Well they're done with their nominations and speeches. It is clear that the choices are clear. There is no confusing people or their positions on issues. No doubt the people who like Barack preferred what he said and vice versa. Now it will come down to whom the majority of voters decide to choose next November and largely to how they will be convinced between now and then.

Here on Slate there's no need to debate the candidates or issues. Slate is a liberal site that presents liberal leaning articles for liberal readers and bloggers. No conservative poster's opinion will change their minds.

Perhaps though Obama might provide enough concern to waver their support. Consider Barack's interview with O'Reilly last night. Barack tells us the the troop surge in Iraq "worked better than anyone would have predicted". Barack did not "think" that the troop surge would work at all let alone good or, as he now admits, outstanding. And that underscores exactly where Barack's lack of experience comes into play. He did not "think" the surge would work because he did not know any different. He does not understand applied military tactics. If, for that one decision, Barack was President there would have been no surge because Barack would have gotten it WRONG.

In the other camp McCain has seen wrong decisions made in managing the Iraq conflict from its onset. McCain understood what others did not and knew for certain that the surge was needed and would work. It was one of the many things McCain has a thorough understanding about.

Barack supporters will point out that Barack wanted us to stay out of Iraq altogether. He guessed correctly that WMDs were not there. I say guess because even Iraqi generals thought they had access to WMDs. Saddam intentionally kept the whole world in the dark about WMDs so Obama could not have been certain about their existence. Again, if Barack made that decision on his best guess he could have been right or wrong. In short I do not see where Obama is making decisions based on a real understanding of how to manage the problem. He runs on gut instinct. If he gets it right good. If not, well, oh darn.

Barack is a smart man but needs more time and experience to accumulate what he really does need to sit in the White House and in be charge of all of our country. He does have some great ideas but he is not yet equipped with a broad or deep enough knowledge base for this job.

Blog here for like-minded readers; http://www.foxnews.com/

Sorry to break it to you Scootr'ed, but for McCain to claim that his judgement is better than Obama's, by using the example of the surge, is in and of itself without logic. You can't make one big mistake (supporting and continuing to claim that us going to Iraq was necessary) which shows a complete lack of judgement, but then recover it by claiming that your support of a successfull tactical move such as the surge, shows that you're wise and knowlegeable and that your judgement is intact.

At best, both Obama's and McCain's judgement is just as poor on the subject, since they are both 1 for 2.

Then again, there are those that will claim that any short term progress as a result of the surge, (ie. Violence decreasing in Iraq), is only a short term gain, which in the long term wont help us avoid the hatred we have breeded in the Islamic world by simply being there in the first place. So maybe a handycap should go to the guy that would have kept us out of the entire mess to begin with, but that's a bit facetious, let's just agree it's even.

So where does that leave us, with the election coming soon? It's fair to say that all those 26 years of "service" and "experience" haven't made McCain's judgement any better, the statistics support that, if anything they are equal in judgement. So scratch that argument. I guess we have to rely on who we believe is more willing to rise to the occasion , to answer the call to action America is relying on in order to fix its problems. In this case, I believe Obama's made it pretty clear what he's going to do to change the direction of this country. To fix the economy and our standing around the globe, and unify this country and bring us back to the international status we deserve. I heard none of that from the McCain camp.

The surge did not work because Americans are still dying in Iraq on a continuing basis. Perhaps Scooter'd can list the overwhelming benefits to the USA that "winning" has provided us?

If Obama had been president for the past four years, the number of American deaths in Iraq would have been zero. None. Bush, McCain and Scooter'd have absolutely nothing to discuss which can match the blessing that would have provided to America- thousands of young American lives saved.

They have nothing to discuss at all but their own wounded pride at being wrong in the first place and willing to kill more Americans to salve their mental anguish.

Sorry elaustinite... Obama got one of his decision correct by luck not by design. That McCain and anyone who supported invading Iraq ended up being wrong is not their fault. It was Saddam who played the WMD shell game and most of the world decided he should be called on it.

You also assume that if Saddam had been left in power that he'd have behaved himself. Dare I suggest that his prior actions do not support that either. He had subverted the UN food for oil program and had tons of discretionary funds. He openly sponsored state murder and terrorism. He hated America and reveled in 9/11. It is more likely that he'd have covertly worked for a repeat of that event instead of turning over a new leaf.

