Obama Casts Race Between Him, McCain

[missypea]

"He's on a biography tour right now," Obama said of McCain. "Most of us know his biography, and it's worthy of our admiration. My argument with John McCain is not with his biography, it's with his policies."

"One hundred years in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 may make sense to George Bush and John McCain but it is the wrong thing to do. It is not right for our national security. It is not right for our economy," Obama said to applause at a town hall.

"When you ask yourself who you want answering that 3 o'clock phone call ... ask yourself: Of the three remaining candidates, who has the judgment to understand what will be a bad decision? Who has the judgment to ask the tough questions? Who's going to keep America on the right track? That's the person you want on that phone call at three in the morning," he said, to rousing applause.

The Associated Press: Obama Casts Race Between Him, McCain

Obama is doing the right thing by framing this race between McCain and himself. Hillary needs to take a page from his book.

McCain policies and judgments are something we need to look at. We also need to explore the possibilities that McCain does suffer from PTSD......and if he does the consequences we face, as a nation, by putting him in the White House.
.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Obama Casts Race Between Him, McCain

He's not really going out on a limb here. Most people have been saying this for a long time.

 

[Gipper]

McCain policies and judgments are something we need to look at. We also need to explore the possibilities that McCain does suffer from PTSD......and if he does the consequences we face, as a nation, by putting him in the White House.

Then after that, we should look at Obama's policies and judgments. Oops. Finished already.

I think I'd rather put someone in the White House who has a solid foreign policy but a weak domestic one than someone who doesn't have a f'n thing on either one.

Who would you rather have leading you, Hitler or a 4 year old? Hitler may be a dick, but he knows how to lead.

 

[Thorgasm]

Then after that, we should look at Obama's policies and judgments. Oops. Finished already.

I think I'd rather put someone in the White House who has a solid foreign policy but a weak domestic one than someone who doesn't have a f'n thing on either one.

Who would you rather have leading you, Hitler or a 4 year old? Hitler may be a dick, but he knows how to lead.

Would a 4 year old kill six million Jews and bankrupt his country with wars of choice?

 

[Hatuey]

Then after that, we should look at Obama's policies and judgments. Oops. Finished already.

I think I'd rather put someone in the White House who has a solid foreign policy but a weak domestic one than someone who doesn't have a f'n thing on either one.

Who would you rather have leading you, Hitler or a 4 year old? Hitler may be a dick, but he knows how to lead.

So in other words for you it'd be perfectly fine to put somebody who has a weak domestic policy in charge of a country in which domestic policy is equally as important as foreign policy but not ok for somebody who has a better domestic track record then they do a foreign one. Well then.

 

[WI Crippler]

Interesting that Obama is playing off the Hilary "Phone is ringing at 3AM" strategy.

So far the catch phrases in this election cycle are "CHANGE"
"If the phone rings at 3AM, who do you want to answer it?"
and "My friends".

 

[Kushinator]

Then after that, we should look at Obama's policies and judgments. Oops. Finished already.

I think I'd rather put someone in the White House who has a solid foreign policy but a weak domestic one than someone who doesn't have a f'n thing on either one.

Who would you rather have leading you, Hitler or a 4 year old? Hitler may be a dick, but he knows how to lead.

Ehh, McCain looks a little older than a 4 year old. :mrgreen: Maybe not as "inspiring"...

Seriously though, Hitler had about as much experience as Obama when you think about it. Also, change, hope, and all that jazz were actually part of Hitler's rhetoric. Well that and amphetamine. Hitler was "inspiring" wasnt he?

None the less, i truly hope to see some house cleaning in Washington. Historically, parties dont win 3 election cycles in a row, so all my money is on Obama. With that in mind, what would be particularly wrong with a little butter? At least his domestic policies will light a fire under the asses of capable opponents, as opposed to these neo cons.

