rush tells them to.

    Obama would have voted the same as Clinton had he been in the Senate at the time. Politically speaking, you cannot cast a vote opposing a war when there is no chance of stopping it. That isn’t a politically viable choice. As McCain is now doing to Obama, it makes a politician vulnerable to charges of unpatriotic feeling and lack of support for the nation and the troops. Clinton knows that, as do the other politicians who similarly voted for the resolution empowering Bush to take a variety of actions, up to and including what he did. (Democrats in the House can vote against it because their constituencies and districts are smaller and tend to be more polarized in their political beliefs, so they can have support at home for oppositional stands. That is not true for senators elected statewide.) Obama, as a new senator hoping for reelection, would have done the same thing as everyone else did. Evidence of this is his unwillingness now to take any hard stands, his cravenness about voting “present” so many times in the state legislature, and his votes since becoming a senator (which have been identical to Clinton’s, when he has deigned to cast a vote at all).

  • Maria — the average voter doesn’t think like you. THAT is why Obama is not gaining traction in the polls. This hurts him. It doesn’t come across as a bold stand against McCain (why should he even care about what McCain says). It comes across as reluctance to put himself in harm’s way and a lack of concern for our troops. That’s why Obama backtracked. Unfortunately, he did it in a petulant and grudging way — that won’t undo the damage.

  • My uncle used to be a McCain supporter, but he changed his mind last year and his reasoning was that he went rug shopping in the market there with lil Lindsey and said how safe it was and how great Iraq is turning out. Then of course we heard about the 300 troops guarding him and the 3 helicoptors flying shotgun in the sky. Then the place got blown to smithereens 3 days later by suicide bombers and I think it was 65 or more people killed. That alone made him realize McCain wa totally full of shit. He has supported Hillary ever since. He makes a persuasive arguement.
    Lindsey Graham, it should be noted is a closeted homosexual. I don’t care what people do and I have no problem with gays, unless they push anti-gay legislation, discriminate against gays, claim to be huge christians that care about family values and hide their own sexuality. Then I have a problem with it. I know someone that works in his office that confirms that he does indeed suck cock. I think all republicans that are in the closet and discriminate against gays should be outed. Too bad Larry Craig didn’t reach into his stall in the bathroom instead of that cop.

  • TR, I don’t read you either.

    LOL. You just divined what he said with your vaunted intuition? Does the voice of Hillary whisper encouraging words to you when you’re alone in bed at night?

    your guy will drag the Democratic party down the tubes in the Fall

    But dragging down your former party is what you wanted, Mare. You’ve told us how much “fun” it will be for you to have McCain as president. Whyever would you think anyone still cares what you think after that? You so obviously desperately want to be courted–you beg for it every day with your “pay attention to meeeeeeeee” posts–but we wrote you off long ago as a hopelessly insane case. You’re just entertainment for us now.

  • Yes, it is hard to believe, until we consider who they are. It’s taken McClellan almost 2 years to get his mind back from the soupy fog it was turned into.

    The thing I don’t understand is why does anybody think it is a good thing to allow our leaders to go into a war zone, whether we share their political beliefs or not? Besides the goofiness of a McCain walking around a market in a flak vest, what could possibly be learned that is worth the risk?

    Is this is all a plot to dispense with Obama, possibly using Blackwater, with a greater degree of deniability than in the US? It’s horrible to contemplate but its not unthinkable for a crew that got us into an extended Mideast war with lies and propaganda. Obama should resist these irrational delusions of the McCains, Liebermans and other Israelo-fascists and stay at home in the US of A. Its a great place to be. You don’t need to go to Iraq to see the folly and the lies. Just go to Dover and watch the bodies come back. When’s the last time McCain or the RNC went there?

  • That is pretty funny that McCain had the stones to say he wanted to take Obama to Iraq to educate him. What a clown. Obama would have to be high to agree to that kind of invitation. We should send our rug orders to McCain and tell him to get his little buddy to pick them up for us at the market. He better get me a good deal.

  • A seminar from a Clinton supporter on how to win elections is pretty rich. But to the point: Is there any evidence that voters think a politician who visits Iraq displays *physical bravery*? First off, these visits purport to show, in part, how much *safer* Iraq now is. Second, the politicians are clearly kept out of harm’s way. So the claim that voters interpret these visits as brave is very implausible. Dutifully fact-finding, yes. Troop-supporting, yes. But brave? No. No implicit memes here, McCain’s points are right out in the open: (1) no visit = lacks experience, knowledge, judgment; (2) talk with Ahmad and not Pet = unpatriotic. These are pounded every time he and his surrogates open their mouths. Just like McCain = Bush every time Obama and his open theirs. The playbooks on both sides are wide open for all to see.

