How overly simplistic to comment on the mannerisms and use those to represent the meaning of John McCain's speech. But when I watched his speech, I truly saw a man who was showing himself to us. We got to see how deeply John McCain loves this country and what he believes in.

I will freely grant that John McCain is not a gifted speaker like Obama. But I would much rather have as President a man who loves this country, has a record we can see, review and understand and who will work his hardest than one who is a great speaker but who has no record I can rev iew and who I don't know what he really wants to do or how he will do it.

...but having been a POW and loving your country doesn't automatically qualify you as President. You need someone who not only "loves his country" but who's smart, energetic, and able, and sees that his country has been moving in the wrong direction. And you need someone behind him who's capable and experienced.

That would be the Obama/Biden ticket.

I agree. I have no doubt that McCain loves this country. So does Obama, despite the efforts of his opponents to portray him as a terrorist sympathizer.

But it does take more than just a love of country to be a good president. And quite frankly, his constant usage of his POW status as his qualification is starting to wear thin. I don't discount that he suffered greatly, but it doesn't mean he'd make a good president. For all the talk that Obama lacks specifics, McCain's use of his POW status to cover his lack of specifics does a disservice to all POWs.

Hello. I'm St. McCain. I was a POW.

I am a saint because I bumped heads with my party. Before I went to bed with them. I said that the Bush tax cuts were 'unbalanced' and 'unconscienceable'. Then I was in favor of them. And I was a POW.

I was against additional off-shore oil drilling because at most, this would increase world production 1% and that will affect the price of gas in the U.S. 0%. But then I saw a poll that said it would be popular, so now it is essential. And I was a POW.

I was for campaign finance reform. But now I want a Supreme Court that will douse what little spark of reform remains like a cat 5 hurricane. And I was a POW.

I was for 'comprehensive immigration reform', whatever that means (something about rewarding those who crossed our borders so that we get wave after wave of people who don't give a frak about our laws). But rest assured, now I would not sign my own bill. And I was a POW.

I threw my weight around to stop the investigation of long time contributor and fun guy to vacation with Charles Keating. And I was a POW.

I pushed through a land swap that benefited by big time contributor and fun guy to vacation with Steven A Betts. Sweet deal when you can trade land valued at $2000/acre for land valued at $120,000/acre! And I was a POW. <link>

And cheated on and dumped my loving wife who waited for me when I was a POW. She was in prison too, but was cut from the bio.

Being a good speaker is a minimum job requirement for the job of President. This was one of the worst speeches ever, in both style and content.

Also ,why isn't anyone calling McCain on his poor military performance -- the disrespect and recklessness he showed during his military career is well-documented (bad grades, fighting, bullying, hot-dogging, 4 plane crashes), all gotten away with because his dad was the admiral. Any other soldier would have been kicked out of the military.

Oh yeah,...he was a POW.

Weak as it is, Palin has a stronger resume that Obama. And Obama is at the top of his ticket. We should not lose sight of the fact that while he has been campaigning for over two years, Obama has not been gaining the experience he needs. He has only gained in public recognition, not accomplishments.

So to dismiss Palin for a weak resume in all fairness would cause you to reject Obama as well, and faster.

As for accusing McCain for selecting her to help his ticket, of course he did. As did every other Presidential candidate (except Bush I). How do you think Biden got on the ticket other than to shore up Obama's weak resume in foreign affairs and military. And in that I questions Biden's resume, especially in military affairs.

jburd1:

How overly simplistic to comment on the mannerisms and use those to represent the meaning of John McCain's speech.

When the commentary on the Republican side revolves around Obama's columns, or his "devoted followers," or any number of other trivial, meaningless issues, there should be no surprise when that tone is picked up to refer to the Republicans as well.

I tire of this wounded puppy act that the GOP and its supporters are running into the ground ad nauseum. This hollow, substance-free appeal to 'love of country' that McCain keeps pounding is an insult to the country McCain claims to love.

We are being told, by the party that has been in almost absolute power over the past eight years, that Washington D.C. needs reform, in some Orwellian double-speak attempt to help people forget that it was the actions of Senator McCain and his Republican cohorts that have driven the country to where it is. The message is literally as convoluted as "War is Peace."

McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.

That's not change we can believe in.

jburd1:

Weak as it is, Palin has a stronger resume that Obama. And Obama is at the top of his ticket. We should not lose sight of the fact that while he has been campaigning for over two years, Obama has not been gaining the experience he needs. He has only gained in public recognition, not accomplishments.

So to dismiss Palin for a weak resume in all fairness would cause you to reject Obama as well, and faster.

As for accusing McCain for selecting her to help his ticket, of course he did. As did every other Presidential candidate (except Bush I). How do you think Biden got on the ticket other than to shore up Obama's weak resume in foreign affairs and military. And in that I questions Biden's resume, especially in military affairs.

This political ju-jitsu is absurd. The point of contention in the Palin nomination is not over whether she or Obama are more qualified.

The point of contention is this: McCain's campaign has spent months tarring Obama as not ready to lead. Then they select Ms. Palin, a choice that in any reasonable person's mind, calls into serious doubt the honesty of McCain's 'not ready to lead' claims.

Arguing that Ms. Palin has more executive experience is insulting. She has participated in elections of 1,000 people - numbers which Karl Rove himself dismissed as insufficient to take someone seriously as a candidate in the position when discussed Gov. Tim Kaine's possible nomination.

In addition, her executive track record is undeniably spotty. Even if you believe she is completely blameless for the current scandals around her tenure (and yes, no matter how you slice it, her actions fall easily into 'abuse of power' if true) the sheer number of missteps she's made in the short time she's been Governor brings immediate lie to the idea that she'll change anythig in Washington. She is a carbon-copy neo-con, with a proven record of using her position to intimidate those she disagrees with, and fire those she's upset with personally.

For those that argue that Obama is suspect because of his 'radical affiliations,' I'd point you to Palin's husband's secessionist membership, and more importantly, her church. If Obama's pastor is fair game, then Palin's is also. That's not sexism - that's gender equality. Equal scrutinity.

In other words, Palin's nomination negates almost every significant criticism that McCain and his party have been making of Obama.

Obama's resume is far stronger to anyone who's the least bit objective. Your claims are partisan rubbish.

McSame may have selected her to help his ticket (woman, conservative, younger) but she's going to end up a liability. She's an extremist, inexperienced, and is going to be demolished when she has to debate Biden one-on-one.

jburd1:

Weak as it is, Palin has a stronger resume that Obama. And Obama is at the top of his ticket. We should not lose sight of the fact that while he has been campaigning for over two years, Obama has not been gaining the experience he needs. He has only gained in public recognition, not accomplishments.

So to dismiss Palin for a weak resume in all fairness would cause you to reject Obama as well, and faster.

As for accusing McCain for selecting her to help his ticket, of course he did. As did every other Presidential candidate (except Bush I). How do you think Biden got on the ticket other than to shore up Obama's weak resume in foreign affairs and military. And in that I questions Biden's resume, especially in military affairs.

Then by your definition, Palin and not McCain should be at the top of the ticket. McCain has zero executive experience.

We should not lose sight of the fact that while he has been campaigning for over two years, Obama has not been gaining the experience he needs.

Obama has met with foreign leaders, toured the field in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yes, has written legislation on a variety of national issues.

Beyond that, there isn't much experience that anyone can get to prepare to be president. It is a job like none other. There is no presidential training program or even a minimum experience requirement in the Constitution.

We've had presidents with tons of executive experience who've been miserable in office (Bush II) and others with even less experience in elected office who are universally hailed as great leaders (Lincoln).