 

[Gipper]

So in other words for you it'd be perfectly fine to put somebody who has a weak domestic policy in charge of a country in which domestic policy is equally as important as foreign policy but not ok for somebody who has a better domestic track record then they do a foreign one. Well then.

Saying Obama "has a better domestic track record than a foreign one" is like saying I have more experience dating Angelina Jolie than piloting a rocket to the moon.

Obama is just a huge know-nothing. A walking handshake. A man who's trying like hell to avoid spotlight, especially if it shines on his experience (or lack thereof). He avoids opening his mouth except to defend accusations because every word he speaks just highlights his complete ineptitude as supreme executive.

He's the lovable, ignorant buffoon. The same kind we're finally getting out of office after 8 years.

 

[Hatuey]

Interesting that Obama is playing off the Hilary "Phone is ringing at 3AM" strategy.

So far the catch phrases in this election cycle are "CHANGE"
"If the phone rings at 3AM, who do you want to answer it?"
and "My friends".

Well I think it sounded like he was making fun of the premise that Obama wouldn't be able to answer a phone at 3 am and handle a situation. I found the ad to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of and a non sequitur.

 

[phrank]

Obama keeps bringing up the fact that he thought this war was a "bad decision" and that he said so before we went to war. I have a tough time buying into his wisdom though. Think about it: Didn't he say this without knowing the facts and without seeing our data that our leaders all saw?

My question is, would he have still said it was a "bad decision" had he seen the facts that were presented at that time? If so then I think he would have a leg to stand on, but it just seems to me that all he was doing was being a peace activist by saying what he said and knowing what he knew. He knew no more then the rest of us so I don't think he deserves a cookie for the wisdom he is touting.

As far as setting the race between he and McCain goes, he may be counting his eggs. The race isn't over yet and I don't see Hillary giving up without more spit.

 

[niftydrifty]

Obama keeps bringing up the fact that he thought this war was a "bad decision" and that he said so before we went to war. I have a tough time buying into his wisdom though. Think about it: Didn't he say this without knowing the facts and without seeing our data that our leaders all saw?

what facts and data was that? it was all pretty clear, at the time. if you watched the MSM and read the weekly standard you got one version, which seemed to jive with the "facts and data" of which you speak. serious periodicals said the case for war was bogus. as did some of the actual weapons inspectors. it seemed clear to me at the time. and they were right.

My question is, would he have still said it was a "bad decision" had he seen the facts that were presented at that time?

again, what facts were those? the facts cooked up by the office of special plans in the pentagon?

If so then I think he would have a leg to stand on, but it just seems to me that all he was doing was being a peace activist by saying what he said and knowing what he knew.

nope, he knew what he knew.

He knew no more then the rest of us so I don't think he deserves a cookie for the wisdom he is touting.

I think I know what you mean by "us." please be aware that there was also an "us" that claimed at the time that EVEN IF Saddam possessed WMD, that it would be unwise to invade, because of the ethnic differences. they claimed we'd be stuck there, nation building, and the cost of occupying the country would far outweigh the benefits of invading. simple cost/benefit analysis. some people were saying it, they were dismissed as crazy. but they were right.

I invite you to compare everything Obama has ever said about Iraq, past and present, with the following:

"I believe that success will be fairly easy."
-- John McCain (9/24/02, CNN)



"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time."
-- John McCain (9/29/02, CNN)



"The American people ... were led to believe that this would be some kind of a day at the beach which many of us, uh, fully understood from the very beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking."
-- John McCain (8/22/06, CNN)



"I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough. And those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I'm sorry they were mistaken. Maybe they didn't know what they were voting for."
-- John McCain (1/4/07, MSNBC)

 

[azura28]

"He's on a biography tour right now," Obama said of McCain. "Most of us know his biography, and it's worthy of our admiration. My argument with John McCain is not with his biography, it's with his policies."

"One hundred years in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 may make sense to George Bush and John McCain but it is the wrong thing to do. It is not right for our national security. It is not right for our economy," Obama said to applause at a town hall.

