Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Ticket: Obama/Biden = Change/Experience?

So by now those on the txtmsg list got the message early this morning: “I have some important news that I want to make official. I’ve chosen Joe Biden to be my running mate.” It’s official: It’s Obama/Biden

i've been watching the morning talking fringe elements this morning. Besides the non-stop cut to the cameras staked out at Biden's Delaware home waiting for a glimpse of the VP candidate, all three of the cable news stations (CNN, MSNBC and FOX) have all been saying the exact same thing: Does this choice by Barack expose his weakness in his own abilities? Then they cut to McCain's latest ad that basically says the same thing.

Hmmm... i wonder how they all arrived at the same script?

So what are they talking about? For the past number of months, what they've been complaining about Barack is his perceived lack of experience. Well, then it makes perfect sense to go after Biden, doesn't it?

We forget that the modern VP choice is all about going after a specific demographic. Biden will help in going after the Hillary supporters; he'll be able to help with the senior citizen vote and he'll help in some of the southern belt.

Objectively it makes sense: Obama needed to squelch the naysayers by saying he didn't have enough experience and he did it by choosing Biden. It wasn't because he had a weakness; it was because he was smart enough to help his ticket.

Change and Experience: 2008

Posted by john trevisani at August 23, 2008 7:23 AM
Comments
Comment #259254

Are most Americans stupid?Which sane human being could actually cast a vote for McCain? WISDOM is what can save America and GOD gave you Obama and you are still questioning him.Are you perfect yourself?Obama-biden is the best team for America to balance itself.What an ungrateful nation,just make the mistake of losing this precious gift and you will weep till the last days of your lives.Perhaps you have not done enough weeping these past 8 years.

Posted by: eric at August 23, 2008 10:07 AM
Comment #259255

YAY Great choice, Still has my vote.

Posted by: napajohn at August 23, 2008 10:18 AM
Comment #259257

Biden wasn’t my first choice for president, but he has been my choice for VEEP. I believe him to be the most qualified and ‘O’s best bet to help him in Novembr…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 23, 2008 10:35 AM
Comment #259264

I turned on CNN about an hour ago and the first thing I heard from Blitzer was, has Hillary been snubbed in this whole process and an ad from McCains campaign showing Biden denouncing Obama’s abilities and reinforcing McCain. Right now though it looks as though the main focus is on Hillary and whether or not she was slighted and what sort of effect his choice will have on her supporters. Of course CNN started this Hillary build up yesterday in anticipation of Obama’s choice. I guess it must be imperative to have some news worthy controversy even if it means creating it themselves.

I think in the total scope of things Obama made a very good choice. Rather than go with a geographical or gender related choice he simply went with the person of experience that can help him in his presidential duties the most. I am glad he chose an avenue of responsibility rather than one of convenience.

Posted by: RickIL at August 23, 2008 11:54 AM
Comment #259267

Its a brave and risky choice Obama has made. Its obvious he has put his country first and himself second. I commend him on his choice for VP. If this is any indication of how he will fill cabinet seats and such then it is a very positive step for this country.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 23, 2008 12:21 PM
Comment #259268

Personally, I think Hillary would have been a better choice - but then, having been an alternate delegate for her, I’m biased.

Biden has more experience than Hillary, but she’s scary-smart and knows the issues cold. But that’s all could-shoulda-woulda-beens for now.

Has anyone picked up on rawstory.com how there are those Republicans who are trying to imply that Obama’s the ‘antichrist’? Remember how they called Hillary the same thing?

To a Christian like myself, it makes me nauseous to see religion being so blatantly used for politically partisan motives. One of the things that encouraged me to leave the Republican party back in mid 90’s was seeing how they were using the Evangelicals’ beliefs to manipulate them into voting Republican…and watching how the Evangelicals couldn’t see that manipulation for what it was made me very sad for them.

BUT now some of those Evangelicals (I’m not Evangelical, btw) are starting to wake up, to see how they’ve been used. Hopefully, this will be a long-term awakening on their part, and not just a temporary waking dream while they’re being led down the path that ‘permanent Republican majority’.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 23, 2008 12:26 PM
Comment #259276

Biden is an excellent choice - I liked my Governor, Tim Kaine but Biden is smart, personable, passionate, and will have no trouble punching McCain in the mouth as Obama stays above that fray.

We shouldn’t overestimate the VPs importance to an election. George H.W. Bush won 30 states with Dan Quayle for god’s sake.

Biden does have foreign policy experience and knows the Middle East backwards and forwards. It will help alleviate fears that Obama doesn’t have the foreign policy experience to be commander in chief.

Though I don’t see why that has even been an issue - McCain has tons of experience but has gained no knowledge from his experience. He was wrong on Iraq and still is, he is wrong on Iran, he is wrong on Russia/Georgia (and has a real conflict of interest there). Iraq and the US are about to ink a deal which pretty much validates what Obama has been saying all along. Where is McCain on this issue now? McCain is an empty suit and as someone said on another thread, he sounds so bad stumbling over a written speech because they are not his ideas because he has none of his own. But did you hear? He was a prisoner of war - I know it’s been a tightly held secret in his campaign and he doesn’t like to talk about it but I just heard his plane was shot down in Vietnam and he was held prisoner for 5 years where he was tortured regularly. But from this lesson he learned that we, the USA would never torture … well … we would never get bogged down in another unwelcome occupation … well … hmmm … maybe he learned nothing after all.

I give Biden two thumbs up! I’m glad he will finally get to the White House as #2.

Posted by: tcsned at August 23, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #259279

Let’s be realistic here. Senator Biden is the new Dick Cheney. He was chosen for the exact same reason: to run from the background the administration of a less-than-capable president.
While Bush needed a guiding hand because of stupidity and inability, Obama’s problem stems from plain ignorance of basic facts about this country and it’s foreign policy. This is a guy who, up until a few months ago, thought there were 57 states in the union. One of the many reasons I decided not to vote for him. Shouldn’t a presidential candidate have basic First Grade knowledge about the country he’ll be running? Yeah, he will need Biden to run the country if he’s elected.
But what about the election itself? Compared to some of the other choices, Biden will be a bit of a drag on the ticket. McCain is already putting together adds featuring statements Biden made during the primaries regarding Obama’s lack of capability. He’s also made several other highly publicized gaffes over the past few years which the Republican talk shows will drag out and dust off on Monday.
In addition to not bringing in many votes from outside the party, Biden doesn’t have much to offer electorally, being from a solid blue state. It might have been more prudent for Obama to pick Governor Kaine of Virginia, which may have allowed him to pull ahead of McCain in what used to be a solid red state. Instead of going on the offense electorally, Obama is going to spend much of the campaign having to defend his own territory in places like Minnesota. If McCain flips Minnesota, where he’s having his convention and may pick the governor as Veep, Obama’s going to have a lot of lost ground to make up.

Posted by: Allen M. at August 23, 2008 1:33 PM
Comment #259282

Biden will make an excellent attack-dog for Obama as was proven in his attacks on Obama. When the two are seen together at campaign rally s, Biden will be the one in long pants.

