Barrack Hussein Obama wants to be like John McCain and move away from the far left liberal weirdo's. This is something the Democratic Party should have done 8 years ago. Barrack Hussein Obama is a tad late as now it appears he will move to get votes and take up any opinion as long as its popular. We need leadership not followship. Yes he is your typical snake oil selling politician, something I have always suspected and felt would show up eventually. Most people who were going to vote for Barrick Hussein Obama must now question his platform which will be hard to do as it appears it is built on shifting sand. John McCain has always been closer to the middle than to the right, which explains his less than popular standing with the far right and a difinite separation with George Bush. He is a natural leader and who we need now. John McCain the safe choice.

Straight foreword and on point. A real shame more people can't see through Obama's smoke and mirrors.

many of us DID see through obama

too bad the DNC chose to USE the rules to make obama the nominee

they should be proud the MOST unqualified person turned out to be the nominee

as per THEIR plan

The trick is to give us nobody liars so they can do what they want without having to deal with a human being for a politician. That's why they continue to promote these Quisling Stooge Zombies. Easier to sell out Americans that way. The last human being in office was Ronald Reagan and he really upset the apple cart, even destroyed the Dims best friends, the Soviet Union. Can't have that. Now the Globalist Socialists have to Raise up Islamic Jihad to take their place.

Dd

Maybe they can become running mates? It seems both candidates are trying to morph into the other and doing a poor job of it.

does it look like Obama has change positions.

McCain was against tax cuts, now is for them, was against the "agents of intolerance" then was looking for their endorsement, says is for the GI's but against benefits for them, said the war would be a piece of cake, said that everything was going great, took a walk thru the Baghdad market (with two companies of soldiers, 10 humvees and two gunships overhead) and said that it was perfectly safe...then later said that he'd criticized the running of the war all along. His last was how great he thought the economy was doing.....

McCain is either pretty fast on his feet for a guy his age or maybe he is just "hiding his own easter eggs".

Obama is a good example of style over substance. Charisma is worthless without integrity. Sad state of affairs at this point and time.

McCain is now bringing on people who were part of the Rove shop in the Bush campaign. He has hired a former Fox news producer.

This is not an attempt to bring truth to the American voter. It is recognition on McCain's part that he lost in 2000 because the Bush campaign was better at twisting the truth and smearing his own reputation.

Is this the kind of integrity you prefer? I've seen nothing but values I admire from Obama.

Obama hasn't changed since last august when he stated that there would be a residual force in Iraq and that we would have enough force there to protect the embassy and critical interests.

He always said that he'd set the mission and that he'd listen to the military on how to accomplish the mission.

<link>

"He always said that he'd set the mission and that he'd listen to the military on how to accomplish the mission."

While he may have been saying this for a while I think he was selling that the soldiers would be out in a year. I think they call that bait and switch.

For the life of me I do not see how this is any different than what is going on now or what McCain is saying. In my view it is the same and if you have to pick a side it surely would have to be McCain because the reason for the situation in Iraq now is because of the surge which Obama opposed and McCain supported and pushed for, which clearly was an awful choice at the time in political terms. I think if you are looking for political courage that is one great example.

I thought the surge was stupid and it signaled the end of McCain. He was right I was wrong.

Now when Obama talks to Petraus are you thinking that he is going to badmouth the plan they devised. So you believe he is going to say anything different than he said to W.

Remember that the surge plan came from a guy named Kagan, not from General Petraeus. What you and many others fail to acknowlege that people said that there might be a short term reduction in violence but that it would not resolve the problems with the various groups. The fact that there was a sudden outbreak of violence between the Badr group and the Mehdi army in Basra just a couple of months ago is a problem. It shows that the militias are still armed and still capable of defeating the Iraqi army. The Iraqi government had to go to Iran to beg Sadr for a cease fire.

It is too early to declare the surge a success. After we have withdrawn, we could make a final analysis.....the fact is that we do not have enough troops to do the job in Afghanistan and the surge used up the only available troops. Now the admiral in charge of both theaters says we will have to wait for a year to reinforce Afghanistan.

I will not vote for any GOP candidate. They have lost my trust. They killed the dollar. Ran up all cost, and the debt. Fought the wrong war. damaged our military.

I am not declaring anything. But compared to before the surge it now looks like their is a possibility that there could be a good outcome in Iraq. A good outcome would be a good thing. I think that the surge is showing signs of success and I think that it is not very wise to screw with what is succeeding. I guess I was wrong about who devised the surge but it is also clear that as early as 3 years ago McCain was in support of putting more forces in Iraq and had a great deal of disagreement with the Bush approach.

The vote for the war was based on deceptive information. So in a sense how can you fault anyones vote for the war when based upon what they saw their vote was justified. Add the pressure to support the President and I think the way to vote is obvious. I have no doubt that Obama would have voted for it as well. The real blame rests on W and his administration.

So we got into a war that never should have happened. Now what? Talking about how you felt about it years ago has nothing to do with today. McCain spoke his mind and even did so when it was not in the interest of his run for president. I think that shows character no matter what you think of what he is saying now. When the rubber hits the road he will do what he thinks needs to be done. I think he proved it with his stand for the surge and when he refused the offer to be set free in Viet Nam again it showed his character when the stakes were personally much higher.

I think now that it is clear that McCain was on the right track, Obama is apparently in complete agreement with his approach and always was. That to me does not show character. I think that if you are willing to buy that Obama now believes that the current approach used by W is the way to go, he actually to me becomes a better choice. I don't buy it but if I did I would have to reconsider him.

It all comes down to this.

1. Do you actually think that any of the current combatants in Iraq are a threat to the US if we were to withdraw? I do not. I see both the Badr and Mehdi people as crooks who are fighting to control the oil. The current government in Iraq is of the same tribe as the Badr people. They are all shiites. The Sunni awakening councils in the Baghdad area are on our side now, because we pay them. When we stop paying them then they will be back in the fight and this time with guns that we provided.

2. The real problem is Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to escape to Pakistan and if they destabilize the government there, then they'll have a nuclear arsenal on the border with India (with a nuclear arsenal). I'm thinking that a bunch of Muslim wackjobs with a Nuke could push the Indians to strike first.....

3. We don't have enough troops to reinforce Afghanistan. McCain criticized Obama for saying that he would order a strike on Al Qaeda or the Taliban in Pakistan. McCain said that Obama was talking about invading an ally. Was he just going for political points or was he actually declaring a safe haven for terrorists in Pakistan?

1) I never thought that Iraq was a threat at all. I think that what concerns me is what happens when we leave. I think you make my point of concern. The country is only stable while we are there. With us gone chaos. What is the result of becoming totally unstable? With us gone how long do you think that Iran and Israel would play nice.

2) I think that Afghanistan was the problem but now it is the Tali ban who want Afghanistan under their control. I thought that our issue was with Al Qaeda. Pakistan is to some extent trying to work with us. Are you suggesting we should attack in Pakistan and not use diplomacy. That seems to go against what Obama says. I agree that W and his decision to invade Iraq resulted in this mess. But what is the best course going forward I am not sure. I think that Al Qaeda still exists in Iraq so in part we are fighting them there. I think this clearly can be called a rock and a hard place.

3) I guess I talked about this in the above section but I do think that attacking Taliban inside of Pakistan presents some problems that McCain is talking about. I do not think it means he wants to provide a safe haven. I think if you do not work with the government of Pakistan you insure that they will be taken out of power by those who are not going to cooperate with the US at all.