"When you ask yourself who you want answering that 3 o'clock phone call ... ask yourself: Of the three remaining candidates, who has the judgment to understand what will be a bad decision? Who has the judgment to ask the tough questions? Who's going to keep America on the right track? That's the person you want on that phone call at three in the morning," he said, to rousing applause.

The Associated Press: Obama Casts Race Between Him, McCain

Obama is doing the right thing by framing this race between McCain and himself. Hillary needs to take a page from his book.

McCain policies and judgments are something we need to look at. We also need to explore the possibilities that McCain does suffer from PTSD......and if he does the consequences we face, as a nation, by putting him in the White House.
.

Reality check for you. Hillary Clinton has been going after mccain for weeks, AND, she was the first one to slam him on the economy, then your idol barack did the same a few days later. Keep those blinders on.

 

[Hatuey]

Obama keeps bringing up the fact that he thought this war was a "bad decision" and that he said so before we went to war. I have a tough time buying into his wisdom though. Think about it: Didn't he say this without knowing the facts and without seeing our data that our leaders all saw?

You mean the evidence our leaders paraded for members of congress, press members & pretty much anybody else who had any connection to Washington D.C.?

My question is, would he have still said it was a "bad decision" had he seen the facts that were presented at that time?

Sure he would have. Many people who saw the evidence disagreed with the choice to go to war or do you think everybody who saw the evidence automatically thought going to war was a good decision?

 

[phrank]

Hatuey,
"You mean the evidence our leaders paraded for members of congress, press members & pretty much anybody else who had any connection to Washington D.C.?"
Yes, that evidence. Have you seen it all? Have any of us? Nope. We've seen what they've allowed us to see but don't you think there may be tons that we haven't seen? If not then why do the Dems keep pumping money into the war that they said they would end if we put them into power? Maybe, just maybe, there is something going on that they may not be telling us. Do I have proof? Nope, but, either there is something more that we don't know or the Democratic leaders are liars. Feel free to tell me which it is.

"Sure he would have."
So you know his thougths and you know ever secret about this war?

Nifty,
"what facts and data was that?"
I would say it is the facts and data that they haven't released as of yet. Do you really think for one second that we know all the facts? Don't you think that there could be some that they haven't told us about? If this really is such a bad war and we've really screwed it up with lies then why didn't Germany, Russia, China, and the rest of the UN fight America? Isn't it the job of the UN to protect the world? Why hasn't America been hit with sanctions? Something in my gut just tells me there's more here then we know?

"he knew what he knew."
He knew no more then you and me. He did not know what our leaders knew at the time.

As far as the McCain quotes go, the war against Saddam was easy and quick and he was correct in saying so. The war against terror, however, was going to be a long war and we were all told that from the start. I just don't think we expected so many ME's and AQ's to come to Iraq after the fall of Saddam.

 

[Hatuey]

Hatuey,

Yes, that evidence. Have you seen it all? Have any of us? Nope.

Good lord you mean the evidence they gave in recorded sessions in front of the U.N., Congress & numerous news interviews? Your premise is ridiculous. It relies on some sort of conspiracy theory that there is more to the story then what has already come to be known as history. There isn't. The administration exaggerated the situation. Point finale. This is confirmed by people like Hans Blix who DID in fact know what was going on and then Colin Powell.

We've seen what they've allowed us to see but don't you think there may be tons that we haven't seen?

Which means what in the context of politics exatcly? Nothing. There are tons of things we weren't allowed to see about the Watergate scandal and millions more we weren't about to know about Vietnam & WWII. Did that make Nixon less of a crook? Guess not. Did that make WWII less worth fighting in? Guess not. Did that make Vietnam less of a failure? Guess not.

If not then why do the Dems keep pumping money into the war that they said they would end if we put them into power? Maybe, just maybe, there is something going on that they may not be telling us. Do I have proof? Nope, but, either there is something more that we don't know or the Democratic leaders are liars. Feel free to tell me which it is.