I wonder how well Obama will be able to contain Biden’s long-held positions that are in opposition to Obama’s.

Posted by: Jim M at August 23, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #259284

A senator who’s been in Washington since 1973???
Will Obama be able to use the word “change” anymore without being laughed off stage?

Posted by: TheEnd at August 23, 2008 2:04 PM
Comment #259285

“Senator Biden is the new Dick Cheney….from the background the administration of a less-than-capable president.”

Well, they would have to get elected first, but if that unlikely event happened, Biden might have competition from Daschle, who is supposed to be in the running for COS. The concept is valid, though, presidents now are the front man for the photo ops, with a VP who pulls the strings from behind the scenes.

On HRC being mentioned in this thread or the previous one, I would imagine the response would be something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frFfQsDYeA4 at least from WJC.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 23, 2008 2:22 PM
Comment #259287

First The One allows HRC to dominate the convention then he picks Biden as a running mate…Obama is demonstrating monumental arrogance and stupidity. What a gift to the McCain campaign.

Posted by: Snardius at August 23, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #259292

While I’ve thought Hilary might have been a better candidate for POTUS than Barack, It’ll be interesting to see how these two campaign styles come out.

I think McCain has already become completely superficial and rhetorical. How well Obama keeps from getting drawn into that will be revealing. If he wins by staying out the fray and being more substantive, maybe the American voter HAS learned something.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 23, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment #259303

Allen M
Let’s be realistic here. Senator Biden is the new Dick Cheney. He was chosen for the exact same reason: to run from the background the administration of a less-than-capable president.

Please give us a break here. Dick Cheney is nothing short of the lowest form of politician. And I think that is putting it politely. I also think it has to be recognized that while Obama may not have decades of experience in Washington, you can in no way equivocally compare the intelligence level of GW with that of Obama. With Bush and Cheney you got a puppet and puppeteer working a purely partisan agenda which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs of the American people. Theirs was a purely partisan agenda aimed at furthering the wants of the wealthy at our expense. There is no fair comparison here. These are two totally different partnerships with completely different agendas. Trying to lower Obama, Biden to the level of Bush, Cheney is a misconception that is obvious, and will backfire.

Posted by: RickIL at August 23, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #259307

ohrealy,

I guess I’m having a “duh” moment.

You said, “Biden might have competition from Daschle, who is supposed to be in the running for COS.”

WTF is a COS?

Do you mean Secretary of State?

Posted by: KansasDem at August 23, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #259310

“A senator who’s been in Washington since 1973???
Will Obama be able to use the word “change” anymore without being laughed off stage?”

TheEnd,

To quote Joe Biden, “Yes”!

Seriously, Biden has not always towed the party line. If he’s been in the pocket of special interests he certainly didn’t prosper from it!

Posted by: KansasDem at August 23, 2008 6:13 PM
Comment #259312

This obviously brought me back into the fray because I supported Biden as POTUS to begin with. To me this shows that Obama will exercise excellent judgement!

OTOH who is McCain surrounding himself with?

Posted by: KansasDem at August 23, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #259316

I think Joe Biden is an excellent choice for VP. He is among the elite in the Senate in his efforts to understand the war in Iraq. In a time of war, even as a republican I can’t think of a better VP from your side.

It’s Obama who isn’t qualified to be Commander of our armed forces in time of war. Obama will probably be the only one of the four candidates who has no foreign policy experience.

If you don’t like my words, I will defer to someone who has far more experience than I, your vp candidate Joe Biden. I will use Joe as my source!!


Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 23, 2008 7:57 PM
Comment #259317

Obama needs an attack dog who will throw the dirt right back at mudslinging McCain, leaving Obama free to remain above the mudslinging. Biden is an outstanding choice for that role.

If McCain wants a character fight, he will now get it in spades. Biden has a very long inside knowledge of McCain as Senator and years of ammunition to retort with if McCain wants to continue on the low road of character assassination.

The Rovian protege’s on McCain’s staff will find they have met their match in Biden.

Wish American politics didn’t have to be conducted this way, but, there will always be the Rove’s and McCain’s seeking to get ahead by fallaciously trashing anyone standing in their way.

So be it. Excellent Choice, Obama given the necessity of the situation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2008 8:04 PM
Comment #259318

Craig Holmes, Obama is more capable than McCain to be CIC, by virtue of his intelligence, and knowing what he doesn’t know, which means he will seek the best possible information and criterion to make CIC decisions. McCain thinks in terms of Black Hats and White Hats, and believes he already knows all he needs to know. That is what he says on the Campaign Trail. Which makes him the lesser of the two candidates for CIC.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2008 8:07 PM
Comment #259319

John:

As a McCain supporter, I have to tell you that I don’t have this “oh crap” feeling about the Biden choice. There are so many quotes from Biden when he was a candidate that agree with my thoughts on Obama.

Biden had it right when he had an active campaign. He said it would be a disaster to nominate someone without foreign policy experience in a time of war.

When asked if he wanted to VP slot he said “no” but would do it if asked.

This campaign is about one thing, Obama. I think by nominating someone who is qualified to be president, it will only show the shallowness of your candidate. He literally has only shown one presidential skill. He is the most skilled orator in politics that I have ever seen.

This is a close race, and I don’t really have a clue who will win. It is close because you have a weak candidate in a time when your party should be up at least by 10%.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 23, 2008 8:09 PM
Comment #259321

Kansas

To me this shows that Obama will exercise excellent judgement!

Agreed. I also think it shows that he not only will but has already shown excellent judgment.

I can not say as I can remember Bush ever showing good judgment, let alone excellent judgment.

Posted by: RickIL at August 23, 2008 8:25 PM
Comment #259322

David
I have to disagree, BHO may be very intelligent, but intelligence alone does not qualify him for the Presidency. Now intelligence with experience with at least being Governor of one of the 50 would be a big plus. I give BHO one thing, he was smart enough to pick someone with experience in government.

Posted by: KAP at August 23, 2008 8:25 PM
Comment #259323

David:

You don’t have much evidence to back that up. It’s just your opinion. Biden has far more experience than you do, and he believes McCain is a far better choice for CIC.

Obama has NEVER been tested in a war situation. You are simply assuming he will be better because of our own bias.

Besides if he is more qualified that McCain for CIC as you call it, there would be no need for Biden. Biden is to cover his weakness.

The only thing I have against Biden is that he was opposed to the surge. He was very clear that it would not work. His judgment on the surge like Obama’s has proven to be wrong. Hopefully he will admit it, something Obama has refused to do.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 23, 2008 9:09 PM
Comment #259324

When the background stories about Biden are told, they will wipe away most of the mud slung in his direction.

(link)”His wife and infant daughter died in a car accident shortly after he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. His two young sons, Beau and Hunter, were seriously injured in the accident, but both eventually made full recoveries. Biden was sworn into office from their bedside. Persuaded not to resign in order to care for them, Biden began the practice of commuting an hour and a half each day on the train from his home in the Wilmington suburbs to Washington, DC, which he continues to do.”

