What we need is a Democrat like FDR who can fix things up domestically and still seem like a force to be reckoned with when it comes to foreign affairs.

hanging out with the Aryan Brotherhood now.............?

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Besides that, McCain has been wrong on defense and Iraq so many times that he's due to be right one of these times.................

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

This just sounds like mindless partisanship. After 9/11, I don't care who was the President, America was going to avenge things in Afghanistan. It could've been your grandmother or my grandmother or anybody's grandmother; Afghanistan was going to get attacked.

Why is everything so black and white in the thinking that Dems wouldn't retaliate after a terrorist attack? Maybe they would retaliate against the right people and not some random country. Maybe they would fight the 21st century war the 21st century way instead of the old-fashioned way that Bush did.

The blanket statement that Dems wouldn't know what to do in this kind of situation is baffling. Clinton got involved militarily in Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else? I can't remember. Haiti? Or was that NATO? And what about the Republican controlled congress in the 90's denying Clinton the power to go to Afghanistan? Instead he sent over a few black-ops people, and even then, America got closer to getting Bin Laden than Bush could have ever hoped.

The blanket statement that Obama would try to reason and negotiate with attackers against America doesn't make any sense. It's not grounded in any kind of proof or facts, however, in Iraq, Bush decided to help the surge along by paying off 100,000 former Baathists and other militias to keep control of the areas they've taken. He could've worked out something bold along the lines of a reconciliation commission or something, but instead he's just bribing them. It's the most cynical of all choices and it admits defeat.

If a military person is going to lead America, it at least ought to be someone that the country could trust to really hear all sides and sift through all evidence carefully. With McCain I get the same feeling in that I do with Bush; they both hear want they want to hear and exclude the rest.

I think Kerry would've been good in that respect. He kept getting attacked for being a girly-man because he was mild-mannered, and his "I voted for it before I voted against it" was tragi-comedy. Domestically he would have been much better, and in foreign affairs I think his cabinet would have been much better equipped than Bush's, which is filled with unqualified "friends" and a multitude of graduates from Pat Robertson U.

Right, cause lord knows we need a president with a temper so he can kick ass. So the president is now a gladiator? Does he get a horse and a sword to charge the enemy?

__________________
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

Seneca

1. Why does it matter if he came from a prominent military family, how does being raised by admiral's automatically transfer into your having the necessary experience to LEAD the military. Should the sons of generals not have to go through basic training and be automatically put into leadership roles because of their lineage? Explain.
2. He actually doesn't have alot of military experience. Here's an enlightening quote from General Weslery Clarke, who I guarantee you knows more about these issues than anyone on this board. How does this (not true) claim have anything to do with national security issues?
Yeah that's a winning strategy in 2008, a candidate who wants more war.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

He wasn't actually in the military all that long. General Wesley Clarke pointed this out when he said
He comes from a prominent military family, and gratuated from the United States Naval Acadomy at Anapolis. John McCain has also been in the senate for over 22 years, and has made a name for himself crossing party lines to get things done. Arguably most importantly, McCain IMO, is more willing to use force when necassary than is Obama to protect our country.

Compare McCains experience and accomplishments to Barracks, or lack there of. Obama has absolutly no military experience, has only been in real politics for 3 years (2 of which were spent campaigning for POTUS), and has implied an unwillingness to use force to secure national security. Agree or disagree, I think its pretty clear why the majority of Americans would feel safer with MccCain as POTUS.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

In fairness, he was asked the question by a journalist whether a terrorist attack on U.S. would advantage McCain's campaign, and he just answered it honestly. Incredibly inappropriate nonetheless.

__________________

Well, that gives him better odds of being right than Obama: Chimp Boy has...

Speaking of "blanket statements".

What gives you that impression?

Well, that's a stupid fucking comment...

Then Wesley Clarke is a complete fucking idiot.

McCain graduated form the Naval Academy in 1958. He retired from the Navy, as a Captain, in 1981.

I was unaware that someone who spends 23 years in the military "wasn't actually in the military all that long"...

I wouldn't really have a problem with that.

Barack Obama ain't that guy...

I'm guessing he's not being given credit for time spent in the Hanoi Hilton.

__________________