The conspiracy theory is a few doors down. The democrats didn't end the war because they are weak not because of your conspiracy theory. End of story.

So you know his thougths and you know ever secret about this war?

No. Your premise is ridiculous. Throwing out a conspiracy theory a-la bhkad that means 0 in the context of the war. What they might know has little to do with what they made known & according to what they gave off not to mention the already publicly available and not to mention vast knowledge of the case for the war. You don't attack what they might know and might say. You attack what they know & what they say. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[niftydrifty]

I would say it is the facts and data that they haven't released as of yet. Do you really think for one second that we know all the facts?

we know all the relevant facts. I'm certain of that.

Don't you think that there could be some that they haven't told us about?

no, I don't because if there was anything that would have turned public opinion around, it would have come out already.

If this really is such a bad war and we've really screwed it up with lies then why didn't Germany, Russia, China, and the rest of the UN fight America?

no if's about that, it really was. why didn't the UN fight America? what are you talking about?

Isn't it the job of the UN to protect the world? Why hasn't America been hit with sanctions? Something in my gut just tells me there's more here then we know?

protect the world? sanctions? "your gut?" phrank, pull it together.

He knew no more then you and me. He did not know what our leaders knew at the time.

it isn't about what was known, it was and is about making logical and sensible conclusions from what is known.

As far as the McCain quotes go, the war against Saddam was easy and quick and he was correct in saying so. The war against terror, however, was going to be a long war and we were all told that from the start. I just don't think we expected so many ME's and AQ's to come to Iraq after the fall of Saddam.

right, and Obama acknowledged that in 2002. McCain never did. that should be your indicator of wisdom right there.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

- Barack Obama, October 2002

Standing by while an odious regime
with a history of support for terrorism
develops weapons whose use by terrorists
could literally kill millions of
Americans is not a choice. It is an abdication.
In this new era, preventive
action to target rogue regimes is not
only imaginable but necessary.
Who would not have attacked Osama
bib Laden’s network before September
11th had we realized that his intentions
to bring harm to America were
matched by the capability to do so?

Who would not have heeded Churchill’s
call to stand up to Adolf Hitler in the
1930’s, while Europe slept and appeasement
fed the greatest threat to Western
civilization the world had ever
known? Who would not have supported
Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor
in 1981 had we then known, as Israel
knew, that Saddam was on the verge of
developing the bomb?

In the new era we entered last September,
warning of an attack before it
happens is a luxury we cannot expect.
Waiting for imminence of attack could
be catastrophic. Many fear we will not
know of an attack until it happens—
and should our enemies use weapons of
mass destruction in such an attack,
the deaths of thousands or millions of
Americans could occur with no warning—
as happened last September. In
this age, to wait for our enemies to
come to us is suicidal. - John McCain, October 2002

sensible decision making requires weighing costs versus benefits, as well as shrugging off manufactured evidence.

 

[WI Crippler]

Its a shame that Obama wasn't able to have his feet put to the fire and actually have had to vote for authorization of the war like the other candidates. Not his fault, but it certainley is advantageous for his platform.

 

[niftydrifty]

Reality check for you. Hillary Clinton has been going after mccain for weeks, AND, she was the first one to slam him on the economy, then your idol barack did the same a few days later. Keep those blinders on.

NOOOooooo, reality check for YOU. this race is between Obama and McCain.

 

[niftydrifty]

Its a shame that Obama wasn't able to have his feet put to the fire and actually have had to vote for authorization of the war like the other candidates. Not his fault, but it certainley is advantageous for his platform.

several senators did vote against it. and they were saying the same kinds of things that Obama said at the time that he said it.

"no evidence of a direct threat to the US, let's focus on the war on terror, the occupation would be costly," etc etc.

Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution by Sen. Russ Feingold

 

[danarhea]

Obama keeps bringing up the fact that he thought this war was a "bad decision" and that he said so before we went to war. I have a tough time buying into his wisdom though. Think about it: Didn't he say this without knowing the facts and without seeing our data that our leaders all saw?

My question is, would he have still said it was a "bad decision" had he seen the facts that were presented at that time? If so then I think he would have a leg to stand on, but it just seems to me that all he was doing was being a peace activist by saying what he said and knowing what he knew. He knew no more then the rest of us so I don't think he deserves a cookie for the wisdom he is touting.

As far as setting the race between he and McCain goes, he may be counting his eggs. The race isn't over yet and I don't see Hillary giving up without more spit.

One of my problems with Obama is that he keeps saying he didn't vote for the war, but at the same time, he keeps voting to fund it. Those two concepts are mutually exclusive, and I would now say that his continually reminding us that he was against the war when we went in is patently dishonest.

 

[WI Crippler]

several senators did vote against it. and they were saying the same kinds of things that Obama said at the time that he said it.

"no evidence of a direct threat to the US, let's focus on the war on terror, the occupation would be costly," etc etc.

Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution by Sen. Russ Feingold

Well good for them. They aren't Obama.

I'm just saying all this rhetoric of "I thought the war was a bad idea from the start" is unsubstantiated since he didn't have to put his senatorial vote on record due to him not being in the senate. He may indeed have been against it from the start, but we only have his word to go on. For some that is enough.

 

[niftydrifty]

Well good for them. They aren't Obama.

I'm just saying all this rhetoric of "I thought the war was a bad idea from the start" is unsubstantiated since he didn't have to put his senatorial vote on record due to him not being in the senate. He may indeed have been against it from the start, but we only have his word to go on. For some that is enough.

I disagree. it's not just rhetoric. he is saying "I thought the war was a bad idea from the start" ... AND ... at the start, he also did say "I think this war is a bad idea."

so there is evidence to substantiate the whole premise, not just a guess. it isn't a maybe sorta kinda deal, as you claim.

there is no "may have been". he really was against it from the start, and the record shows it as such.

 

[phrank]

Thank you danarhea. That is just my point. I strongly feel there are tons of reasons for us to be there but due to classified information, we, as a people, aren't told about it. The reason is, if we know about it then so do our enemies.

Obama said he would have voted against this war back when he did NOT know the classified information. Now that he does know this information he continues to vote for more funding and more troops. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the Democrats took over we now have more troops in Iraq then we did before we were in power.

So, either Obama and the rest of the Democrats are liars or, maybe, just maybe, there may be a really good reason for us to be there.

 

[niftydrifty]

Thank you danarhea. That is just my point. I strongly feel there are tons of reasons for us to be there but due to classified information, we, as a people, aren't told about it. The reason is, if we know about it then so do our enemies.

Obama said he would have voted against this war back when he did NOT know the classified information. Now that he does know this information he continues to vote for more funding and more troops. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the Democrats took over we now have more troops in Iraq then we did before we were in power.

So, either Obama and the rest of the Democrats are liars or, maybe, just maybe, there may be a really good reason for us to be there.

yep, the best good reason for us to be there now is that it would be really really bad if we leave. nobody disagrees with that. there's no secret there.

I disagree with dana for once. the decision to go in, in 2003, is a different circumstance than the decision to fund in 2008. those are two different situations. going in the way we did in 2003 was irresponsible. leaving abruptly now would also be irresponsible.

 

[WI Crippler]

I disagree. it's not just rhetoric. he is saying "I thought the war was a bad idea from the start" ... AND ... at the start, he also did say "I think this war is a bad idea."

so there is evidence to substantiate the whole premise, not just a guess. it isn't a maybe sorta kinda deal, as you claim.

there is no "may have been". he really was against it from the start, and the record shows it as such.

What record? He didn't vote for the authorization. His balls weren't under the blade, so to speak.