Biden also knows how many homes he owns; he doesn’t own a house in Washington DC; he commutes. As i commute from time-to-time from Wilmington, i’ve seen him on the train. For me, it was rewarding to see a US Senator without a posse, just a briefcase coming home from work to spend time with his family.

Biden’s the real deal and can relate to the common man.

Posted by: john trevisani at August 23, 2008 9:12 PM
Comment #259325

RickIL,

Please give us a break here. Dick Cheney is nothing short of the lowest form of politician. And I think that is putting it politely. I also think it has to be recognized that while Obama may not have decades of experience in Washington, you can in no way equivocally compare the intelligence level of GW with that of Obama. With Bush and Cheney you got a puppet and puppeteer working a purely partisan agenda which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs of the American people. Theirs was a purely partisan agenda aimed at furthering the wants of the wealthy at our expense. There is no fair comparison here. These are two totally different partnerships with completely different agendas. Trying to lower Obama, Biden to the level of Bush, Cheney is a misconception that is obvious, and will backfire.

Yes, of course Biden and Cheney are two different types of politicians; but that doesn’t change the fact that like Cheney, Biden will be the brains of the operation running things from behind the scenes.
As for intelligence, yes they have two separate problems. Bush is a stupid guy who makes many dumb mistakes, while Obama is simply ignorant (I could also mention McCain’s senility, but that’s another discussion). Obama is just now learning basic stuff about our country that most school kids know. Bush may be stupid, but at least he knew how many states there are before he tried running for President.

KansasDem,

I guess I’m having a “duh” moment.
You said, “Biden might have competition from Daschle, who is supposed to be in the running for COS.”
WTF is a COS?

I’m guessing he meant White house Chief of Staff.

Posted by: Allen M. at August 23, 2008 9:35 PM
Comment #259326

John McCain’s add on the subject. Pretty amusing if you’re not a hardcore Dem.

Posted by: TheEnd at August 23, 2008 9:47 PM
Comment #259327

John:

I’m not so sure you will see a huge mud slinging deal with Biden. Biden has been pretty wrong on Iraq from many viewpoints. From your viewpoint, he voted for Iraq, then from the Republican viewpoint he opposed the surge. If you look at Biden’s comments through the last year, he has been pretty far off the mark. If you take a look at what Biden said last September:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/biden-petraeus-dead-flat-wrong-on-iraq

It’s a matter of judgment. Both Biden and Obama were soo far off the mark!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 23, 2008 10:07 PM
Comment #259329

Craig if the surge was as successful as the right claim it to be why are we not coming home until 2012? This just seems to be more smoke and mirrors and perhaps Obama and Biden are more on the mark than you give them credit for.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 23, 2008 10:50 PM
Comment #259330

Good choice by Obama. Biden was the only one in the Dem. debates that seemed to understand what was and was not important. He seems like a decent man but I’m always drawn to people who don’t speak through a filter and just say what’s on their mind - as long as what they are saying isn’t too far off from my beliefs. I also looked into the plagiarism stuff and it seems weak. I hope the R don’t try to beat that horse but the 7 houses thing is weak too. Why don’t they try talking policies?

Anyway, I figured Obama would pick more of an unknown. Why pick someone who will highlight your deficiencies? Also, it seems Biden doesn’t think very highly of Obama…awkward.

Posted by: andy at August 23, 2008 11:24 PM
Comment #259332

j2T2

Craig if the surge was as successful as the right claim it to be why are we not coming home until 2012? This just seems to be more smoke and mirrors and perhaps Obama and Biden are more on the mark than you give them credit for.

Same reason it always takes a few years when we finish a war. Hmmmm, the civil war, wwII, Korea, Bosnia, First gulf war etc etc. All have involved US forces staying near to make sure the war stays over.

That being said, I think basically Biden is a pretty decent guy. Obama just isn’t qualified. When every have we elected a freshman senator with no military experience in the middle of a war to be CIC? This will be a first. You can go back to Lincoln, but there was no war when Lincoln was elected.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 12:11 AM
Comment #259334

J2T2:

You know this isn’t good. The Biden selection is proof that Hillary is right on with the 3am add. Biden is “shoring up a weakness”. That is ok most of the time. But we are at war. Actually we have two of them. And all of you on the left nominated a man that needs Biden to shore up a weakness, which is fully admitting that he ain’t no CIC!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 12:27 AM
Comment #259337

“Biden has far more experience than you do, and he believes McCain is a far better choice for CIC.”

Craig,

That’s bull crap! That’s a perfect example of “drinking the kool-aid”. That clip of Biden praising McCain was circa 2005 I believe! That was the pre-talibangical, pre-drill-crazy McCain.

I said many times that I could easily have considered voting for McCain ……… the circa 2000 McCain!

You watch. Biden will get on message, and he’ll smile while he’s ripping butt!

Posted by: KansasDem at August 24, 2008 1:43 AM
Comment #259338

“I’m guessing he meant White house Chief of Staff.”

Thanks Allen. I wouldn’t see that as a problem. I don’t remember either Daschle or Biden dropping the f-bomb on each other on the Senate floor.

Posted by: KansasDem at August 24, 2008 1:45 AM
Comment #259339

” If you take a look at what Biden said last September:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/biden-petraeus-dead-flat-wrong-on-iraq

It’s a matter of judgment. Both Biden and Obama were soo far off the mark!!”

Craig Holmes,

So, have you really looked at what’s going on in Iraq? Kirkuk is a real bone of contention between the Shia dominated government and the Kurds, The Iranian aligned Shia government is now threatening to reign in (and arrest) the Sunni’s who’ve helped battle AQI ………….. it’s a powder keg!

Much of Bagdad is physically divided man! By cement barriers, but seperating the warring factions was a bad idea?????????

It’s just like the difference between a time-line and a time-horizon! It’s all smoke and mirrors! It’s rhetorical BS!

The democratically elected Iraqi government is demanding we have ALL troops out by late 2011! Obama is proposing a 16 month pullout based on conditions on the ground. What’s the difference?

If things do start to go south (like genocide) are we then going to overthrow yet another Iraqi government? Or would McCain simply refuse to leave?

At the end of the day our invasion of Iraq was a big wet kiss for Iran! It was, it is, and it will always be!!!!!!!

Posted by: KansasDem at August 24, 2008 2:06 AM
Comment #259340

Good to see the old KD back again !!!

Posted by: janedoe at August 24, 2008 2:30 AM
Comment #259341

“Good to see the old KD back again !!!”

janedoe,

Thanks Jane, it’ll be kind of an off and on deal for a while since my grandson now lives with me.

Posted by: KansasDem at August 24, 2008 2:35 AM
Comment #259342

Understood….you sound well (good) and full of piss and vinegar…. ;)

Posted by: janedoe at August 24, 2008 3:14 AM
Comment #259344

KD -

I agree with everything in your post - well said!

Craig Holmes -

There WERE wars when Lincoln was elected - the near-constant Indian wars…with which we can draw quite a few parallels with the Iraq war, come to think of it….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 24, 2008 3:28 AM
Comment #259348

I LOVE Biden and can’t wait for the VP debate-he will chew up and spit out the GOP VP choice.