  • I think this stunt by the Republicansis pretty silly but it plays into the idea that Obama talks big and does nothing. This stunt by the Republicans could backfire in that the Iraqis are very curious about Obama so he could be well-received by them. The only way Obama can fight back is by focusing on what is going on in Iraq right now.

  • In contrast, Clinton has been to Iraq three times, most recently in Jan 2007. Since two of those trips will be perceived as gratuitous, she earns points for bravery and concern for the troops and our success in Iraq.

    I don’t necessarily want to agrue about this topic, but your post has so many false and incomprehensible ideas that I feel forced to do so.
    1) I don’t think you understand what the term gratuitous means? Short answer – “not involving a benefit”. Each of the three politicians in question have traveled to Iraq. Obama has only been once, which is apparently agreed to be an “essential” visit. But since he has not taken any gratuitous (re: non-beneficial) trips, he is now a coward. Huh? How does the number of 2-day visits inside the Green Zone equate to bravery? Soldiers serving in this war are brave. Politicians making photo-op visits for a few days are not brave.
    2) I’m pretty sure that Clinton’s misstatements about sniper fire in Bosnia probably undermined her status as a brave politician.
    3) “Our success in Iraq” I think you have misinterpreted the popular sentiment regarding the war in Iraq. Clinton, or McCain for that matter, are going to receive a boost from the public because they seem to be supportive of all the “success” in Iraq. Over 2/3 of the American public want the U.S. forces to leave Iraq within a year. 1/4 of the public supports an immediate withdrawal. 56% of the public believe that the war was not worth the cost. Supporting the war is not a strong point for McCain or Clinton. Regardless of how much you may want that to be.

  • Micheline, how many photo ops would it take to make you think Obama is the real thing? Would you like him to go to Mt Rushmore like Bush and Hillary? Maybe a look out an airplane window? Personally, I hope people find more important things to judge people by, and your comment saddens me.

  • A seminar from a Clinton supporter on how to win elections is pretty rich

    And a Clinton supporter who doesn’t even know her own state, spewed her ignorance for all to see, and then continued to deny Obama’s strength in CA even after having been presented with every single available poll. But, hey, just because she’s boneheadedly uninformed and doggedly delusional about California doesn’t mean she doesn’t correctly intuit what voters across America are thinking, okay? She’s just that tuned into people.

  • Shorter Mary at #15: Better wrong and strong.

    Of course, when you’re just “being strong” so as not to look weak, you both are and look…weak. I am continually struck how Clinton and her supporters continue to maintain that 90’s and early 00’s defensive crouch. Obama (and Edwards, who learned from the ’04 campaign) think the way to be and look strong is to have a foreign policy conviction and stand their ground against Rep charges of weakness. And they think that the disaster of Iraq gives them the political opening to stake out contrasts and stick up for them. Principled and politically pragmatic.

  • haha, black-hole Mary thinks Obama is not gaining any ground.

    Whatever parallel universe black-hole Mary lives in, I hope for her sake IQ tests aren’t mandatory.

  • One should consider that Hon. Sen. Obama was probably going to do some sort of overseas tour after he felt he could (more) safely assume that he was going to be the nominee (If and when sanity returns). That being the case, why not make it seem like he’s following the sage advice of the venerable and Hon. Sen. McCain?

  • I have a son in law there, and I don’t want his life to used as a political coy for being voted president. I want to know are you really going to make a change or do you plan on making the rich -richer and the po-poer. I have grandchildren and I want to know what will they future be like. Thats my main concern, not if he went to Iraq. When was the last time you visited the poor communities, homeless shelters, foster cares or even food shelters. What are you doing about homeless people, jobless people or families losing there homes. 100 years is a long time to stay in Iraq, will my grandson have a father, will my daughter have a husband. Will they even have a place to stay. We are building up Iraq with billions and billions of dollars and sending jobs over seas. What about us.

  • Is this the same McCain that claims Petraeus drives around in an unarmed Humvee? Yeah, I’m sure he can teach Obama a ton.

  • Or is it the McCain who doesn’t know the difference between Shia and Sunni? I’m sure those lessons will be enormously helpful to Obama.

  • Or maybe it’s the McCain who thinks the leader of Iran is Ahmedijanid (sp?)? Obama could sure learn a thing from that McCain guy.

  • Obama showed he was a neophyte and he got out-maneuvered by McCain… -Mary

    Given that is how you feel, how do you rationalize supporting the candidate who has been consistently outmaneuvered by the ‘neophyte?’