Again Baracks decisions are one thing. How he makes them is the scarier thing. With all of the advice from the generals and advisors he felt the surge would fail. He took in all the information and turned out the wrong answer. He took in all the information about the Iraq war and made a decision that was right by luck not by logic. Still, had we not deposed Saddam we would probably have had him interacting in some other unpleasant manner anyway.

Or maybe the success of the surge (and yes there has been wonderful success in reducing violence) is the result of a number of factors including the Anbar Awakening, improved counter insurgency tactics implemented by Petraeus, and this fascinating new tidbit.

"The book also says "ground-breaking" covert techniques have helped reduce the violence in Iraq."

You say the surge showed McCain's competence. I say where has this competence been in discussing Afghanistan and the fight against a resurgent Taliban?

Sorry to disagree with you yet again, buddy, but most of the world did not agree with the invasion of Iraq, despite what Saddam was or was not doing. As a matter of fact, no one did, except Tony Blair, who was also acting in disregard of his people's will.

Secondly, you are making some big assumptions. One, that McCain's support of the surge comes as a result of some sort of military tactical genius, which frankly I have never seen. He was a POW, that does not automatically make him Patton. So it's possible that his support of the war was also an educated guess. Two, you're making the assumption that Obama's opposition to the war was a lucky desicion. There were protests of thousands of people all over the world marching against the war, people that could see through the transperancy of the Bush administrations actions and refusal to listen that this was not a necessary war. Were all those people lucky in their opposition also? Or is it possible that people are not as weak and ignorant as Bush/McCain and their cronies want to believe they are.

You make an eloquent argument Scootr'ed, but just like most republicans, you only mention what is conveniant to you. Its all spin aimed at confusing the uneducated.

It's pretty easy, just admit that you are scared and prefer a military hawk in the white house because that makes you feel safer. It has nothing to do with the candidates judgment. It's simple Machiavellian logic, better to be feared than loved. That anything other than that is too much of a risk for you to take. That at least is honest. I would respect that more. Simply put, I am not willing to take the risk that other countries out there may be plotting against me, so I will strike them all down first before they ever get the chance. Like a mobster. Cut and dry...and honest. Anything else is bull that most American's have no need for anymore.

Actually the surge is a chosen topic only because Obama discussed it last night.

If you would rather we could discuss character issues like chosen associates like Rezko, Wright and Ayers. Or, we could discuss the ethics of Chicago politics and bankrupt developments so badly built that they require demolition. We could discuss 143 days of hard hitting Senatorial duties. We could discuss drug usage from high school through grad school. There are many Obama topics that for some reason get glossed over by the liberal press.

The substance of my point about the surge is that if Obama were at the helm Iraq would be a greater disaster than it is. Now you feel he should decide how to assuage Russia and Iran? Obama's resume is not only empty it has glaring mistakes. Hope he does better in the future. Keep your fingers crossed.

bsharporflat:

The surge did not work because Americans are still dying in Iraq on a continuing basis. Perhaps Scooter'd can list the overwhelming benefits to the USA that "winning" has provided us?

If Obama had been president for the past four years, the number of American deaths in Iraq would have been zero. None. Bush, McCain and Scooter'd have absolutely nothing to discuss which can match the blessing that would have provided to America- thousands of young American lives saved.

They have nothing to discuss at all but their own wounded pride at being wrong in the first place and willing to kill more Americans to salve their mental anguish.

Wow- even Obama admits that the surge has worked. I guess you must be smarter than Obama. Maybe YOU should be running for President instead of him.

The Bush administration left us such a massive clusterf-ck that with either of the two in the White House I would be keeping my fingers crossed, but I'll take my chances with the guy that knows it's a clusterf-ck, rather than the guy who said he wouldn't have changed a thing.

...except maybe congressional earmarking.

...oh wait, Sara Palin actually accepted more federal earmarked funds on a per capita basis than any other governor in the country. ....strike that one too.

All this surge talk igores the question of why we are there in the first place and what will happen if we just up and leave. In case we have FORGOTTEN we just pushed the copters off the decks of the carriers and ran tail from Vietnam. California did not become a communist part of Vietnam or wasn't the last time I checked so why can't we do the same in Iraq? We lost in Vietnam beacuse we should not have been there in the first place and 2 trillion dollars and 40 years from now we'll say the same about Iraq.

"Wow- even Obama admits that the surge has worked. I guess you must be smarter than Obama. Maybe YOU should be running for President instead of him. "

Nice dodge Mr. Person. Now...you were just about to answer my question on what we have gained from the surge, yes? Still waiting.....