I think this was a very smart choice on Barack’s part. He has picked someone who is much less Washington than most in Washington but also has the experience. Sometimes to effect change you must work from within-who better than Biden-he knows Washington inside and out.

As for the negatives here: it amazes me when the right starts talking about Barack as if he lacks intelligence and good sense but of course this is never backed up with any concrete proof cause there is none. How can you question his intellect? I have yet to hear of things he has done that lack good sense. These same people defend over and over again Bush’s decisions which i think most of Americans would agree show a lack of intelligence and good sense. For God sakes the man takes pride in being stupid. Talk about being blind.

As for Barack’s choice of VP it would not have mattered which person he chose the GOP was ready I am sure with ADS for all of them claiming how Barack’s choice shows his inexperience.

As for the polls being tight-SO WHAT! It is the end of August. We haven’t yet had the convention or any debates. All the current polls show is that Americans are lazy voters who believe what they hear on TV from so called news commentators and don’t bother to think for themselves or research candidates. Unfortunately we fall, time and time again, for negative, attacking ads.

Posted by: Carolina at August 24, 2008 9:15 AM
Comment #259349

All this talk of Obama not being qualified to be CIC because he hasn’t been tested in war is ludicrous. McCain, you can argue that he has been tested - but failing the test over and over again is not a quality I want in my CIC - we have that kind of a failure now and it hasn’t worked out so well. Just putting in the years doesn’t make you any more qualified than someone without those years. McCain is so blind to what is going on in Iraq that it is breathtaking. He keeps insisting that the surge has worked when that can’t be farther from the truth. What stopped the violence was paying off the Sunni insurgents with money and a promise to incorporate them into the security forces. Now the Shiites are threatening to go back on their agreement to let the Sunnis in and have threatened that if they don’t turn in their guns they will be arrested. Let’s see what happens to this successful surge when that goes down.

Just listen to McCain speak about foreign policy - he never says anything of substance just soundbyte, bumper sticker slogans that mean less than nothing. Just saying “we have to win” is no where near enough to make it so. When he pointed a finger at Obama and said that Obama would rather lose a war than win an election, he should have looked at the other fingers pointing back at him for being willing to sacrifice more American and innocent Iraqi lives to win an election.

Once again, experiences that have taught nothing don’t count - McCain has learned nothing from Vietnam and nothing from Iraq - he is the one not fit to be CIC.

As to McCain - there doesn’t seem to be a VP pick out there for him that is as sharp as Biden - I hope he picks fellow rich boy Romney - it will make a great VP debate.

Posted by: tcsned at August 24, 2008 10:25 AM
Comment #259353

Allen

Yes, of course Biden and Cheney are two different types of politicians; but that doesn’t change the fact that like Cheney, Biden will be the brains of the operation running things from behind the scenes.

What a presumptuous thought. Unlike Bush Obama is capable of reasoned spontaneous reaction. He is capable of such spontaneity because he is a quick study and a highly knowledgeable and educated person. With Obama, Biden we are getting a combination of experience, intelligence and great communication skills. With Bush, Cheney all of the latter was very limited in its availability. Your notion is based only on personal speculation with no practical evidence to back it up.

Posted by: RickIL at August 24, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #259355

tcned

All this talk of Obama not being qualified to be CIC because he hasn’t been tested in war is ludicrous.

Agreed. I think the better qualifier would be how effective might he be at avoiding war. Those who use the tactic of saying he is not tested are implying that we are going to or maybe even should be at war on a regular basis. Some folks seem to forget that we are currently involved in a conflict which never should have been. It was poor judgment and some would even say deceptive practice by a neocon administration which led us into conflict. I wonder what we are looking for here, a person who will advocate war or a person who will use every option available to avoid it. McCain seems to me to be of the advocate persuasion. After all he has supported Bush 95% of the time.

Posted by: RickIL at August 24, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #259356

Craig Holmes-
First of all, No President will be a specialist in every way, nor do they need to be. That’s what secretaries and generals are for. It’s nice to have some knowledge of the subject, but the last time we had a general in the White House was half a century ago.

Clinton had less military experience, but he managed to use the military to good effect in the Balkans, which is better than Bush managed. Part of it was that Clinton had certain goals in mind, and no illusions about his own military expertise

What we need is a President who is generally smart, but also mature and a good manager. Obama seems to be much more mature, and a much better manager than the other candidates. The whole thing about military experience is a distraction of sorts, if the person doesn’t learn the appropriate lessons from it.

What the Republicans are trying to do here is bypass critical judgment by playing on people’s sense of “never say die” duty to win.

Let’s stop focusing on the esoteric matters that the candidates won’t be managing themselves anyway. Let’s look at somebody whose shown themselves to be a cool customer and an effective leader, regardless of military experience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #259358

If I am to be truthful, I have to say that I wasn’t totally thrilled about Biden being the VP choice. He’s a DLC Democrat who was behind the bankruptcy bill, and who has voted for plenty of other Blue Dog style sell-outs that went completely against my progressive principles. His foreign policy positions are also way too hawkish to my way of thinking. That said, I can see the reasoning behind why Obama would have picked Joe Biden. He does have a lot of strengths, and there really is no better Democrat when it comes to being an attack dog against the Neocons. (I have often delighted in seeing him positively shred Republican “logic” into pieces.) Yet, Biden also very witty, charming and likeable — and is extremely popular among older Americans. He gave a great speech after being announced yesterday, and even got in a few good zingers against McCain right out of the gate.
So, although I still hold several reservations about Biden as the VP choice, I’m definitely willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

tcsned:

All this talk of Obama not being qualified to be CIC because he hasn’t been tested in war is ludicrous.

It is ludicrous, in specially in light of what happened this past Thursday. As I wrote on Friday in another thread:

just yesterday Obama had a few of his long held positions on the wars we are fighting made into a reality. After McCain’s mountain of criticism about Obama’s judgment regarding needing a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, yesterday the Bush administration was finally forced to concede to a timetable. And back in July, McCain sneeringly criticized Obama when he said we needed to send more our troops into Afghanistan. Well, yesterday they came out and announced that they’re going to be sending 11,000 more troops there. In fact, just a few short weeks ago McCain actually called Obama “naive” for holding his positions. So much for McCain’s advanced “experience”,”judgment” and “expertise,” eh?

McCain may repeatedly claim he’s strong on military qualifications to be CIC, but what happened on Thursday is proof positive that he has poor judgment, and hasn’t known what the hell he’s been talking about AT ALL.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 24, 2008 11:28 AM
Comment #259359

Veritas:

Of course my source for Obama being unqualified for CIC is Joe Biden. He his chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee with a long Senate record. He should know!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 11:48 AM
Comment #259363

Craig, Biden said those things when he was running for president. Practically all of the candidates were spouting a lot of that sort of rhetoric at the time. They were all talking themselves up, and dissing everyone else in the running. But it was Obama who won Iowa, and Biden who had to drop out not long after.