    Politically speaking, you cannot cast a vote opposing a war when there is no chance of stopping it. -Mary

    That’s patently untrue. 126 Democratic representatives did just that. Six Republican representatives did just that. Bernie Sanders did just that. Twenty-one Democratic senators and one Republican senator voted against it as well along with Jim Jeffords. That’s 156 elected officials who completely disagree with you, or about 20% of congress.

    I’d go as far to say that, if you oppose and unstoppable war, voting against it is the only move you can make politically, and you’re wrong in your assumption that it didn’t affect Hillary. It was the foot in the door that Obama needed. Had she opposed the Iraq war, she truly would’ve been unstoppable.

    Thanks to that vote, we ended up with the vastly superior candidate.

  • Helen St. Louis:
    Most blog comments — definitely including most of mine — are as much for our own egos as anything else. We — here — are basically ‘a bunch a people in a bar arguing about how Willie overuses his bullpen.’ We may have some valuable insights, might even occasionally start a discussion that echoes what is going on in the outside world, might even be more right about things that the professionals who are paid to right about such things, but we don’t matter all that much. (And Steve, I said, and meant, ‘comments.’ Blog posts — at least from the major bloggers — are obviously different. You, and those like you, are important and, even though you may not be a veteran of years playing shortstop, your proven insights make it possible to have an effect. You, and those like you, are the Gammons and Lupica of politics.)

    I mention this, Helen, because yours is different. It may not be as well written as some (‘coy’ should be ‘ploy,’ for example — or ‘they future’) but that doesn’t matter. It so obviously comes from the heart that I could imagine Obama reading it as part of a speech — and everybody hearing it feeling just the feelings you express.

    Thank you for bringing us back, a little, from the horse-race analogy, or the latest inanity from Hillarious, to remind us what really is at stake this year.

    (And, to the die-hard Hillary supporters who claim they will abandon the party if Obama is nominated, you who need the reminder the most, can you read this and maintain your position? I knew, months ago, that while I might vote a protest vote if Hillarious was selected, it was only because i live in New York, and if the election were close here, it would be already lost elsewhere. As much as I consider her ‘mad, bad, and dangerous to know,’ there is no equivalence between her and McCain. I’d have to be rooting for her as I cast my protest.)

  • I think that this actually is not smart of McCain to call him out on going to visit a war that 75% of Americans think is a a bad war. I dont think that this will change the mind of any undecided voter, and it really won’t change the mind of a Obama supporter. Truly, th only people that he is making happy are his supporters, which I see is a waste of time. The accusation that Obama will meet with our enemies before he meets with Gen. Patreus is obserd and was also a waste of news time and energy. No one actually believes that would happen except McCain supporters and some of them actually realize how obserd that truly is.

    This is just another one of those silly attacks that educated sensible voters are actually tired of hearing. If I was McCain I would stick to the issues and policy and quit trying to personally attack Obama. If the man can survive the Rev Wright thing, you attacking his position against a war that 75% of the country is against as well, is a losing battlle. I wish McCain would be himself and stop being the conservative that he isn’t. Actually, keep doing that! I dont want you to win anyway. I did lose respect for him though.

  • Helen’s Comments are striking and I think she should send those comments to the candidates. Thank you Helen!

  • Mary:
    As for the question of ‘voting against a war’ well, you come across as too young to remember Vietnam, and the “Gulf of Tonkin” Resolution. Only two Democratic Senators voted against it — and one Republican Representative was ‘paired against’ it. And yes, they were defeated in 1968. But it was that initial opposition that gave the anti-war members of ‘the establishment’ suitable cover to keep working against the war — and Senator Fullbright’s repudiation of his vote was a turning point.

    And, as you contemplate voting for McCain in protest to the nasty way you believe your candidate was treated, remember that a lot of people acted just like you and voted for Nixon in 1968 — and the war lasted a half dozen years and way too many deaths too long because they made that choice.

  • I think a good comment Obama should make is “Why should we pull troops off their important missions just to have to nursemaid a dog-and-pony show for some politicians?”

  • Colbert beautifully sums up the McCain philosophy about visiting war zones:

    “I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers, and rubble, and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message: that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound—with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.”

  • Dean:
    Couldn’t resist disputing your one line:
    “I wish McCain would be himself and stop being the conservative that he isn’t.”

    But he IS a conservative, and always has been. Yes, he has occasionally spoken about — and even acted — against the flow of mainstream Republicanism, but it hasn’t been based on any sort of consistent philosophy, like his much greater predecessor who also served as Senator from Arizona and led Republicans to a monumental defeat. (That is why so many other conservatives, including his colleagues, don’t trust him.)