Same thing happened on your side of the aisle. If McCain picks Mitt as his running mate (and that is what is being floated currently), we’ll be able to point to exactly the same kinds of statements.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 24, 2008 12:11 PM
Comment #259369

VV:

So basically, when the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee makes a statement about a presidential candidates qualifications for CIC in the middle of a war, we should discard what he says?

Maybe we should discard as well what Pelosi, Reid etc have said about the war as well. After all they were just campaigning.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 12:58 PM
Comment #259371

VV:

Actually the country is very concerned about Obama’s lack of experience at related to CIC. That is why Hillary’s 3:00am add was so effective.

So you have Hillary and Biden both deeply disturbed about Obama in a time of war.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 1:01 PM
Comment #259372

Go ahead and play your little GOP smear games, Craig. Obama was right about the need for a timetable, and right about our need for more troops in Afghanistan, unlike McCain who has been DEAD WRONG, despite all of his “vast experience.” Besides, if you have such a high opinion of Biden and have been so worried about Obama’s lack of experience, then you’ll be able to rest easy now since he’ll be advising the president.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 24, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #259373

VV:

You can call them smear games if you want. The hard core truth is that Republicans have a lousy track record and you have a weak inexperienced candidate, and so we have a close election!!

Any other explanation for a close election?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 1:15 PM
Comment #259375

Craig,
It’s only August.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 24, 2008 1:32 PM
Comment #259376

VV:

Obama is polling way lower than Democrats usually do for August.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #259380

Watch for poll numbers to shift since Biden has been confirmed. And I don’t think our candidate is as weak as the Republican’s record is lousy.

Posted by: janedoe at August 24, 2008 2:36 PM
Comment #259381

I find it humorous that the righties have taken so much stock in what Joe Biden has to say about the presidential candidates. So I guess when he said:
“Because the truth of the matter is, and you know it, that American dream under eight years of Bush and McCain, that American dream is slipping away… I say with every fiber of my being I believe we cannot as a nation stand for four more years of this.”
Since you all have appointed Joe Biden the final arbiter of who is qualified to lead the country I guess you agree with me and Joe Biden that Obama is the better man.

Unless you were only using that quote because it served your purposes and you really don’t believe anything Joe Biden says so by that logic, Barack Obama IS qualified to be CIC. Obama will appreciate your votes.

Posted by: tcsned at August 24, 2008 2:55 PM
Comment #259383

janedoe:

That will be interesting. The latest poll I saw has shown that Biden is less of a plus than normal for Democratic VP picks.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/24/obamas-vp-pick-changes-few-minds-poll-shows/

The above link says just 14% of those polled say Biden makes them more likely to vote for Obama as compared to 24% when Edwards was picked by Kerry, 16% with Joe Lieberman, 33% with Al Gore.

So basically Biden is ho hum as far as initial impact on the campaign.

That makes sense to me. He left the presidential race after the Iowa caucus because of very low national interest in his campaign. He isn’t all that well known nationally because his campaign hardly got off the ground.

It’s normal to get a bounce at a convention, so that is to be expected. Of course with the Clinton’s dominating two nights, (wow that is weird), who knows.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 2:58 PM
Comment #259384

First of all, I’m not a rightie.

It is many across the country who are insecure about having a freshman senator with no military experience as CIC in the middle of war.
Obama is qualified. The constitution makes that clear. It is not knowable if he is ready since he hasn’t done anything in that area.

You on the left are hoping he is ready, you have no evidence since Obama has no experience. You are taking it totally on faith.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #259387

S.D. “Obama seems to be much more mature, and a much better manager than the other candidates. ” and “Let’s stop focusing on the esoteric matters that the candidates won’t be managing themselves anyway. Let’s look at somebody whose shown themselves to be a cool customer and an effective leader”

See, your fiction is much better when you bring the funny. I guess you’re referring to the Aug Ebony article on swagger, confidence, and effortless style “The 25 coolest brothers of all time”, but I don’t know if I would want to be on a list with 6 other actors, about 9 musicians (one was killed by his own father, another lost the rights to use his own name for a while), 2 media types, 3 sportsmen, a politican, and a guy that talked about being hoodwinked and bamboozled, which is the case with anyone who votes for your guy on any other basis than “hope” for “change”. I am amazed that so many people are falling for this, but I doubt if they are enough to get him elected.

Is it true that this stadium in Denver is open air, and people can get rained out? What rocket scientist set that up?

Posted by: ohrealy at August 24, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #259391

Craig

You on the left are hoping he is ready, you have no evidence since Obama has no experience. You are taking it totally on faith.

I am more concerned with his ability to effect diplomacy. I think he will be very capable in that regard. If we had an administration capable of effectively practicing diplomacy for the last eight years we most likely would not be in the situation we are in now. It has been the aggressive nature of Bush and Co which has created much of todays world tension. It is the neocon mind set that is responsible for propagating that tension. Remove that aggressive nature from the equation and you will find that peaceful solutions will be more readily available.

Obama has for all intent and purposes exhibited good judgment to date. I will rely on that good judgment combined with the abilities of his staff to make the proper decisions should occasion arise. I feel very comfortable knowing that unlike our current admin I will not have to live in constant anticipation of what sort of boneheaded disastrous move he will make next. I think Obama is a reasonable man and expect nothing less than reasoned responsible leadership from him. Imo he has exhibited more than adequate skills to effect good and capable leadership.

Too to be nothing less than honest I can not say that I ever viewed Bush as having any good leadership qualities. His stint in office epitomizes the notion that a lot of people are easily duped. My point being that my judgment on Bush was valid. As a result I feel good about my judgment in regards to Obama. Yes, I think I will have faith and put my trust in his abilities.

Posted by: RickIL at August 24, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #259400

ohrealy-
No, I am not referring to the the Ebony Article, which I have not even read. No, I’m referring to the impression I’ve gotten of the man following his campaign over the last several months.

He’s a party builder, and that’s what we need. We don’t need somebody who merely beats McCain, but somebody who solidifies a generational shift in our party’s advantages. Whatever you think about him personally, Obama has been setting up the infrastructure for that new wave of Democratic voters, an act of true leadership that this election did not require, and which he did on his own.

You can throw all the stereotypical lines at me, but I’ve seen for myself the effectiveness of his organization, the even keel he’s kept, the way he says the things people actually know to be true, rather than the things most politicians believe they have to say for the sake of appearances.

I’m sick of parallel universe politics, where the political world people care about seems like a separate dimension. I’m sick of electability arguments that seem more like campaign strategies and concern trollery than honest observations of fact. It’s like the way we’re sold cigarettes and fossil fuels, not on solid fact, but on vague doubts spun out of self-interested rhetoric and cherrypicked evidence.

Craig Holmes-
I think it’s highly unlikely that anybody could have picked a running mate from among their former rivals and not been stuck with a few unfavorable comments.

Let’s not be naive: people say what it takes in the Primary to put themselves on top. That includes questioning the other candidate’s qualifications. Obama’s soft spot is well known so Biden, as a candidate, went for it.

Fact is, though, enough peole in enough states thought that he had enough experience, or that lack of experience was not too much of a problem, that he gained the nomination. Furthermore, rather than turn it down or even publically continue his bad-mouthing, Biden accepted the place on the ticket. Would a politician like him put his money on a losing horse?

But here I am arguing logic and actual premises in regards to Republican Talking points. The whole point here, bad arguments aside, is that the only way the Republicans win, is by eroding people’s good opinion of Barack. They can’t win on the issues, they’re on the wrong side of them, for the most part. They can’t argue character, Obama’s stolen his thunder on that, doing all the things he was politically too realistic and too Republican to do.

All they can do now is Swiftboat him, drag him down by a barrage of rhetoric whose sole purpose is to sell doubt on Obama, not measure up to some standard of accuracy or credibility.

It’s an elitist or scoundrel’s way to win. Republicans are using it because they can’t sell their candidates on their virtues, they can only warp people’s judgment on risk and benefits in the election. If people sat down to consider what four more years of Republican rule would bring them, we’d win in a landslide.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2008 6:13 PM
Comment #259401

Rick:

I am more concerned with his ability to effect diplomacy. I think he will be very capable in that regard.

Hmmmm. You are taking this on faith. There is no evidence of Obama effecting diplomacy on even a national level much less and international level. When you make a point, can you give evidence?

Too to be nothing less than honest I can not say that I ever viewed Bush as having any good leadership qualities.

Bush is not up for reelection so it doesn’t much matter.

So we are back to you are voting for Obama based on feelings and faith, not based on resume’ and accomplishment.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 6:16 PM
Comment #259402

Well Craig, the same could be said for those voting for McCain. He doesn’t have much to show for the last few years but aping Bush’s nonsensicle moves and ancient history.
He tenaciously holds onto failed policies and hated principles, and the poor old fart can’t remember where he lives on top of all that.
Obama does have a resume, it’s just that nobody on the right side of the aisle acknowledges it and wants MORE….but if he accomplishes nothing in four years, he will tie both his predecessor and his opponent, AND not have the weight of a failed war and massive debts on his shoulders.

Posted by: janedoe at August 24, 2008 6:39 PM
Comment #259403

janedoe:

Well Craig, the same could be said for those voting for McCain. He doesn’t have much to show for the last few years but aping Bush’s nonsensicle moves and ancient history.

No not really. The surge took enormous political courage on the part of McCain. It was one in which as it turns out he was right, and almost every democrat was wrong!!


Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 7:06 PM
Comment #259404

Craig…I’d say it was just the opposite….he didn’t have the nerve to continue with his posturing as a “maverick” and caved into pressure. That doesn’t speak well for his aspirations now, and the well-worn argument that the surge was a success, is just ragged now gasping to maintain life.

Posted by: janedoe at August 24, 2008 7:23 PM
Comment #259407

Craig

Hmmmm. You are taking this on faith. There is no evidence of Obama effecting diplomacy on even a national level much less and international level. When you make a point, can you give evidence?

I did not say that he has that experience behind him. He is a great communicator. Effective communication requires more than just being able to talk or read from a card. Effective diplomacy requires the ability to communicate with reasoned thought, not threat. I am implying that I believe he will have a much better ability at effecting diplomacy than McCain may have or Bush ever had.

Bush is not up for reelection so it doesn’t much matter

Read the last part of my previous post. I said the point is that my judgment on Bush was accurate. Therefore I trust my judgment on Obama. I was merely using Bush as reason why I feel I can trust my judgment. Fact is there is no guarantee of the perfect person for the job with any candidate, ever.

I find this whole process really quite simple. I know what type of president McCain will be. He has a clear record which is the embodiment of republican policy. He has supported Bush 95% of the time. I am guessing Bush has been wrong about that same percentage of time. Our country has regressed under every aspect under republican rule. A McCain presidency would most likely insure further deterioration. As I see it I can place a vote for a man that will in all likely hood continue regression in our country or I can take a chance on a man I feel confident and comfortable with who possesses the skills, judgment, desire and passion necessary to pursue the proper priorities and return our country to some sort of sensible normalcy.

Posted by: RickIL at August 24, 2008 8:12 PM
Comment #259408

RickL:

I can understand that. Like I said earlier, a weak candidate on your side running against a crappy record on our side. That is why it’s close!!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 8:19 PM
Comment #259413

Craig

I can understand that. Like I said earlier, a weak candidate on your side running against a crappy record on our side.

Where you and I differ is that I do not view Obama as a weak candidate. In the total context of things I do not see his lack of military experience under any circumstances as a deal breaker. I am not particularly fond of the resultant events with regards to our current crop of so called military specialists. I do not think they have done our country right. Part of my support of Obama is a rallying point against the neocon mindset. It has not been good for our country or the world.

On a lighter note I am getting the impression that you are proud or at least happy about supporting a crappy administration. Am I correct or just reading too much into your statement? I have to admit your crappy record proclamation gave me a bit of a chuckle. Please don’t take that the wrong way. It just struck me as funny for some reason.

Posted by: RickIL at August 24, 2008 10:42 PM
Comment #259417

RickL:

It’s good to have a lighter note. But Bush isn’t running is he?

It will take lots of humor to get us through to November. I liked Charlton Heston playing Obama by the way !!

Obama is a weak candidate regardless of how you feel about him. He tracks way weaker than the democratic generic ballot. If he were an average candidate he would be up by 10 . (at least I think so).

On the contrary McCain is a strong candidate or the race wouldn’t be competitive.

We will see. The first poll came out after the Biden appointment. It had the race tied. (It’s on CNN). Another step backwards for your candidate.

This week should be very interesting. The whole Hillary thing should make it not so boring. Why did your guy give Clintons so much time if he was so strong?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 24, 2008 11:17 PM
Comment #259420

Craig, I don’t know where you got your poll information, but check this out! The “race is not tied” and Obama has picked back up some “leaners”. Percentages are quoted regarding Biden as well.
Sorry, but it isn’t the doom and gloom that you’re trying to convince everyone of.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Posted by: janedoe at August 25, 2008 1:12 AM
Comment #259423

Hey -

Just heard who McCain’s running mate is - it’s RONALD REAGAN!

It seems that there’s no constitutional requirement that the VEEP has to be breathing or have a pulse, so McCain decided to choose someone that would make even him look younger and more attractive to the electorate. As an added bonus, Reagan will make a welcome addition to the Republican ticket’s shortfall in the memory department!

(sorry - this was shamelessly taken off a riff on the Rachel Maddow show on Air America - couldn’t resist)

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 25, 2008 1:57 AM
Comment #259427

Glen,

I have to say that, even dead, Reagan could probably do a better job as President than what we have had to deal with for the last 8 years.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 25, 2008 4:26 AM
Comment #259428

He would have a better sense of humor …..and has forgotten more than Bush knows….

Posted by: janedoe at August 25, 2008 4:28 AM
Comment #259434

Craig

This week should be very interesting. The whole Hillary thing should make it not so boring. Why did your guy give Clintons so much time if he was so strong?