    Goldwater DID have a philosophy — and while he violated it by throwing a bone to the racists when he opposed the civil rights act, I have no doubt he regretted doing that — and causing a parade of the most ignorant of racists, RRs, and the like into his party — for the rest of his life.

    But McCain’s occasional ‘maverick’ stands — and even the few that he actually carries through on when it comes down to voting — seem like ’emotional spasms’ rather than ‘principled stands.’ He and the Bush family authentically hate each other — even though McCain’s foreign policies are ‘Bush’s Third Term.’ He’s clueless about the Religious Right — but he tries hard to get their votes. (And simply succeeds in convincing them he can’t be trusted. They feel — and I agree — that a McCain Presidency would do nothing to advance their social agenda and that he might, in office, not differ from Obama or Hillarious on abortion or gay rights or shutting down the line of RR ‘back-channel’ communication between preachers and the White House.) He has no economic policy — not even a wrong one like Goldwater had.

    But he is, despite these vagaries, as truly conservative — in the modern Republican sense — as were any of his rivals.

  • #29 Thank you for your comment, Helen, and I hope that your son will soon safely come home. You are right that we need to get our priorities straight – caring for people who need help rather than engaging in endless war. That is why I support Barack Obama; I believe he is our best chance at getting our house in order.

    Re McCain: I am already sick and tired of his condescending attitude and smug smile (replacing the bush smirk) towards Obama on foreign & military affairs. He’s wrong, wrong, wrong on Iraq and on caring for the military. Keep it up, McCain. You will lose on this issue alone.

  • Mary, this is getting silly. We know how you feel. Everything Obama does is wrong, everything Clinton does is right. I think you can spare us the rest of the details. Somehow you paint Obama as the inept politician when it is your canidate who blew a nomination she’s been favored to win for YEARS. It wasn’t sexism that cost her the nomination. She screwed it up. Period.

  • It wasn’t sexism that cost her the nomination. She screwed it up. Period.

    How unsurprising that you would use a code word for menstruation to wrap up your little trashing of Senator Clinton. Women are used to men equating natural female reproductive processes with “screwing up.” But if you think we’ll be voting for Senator Gynophobia in November, you’re bloody wrong.

  • ….Have you heard about conspiracy theory?..it happens everyday people are fighting for power and i believe that is what we are seen against hillary………………they rally round to make sure she drop out the race…………in fact they all afraid of the clintons and what they can achieve………..they are afraid their name will be embedded in diamond or golden block in american history…….afraid she would do better than her husband……………………………..they are all scared of their good legacies…………..
    …according to BILL CLINTON “THERE IS A COVER UP”……….THEY ganged up….BUT who are they?
    David Axelrod whose daughter benefitted from hillary clinton and bill clinton health policies during her epilepsy illness is now contracted to smear hillary in public eye bcos shes seen as the only formidable woman who had come out to be the first america woman president…..why do we look at they husband and wife instead they can deliver?????…if you doubt what i ever said check out the link below
    check this out…..
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1

  • ….Have you heard about conspiracy theory?..it happens everyday people are fighting for power and i believe that is what we are seen against hillary………………they rally round to make sure she drop out the race…………in fact they all afraid of the clintons and what they can achieve………..they are afraid their name will be embedded in diamond or golden block in american history…….afraid she would do better than her husband……………………………..they are all scared of their good legacies…………..
    …according to BILL CLINTON “THERE IS A COVER UP”……….THEY ganged up….BUT who are they?
    David Axelrod whose daughter benefitted from hillary clinton and bill clinton health policies during her epilepsy illness is now contracted to smear hillary in public eye bcos shes seen as the only formidable woman who had come out to be the first america woman president…..why do we look at they husband and wife instead they can deliver?????…if you doubt what i ever said check out the link below
    check this out…..
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.

  • I’ve never been to iraq and I know more about it in my little toe than McCain would if you drilled a hole in that granite blockhead and filled it with the information.

  • On May 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm, Mary, Mother of Odd, said:
    It wasn’t sexism that cost her the nomination. She screwed it up. Period.

    How unsurprising that you would use a code word for menstruation to wrap up your little trashing of Senator Clinton. Women are used to men equating natural female reproductive processes with “screwing up.” But if you think we’ll be voting for Senator Gynophobia in November, you’re bloody wrong.
    _______________

    That was very funny. What would’ve been the response had the quote been “She screwed it up. End of story?”