You need to quit putting so much stock in what CNN has to say. They are the media outlet I use to keep up with news. However I am smart enough to realize that they rely on creation of controversy to lure viewers in. One needs to read between the lines and filter out the created sensationalism where none truly exists.

The Clintons are a very powerful force within the democrat party. It would be an act of political suicide to not use that force to help bolster Obama’s position with the progressives of this country. Obama is young by presidential standards. Yes he lacks the years of experience most past presidents have had. But neither of these facts are absolute terms for qualification. Experience does not necessarily make one capable. Nor does age. It is the quality of what one has accomplished and the values they aspire to that holds more merit than mere years of experience. That combined with intellect, wit, communication skills, education, recognition, compassion and good judgment imo substantiates ones worth and ability to lead. Then there is the race thing. I hate to bring it up but it does present issues with certain crowds. I suspect that some are just not quite sure about a young black man leading our country. Hopefully the next few months will convince people of what I perceive as his genuine desires and more than adequate abilities to work with a competent staff at correcting the wrongs which have been done to this country over the last eight years.

I do know that Bush is not running. I mention his name because I feel it needs to be recognized that imo McCain is nothing less than a Bush clone. He is not his own man. He is owned lock stock and barrel by those he represents, the wealthy. I can not in my wildest dreams imagine why anyone other than the wealthy would want more of that.

Posted by: RickIL at August 25, 2008 10:02 AM
Comment #259435

Glen, janedoe

It seems that there’s no constitutional requirement that the VEEP has to be breathing or have a pulse

So if McCain manages to get elected we will have a pretty much dead person and completely dead person running our country. The one plus I see is they probably wouldn’t have enough energy to do a lot of damage during their term. ;-)

Thanks for the laugh’s! Nothing wrong with a little humor.

Posted by: RickIL at August 25, 2008 10:11 AM
Comment #259436

RickL:

I do know that Bush is not running. I mention his name because I feel it needs to be recognized that imo McCain is nothing less than a Bush clone. He is not his own man. He is owned lock stock and barrel by those he represents, the wealthy. I can not in my wildest dreams imagine why anyone other than the wealthy would want more of that.

For me it’s simple. I have a son stationed off the coast of Kuwait. Obama wont listen to the general in charge, because he thinks he knows better. Most freshman senators do think they know better.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 25, 2008 10:35 AM
Comment #259456

Well, since W has run out most of the Generals that had enough spine to tell the truth about the situation we are pretty much left with yes-men or people holding their breath and their tongues until W is a bad memory.

W has pummeled us with the message that we need to listen to the generals as to what to do in Iraq. For the on-the-ground strategies and tactics we should - I agree that it is sound policy. We should not lay the burden on the generals to tell us when we should get out, what they are supposed to accomplish while they are there, and how to balance the action in their theater with the needs around the world. Those are political decisions and the president and Congress need to work that part of it out.

If we are supposed to listen to the generals what about Shinseki? Should he have been listened to or is it just the generals that agreed to follow Bush’s stupid plans?

I think when W finally becomes a bad memory you will hear a different story from the generals in the theater. I guess many of the leaders there are holding their tongues because they feel it is in the best interest of their men to have them there doing the best they can in a bad situation than to speak up, get removed and replaced by someone who will just go along with the plan (if there is a plan) and do a worse job of accomplishing what they are asked to do and bring as many of their young men and women home in one piece as possible. That is a noble thing to do in the face of an incompetent administration.

Posted by: tcsned at August 25, 2008 12:33 PM
Comment #259460

Well it looks like they agreed to a timetable - all US troops out by 2011. At least according to the Iraqis -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080825/ts_nm/iraq_dc_2

thank god! Only 8 years too late.

Posted by: tcsned at August 25, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #259462

Craig -

Where’s he at? Bahrain? Or on one of our ships there? Tell him I’ve been there, done that, and to stay away from the street-vendor shwarmas - they’re delicious, but my gut’s been paying for it since ‘94. And I wish him well.

That said, do you not remember the several generals who RETIRED rather than take the job of running the war in Iraq? Did you know about the generals - including ones who HAVE SERVED in this Iraq war - who have spoken out against our involvement in Iraq?

Read this about Brigadier General John Johns, who, like most of the military (and especially senior military officers), is a lifelong Republican-leaning conservative:

But Johns didn’t reach his tipping point until 2005, when a longtime friend, retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, invited him to discuss the war at tiny Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia.

“Four out of five of us retired military panelists there said it was a moral duty for us to speak out in a democracy against policies which you think are unwise,” Johns said. “The time was right.”

The lifelong Republican-leaning conservative joined a pair of liberal organizations opposed to the war and supported the Democrats’ call to get the United States out of Iraq.

Yes, Craig, we who retired from the military DO wish the government would listen to us…AND THE REPUBLICANS UNDER BUSH/CHENEY DID NOT LISTEN.

So who do you think is right? Petraeus, who knew he would gain fame (and future fortune) by accepting Bush’s nomination that several other generals turned down? Or twenty retired Army and Marine generals, some of whom also served in Iraq?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 25, 2008 1:30 PM
Comment #259466

Here’s some more for your benefit, Craig - and I’d like to ask you ONE question: WHO LISTENED TO THE GENERALS - BUSH/CHENEY/MCCAIN? OR A ONE-TERM JUNIOR SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS?

In a New York Times op-ed column, retired Major Gen. Paul Eaton, who helped revive the Iraqi army, described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as “incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically” and called for his resignation.

——————————

Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a Yale professor, said in a speech covered by the Providence Journal that America’s invasion of Iraq might be the worst strategic mistake in American history.

——————————-

Publicizing his book, “The Battle for Peace,” in a recent “Meet the Press” appearance, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a four-star former commander of the Central Command, describes administration behavior that ranged from “true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility” to “lying, incompetence and corruption.” Marine General Zinni was shot three times in Vietnam…and after he spoke out against Iraq, was called a traitor by the Bush Administration.

—————————

Major General John Batiste said, ““Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women.”

“In the Army, you communicate up the chain of command, and I communicated vehemently with my senior commanders while I was in Iraq,” he said. Of his departure from the Army, he said: “It was the toughest decision of my life. I paced my quarters for days. I didn’t sleep for nights. But I was not willing to compromise my principles for one more minute.”

His retirement from the Army in November 2005 meant turning his back on a third star and command of day-to-day combat missions in Iraq, the No. 2 military position in Baghdad.

————————-

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, has written in Time magazine that the Iraq war was unnecessary.

————————

Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon have written a history of the invasion of Iraq, Cobra II, which describes a willfully self-deluding planning process.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 25, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #259482

Glenn:

I appreciate your quotes. The problem with all of them is that Bush is not running for re election.

I think that if we were to just let General Petraeus run things we would come out with a two wins.

What I don’t think you see is that Obama is doing what your quotes suggest only in reverse. He wanted to leave on a rigid timetable a year ago without even talking with Petraeus. If we had listened to Reid, Pelosi and Obama we would have lost the war.\

Actually, the democratic party has said that we have lost the war. You have also said that the surge was a failure.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 25, 2008 4:11 PM
Comment #259483

Craig:

First of all, I’m not a rightie.