    Of course, women have always been associated with the nurturing and wonderful yet burdensome chore of caring for children, putting them to bed and readin them a bedtime story. And of course, when those boys grow up to become men, taking them to bed and “screwing them.” How typically male of you to remind women of “their place” in history as nothing more than either the verbal or sexual fantasy fulfillment of males who will then grow up to destroy the world! I think we’ve ahd quite enough of that, and I’m not alone!

    Something like that, maybe? 🙂

  • Masry is one of the 12 percent who think the Earth is flat and the 18 percent who think the sun revolves around the Earth.

    You do have to give her credit for demonstrating so thoroughly a new and completely original definition of what a Bimbo is. She proves that possession of college degrees has no connection to intelligence.

  • I’m surprised that no-one in the media has pointed out the utter insanity of McCain’s suggestion that he and Obama (one of whom is most likely to be the next president) should go into a WAR ZONE TOGETHER. Talk about putting a country’s eggs all in one basket. Leslie Graham’s & McCain’s idea is just plain stupid.

  • Obama might as well go with McCain. Then he’s sure to get a lot of protection…with all those soldiers surrounding McCain and those Blackhawk helicopters.

  • “Funny”, how cheese-paring McCain, who doesn’t think we can afford to improve the lot of veterans via the GI Bill, can rationalise the expense of those pointless junkets to I-wreck’s Green Zone…

  • There is nothing to learn by going to the propaganda tour led by Petraeus. It IS the dog and pony show as we now know. McCain and Graham and Lieberman got people killed as a direct result of their market place visit which accomplished nothing else.

    I flashed on the conversation with Michael at his dad’s funeral in “The Godfather” when asked, “Do you know how they are going to come at you?”. If Obama were assassinated after clinching the dem nomination while in Iraq by a so called terrorist look at what could possibly result. The dem party would be thrown into disarray, the McCain “hero” meme would be thrown everywhere…it is almost sickening to even think about.

    Why put everything in jeopardy just to respond to a “I called you chicken” tactic by McCain and Graham to get Obama to to go on a pointless propaganda tour of Iraq where nothing of value could possibly result. Please Obama, DON’T GO!

    Yu don’t have to go there to know what is going on. You won’t see anything of value that you don’t already know. Don’t take a chance because these people will stop at nothing to maintain power in the US. All they need is another four more years to throw us into permanent war and end our democracy in favor of a corporatocracy. Riding in a Humvee in Iraq is the same as riding in a convertible in Dallas.

    When was the last time Bush was in Iraq for a tour? Ask the troops about Iraq after you get them home. Please Obama, don’t go to Iraq…they can get away with killing anybody there.

  • Fortunately, Obama has had the good insight to see that nothing is to be learned by going to Iraq and refuses to be a part of the Dog and Pony show. Look at what all the constant trips have done for McCain besides wasting the taxpayers money and getting Iraqis killed. He still doesn’t know who we are fighting…Sunnis, Shiites or al Qaeda or how many different insurgent groups there are from each. To him all roads lead to Iran, something he could have concluded without ever having gone to Iraq. In fact every conclusion McCain reached he reached before he went to Iraq. McCain, in spite of his many visits, has gotten everything about Iraq wrong. He still thinks he should be greeted as a liberator and refuses to see a civil war when it is right in front of him.

    The goal of the surge has not been reached by any measure. Obama and all the other potential visitors will be told violence is down and since he will be overly protected like McCain and kept away from any ongoing violence he will see nothing that he could not have just been told before visiting.

    Thank God Obama has enough sense not to waste time and money on pointless and fruitless excursions. These Iraq visits allow McCain and Lieberman and Graham to get to go play army and act like they are the courageous heroes by pretending they are like the generals who can order troops around and keep them in Iraq. They get to be the first hand war cheerleaders and boost their egos in the process. What other occupation of a country has allowed such war acting. It’s pathetic for these people to make so many visits to a war zone…when Disney has such activities right here in America.

    The answer is clear. Obama simply has more class than McCain and Graham and Lieberman.

  • Any noncombatant, esp. a politician/celebrity of any sort, adds to the already high risk of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before making a publicized visit, anyone with conscience needs to take responsibility and consider the troops. They are already overburdened and shorthanded there. To keep a high profile visitor safe, would require more personnel and vehicles. The logistics and personnel for such a visit would result in creating and calling attention to a large target group. No insult or disrespect to our military, I know they can handle the situation, but are visits by politicians really necessary? The best way to support our military there is to create an intelligent way to bring them home. Don’t make our troops easier targets by having them gathered together in large groups simply to fulfill the desire of visiting politicians, regardless of who they may be.

  • Comments are closed.