Heh. Why are there are so many Republicans distancing themselves from their Republican-ness these days?

Jane, regarding polls, have you ever looked at this website?:
fivethirtyeight.com

Glenn, excellent replies to Craig.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 25, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #259485

Glen:

I have been asked not to say much about my son’s deployment. I will speak of his character. He volunteered his senior year of college. He is an officer in the navy through OCS. Love those marine DI’s. He wants to make a difference. Last time I spoke with him, he was very excited as he is proud to serve out country and is very proud of the work they are doing.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 25, 2008 4:15 PM
Comment #259486

VV:

I am not distancing myself from anything. I am what I am. I have been a moderate republican all my adult life.

those were excellent responses from Glenn. I think Bush and Cheney do need to be held accountable both for getting us into a war when they were wrong about WMD. (No I don’t think they lied, I think they were wrong). And also for the way the war was waged.

I see the same trait only in reverse with Obama. He thinks as a state senator he had “wisdom” about the war. He did not. He was just a liberal in a liberal state district.
Now he thinks he knows more than the rest. He is like a man who gets a girl pregnant and then says “I am so sorry, you will never see me again.”

We broke Iraq, we need to fix it. Because your party was not in power that last 2 years we have a chance. Your party was wrong. The war is not lost, the surge was not a failure. Iraq is not lost in a civil war.

Republican judgment was wrong the first part of the were, Democratic leadership/judgment has been wrong the second half.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 25, 2008 4:26 PM
Comment #259488

Craig:

Actually, the democratic party has said that we have lost the war.

Not only have we lost the Iraq war, there was never any reason to fight it in the first place.
We were lied into this war and occupation by Bush and Cheney, and the vast majority of Americans understand this fact.

You have also said that the surge was a failure.

All of the surges (escalations of the Iraq war) have been failures. If they weren’t, the troops would have come home by now. This is true quite aside from the fact that going to war and occupying Iraq was entirely unnecessary.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 25, 2008 4:30 PM
Comment #259491

VV:

You are just wrong VV. The war has been won. And yes history will show that not only was the war not necessary, but also that it was bungled in the beginning. There wont be many statues for Rumsfield.

Petraeus has done a wonderful job, and Iraq is moving toward a far more stable situation.

Fortunately you as well as Reid, Pelosi and Obama are wrong, in that the war is not lost!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 25, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #259494

Craig

I wish your son well and you can rest assured that he has my respect for serving our country. All troops are worthy of our respect. They are simply doing a job they have been ordered to do. I returned from Nam with no display of respect to be seen. I and the rest did not deserve that. Our young people are taken out of high school and college placed into situations of stress and unimaginable horrors and are expected to perform. They do, they perform well with valor and pride. I for one will cheer them on when they return home regardless of the outcome in Iraq. I will do that because they deserve it. The only people I hold in the lowest of esteem are those who determined that our young peoples lives were worth wasting in a senseless conflict.

Posted by: RickIL at August 25, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #259496

Rick:

Thank you, that means a great deal to me.
We are very proud of him.

My wife and I have started a ministry to the military. It is sort of the opposite of here. We do not allow any politics at all. We believe that as Christians churches should always have a minstry that activley thanks the men and woman of our armed forces for protecting our religious freedom.
Here is our website if you want to look us up.

www.home-spokane.org

Remember no politics!!

Thank you again,

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 25, 2008 5:21 PM
Comment #259497

Rick and Glenn:

By the way, thank you so much for serving our country.

CH

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 25, 2008 5:32 PM
Comment #259499
The war has been won.

Oh sure, the war has been won by: Halliburton, and Kellogg, Brown, & Root, and Bechtel, and Dyncorp, and Richard Perle and his cronies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin, and Raytheon, and The American Petroleum Institute, and Intelsat, and SY Technology, and The Carlyle Group, and Military Resources Professionals Inc., and The Rendon Group, etc., etc.,
The war has been waged and won on collecting American taxpayer dollars for profit by these entities, but not for Americans or for America’s best interest.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 25, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #259527

S.D., “I’m sick of parallel universe politics… I’m sick of electability arguments that seem more like campaign strategies and concern trollery than honest observations of fact. It’s like the way we’re sold cigarettes and fossil fuels, not on solid fact, but on vague doubts spun out of self-interested rhetoric and cherrypicked evidence.”

Well, I hope you’re feeling a little better, but I would suggest that you stop engaging in things that make you sick, like the pretzel logic of a parallel universe where your candidate is viewed as the man from chicago hope, or the man of small change, and the electability arguments that you engage in, continually attempting to refute any poll that doesn’t favor your candidate.

Please do yourself the favor of reading what you write before posting it, because there is a level of what I am sure is uninentional irony creeping into much of what you write. It is a shame that we are sold political candidates as though they were Pepsi and Marlboro, but you are just as much a part of that process if you keep repeating their advertising slogans. As a start, I would suggest that you stop using the word “cool” in describing your candidate.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 25, 2008 7:14 PM
Comment #259540

Craig -

Thanks - my time in the military is something I do hold as precious…and life in the Navy truly is an adventure. If your son ever gets the chance, tell him to go on safari in Africa - it’s the best thing I ever did on liberty. Imagine watching 110 wild elephants walking in line to a watering hole a hundred or so feet below you. It’s really something to see. That, and go rent a car in Tasmania if he’s ever there - it’s one of the most beautiful places I’ve seen. Look up ‘pastoral’, and you’ll see a picture of Tasmania.

And while Bush isn’t running for reelection, McCain IS running for election…and it is a hard-and-fast fact that he supported 95% of everything Bush did, and has supported the Iraq war from the start.

So just as Bush and Cheney didn’t listen to the generals, neither did “Maverick” McCain.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 25, 2008 8:32 PM
Comment #259662

I like the fact that Obama chose a man (Biden)who told us that Obama lacks the experience needed to be president and who also said he could support McCain for president (ok, so I’m being facetious but Biden did say that).

Also, it appears, that Obama (who represents change?) has picked a man who does not represent change but rather the established bureaucracy.

And then there is the disappointment factor among women who felt it was their year to take the president or VP slot. Obama apparently feels they aren’t ready for the big chairs?

Do you think McCain will believe that women are ready for the top spots and select one for his running mate? What a brilliant move that would be. Too brilliant for the Obama camp it seems.

Well, at least Obama picked a progressive liberal to balance out his far left progressive liberal agenda (Yes, I’m being facetious again).

In short…..I really do think Obama messed up. I think he should have picked Hillary…..announced that he is offering it to her…..let her decline, then he could have offered it to ANOTHER woman and the Hillary voters would have loved it.

I think Obama just doesn’t have the smarts for the job. Call it experience, call it strategic thinking, call it what you will…..Obama proved with his selection of “loud-mouth-Joe” that he just isn’t ready for the big time…..as loud mouth Joe himself has informed us.

They really should let me start my own threads around here! I can be good.

Posted by: Stephen L at August 27, 2008 12:54 AM
Post a comment