I don't know that I agree with the full list of Mark Kleiman's reasoning:

"That statement would have three advantages for HRC, and one for the country:

1. It would be true, or as close to true as you'd expect in a campaign. (If she really thought that John "Bomb Iran" McCain was fit to be President, she must be operating on different standards than the rest of us. On the other hand, perhaps she merely meant that he was perceived as being above the bar for the CinC role.)

2. It would help her in the remaining primaries by reassuring Democrats of her party loyalty, which several of her recent statements have brought into question.

3. By giving McCain's blunder another day of news coverage, it would help her win the general election should Barack Obama be hit by a meteor or caught up the Rapture or discovered in a compromising position with a goat, which are the only three circumstances under which she winds up as the nominee.

4. For the same reason, it would also help Barack Obama beat McCain in the much more likely event that he becomes the nominee.

The only reason I can see for HRC's not making such a statement is that she regards #4 as a bug rather than a feature: that she'd like to see Obama lose so she could run in 2012, or that she'd like to make it seem as if Obama would lose to make the party elders give her the nomination this year, even at the expense of making the continuation of Republican rule more likely. But she isn't really that cynical."

What Mark leaves us with is no reason that Clinton won't make that statement. I do agree with him that Clinton can't genuinely want Obama to lose to McCain in November. More likely, she just doesn't think this story is going to get a lot of play in the press right now given Obama's speech on race. Which I think would be a fair assumption.

What we should really take from this is that McCain is not going to be strong on foreign policy come fall. And since that's his only strength, he's a far weaker candidate than we've previously imagined. Not to say I've imagined he could win this thing, but I did consider him to be the toughest opponent. If he needs Lieberman whispering in his ear to keep him updated on foreign policy though, then he's going to continue to come across as a bit of a buffoon.

Coming out of commercial during the broadcast of a golf tournament, the well paid, intelligent, professional television announcer said, and I quote, "We just heard some lightning and saw some thunder...."

Anyone who would advise a political candidate to make hay out of McCain's verbal screw up needs to wear looser underwear.

I have said all along that McCain was not what everybody makes him out to be and is not that hard to frame as an opponent for the general. I have got another hint here; keep pestering him about this buffoonish mistake and he will lose his temper and make even further of an ass of himself over this. Seriously. As to the idea for Clinton, just about perfect I would say. Big Blue is right about maybe getting drowned out in the next couple of days; but it will still be good, McCain's gaffe can just keep giving if done right. Big Blue is also absolutely right about not wanting Obama to lose; both Clintons will go to bat to win for the Democratic candidate in November, no matter who it is.

Let's amend this slightly
"Gee, I thought he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief, but it sure doesn't sound like it. The least we should expect from the President is some basic knowledge about who our enemies are. Incidentally, Barak Obama is an angry black man."

Coming out of commercial during the broadcast of a golf tournament, the well paid, intelligent, professional television announcer said, and I quote, "We just heard some lightning and saw some thunder...."

1. Since when are golf commentators automatically considered to be intelligent (or is being well-paid the bar for intelligence now)?

2. There is a vast difference between the commentator's error and McCain's. The first was a slip of the tongue. The second was either a frightening misunderstanding of Middle East reality or an arrogant statement of political flim flam from a man who should know better. Especially since his campaign is based on experience.

We've just barely survived seven years of idiots and flim flam. I'm sick of it. And frankly, sick of all the finger pointing and smearing as well. Although I disagree with majarosh's premise, I agree with his statement that the Democrats shouldn't make political hay out of the statement per se. The media is doing a good enough job of it. Let McCain's ignorance or slipperiness (I'm still not sure which it was) speak for itself.

I agree with his statement that the Democrats shouldn't make political hay out of the statement per se.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we lose all the time. The term "Flip-Flopper" has become part of the modern lexicon. But pointing out how a guy who is wrong about everything, is well, wrong about everything is icky politics. eww.

Well, Hillary already told us that she and John McCain have crossed the same Commander in Chief threshhold. Apparently it's the "doddering old war-mongering fool" threshhold.

Big Blue: I didn't get the sense the Kleinman was fully convince Clinton wasn't that cynical. You left out the "Is she?" in your quote of his piece.

"The only reason I can see for HRC's not making such a statement is that she regards #4 as a bug rather than a feature: that she'd like to see Obama lose so she could run in 2012, or that she'd like to make it seem as if Obama would lose to make the party elders give her the nomination this year, even at the expense of making the continuation of Republican rule more likely. But she isn't really that cynical.

Is she?"

I know we or you-all are just indulging in some snarky fun here, but to take the idea seriously: uh, no, you can't take the idea seriously. To expect Clinton to disown or criticize McCain would be to expect her to disown the whole system of DNC-style shifty half-ass-ed-ness, the world of do-nothing, be-nothing, think-nothing, stand-for-nothing into which our government has sunk--the tar pits of George W. Bush- and Republican-style corruption, where Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman squat on ragged slime-covered lily pads.

AND OFF-TOPIC:

I have finally watched the 2003 English six-parter "State of Play," and, yes, it is completely riveting. It was recently praised in Salon, but I've been sitting on a copy for several weeks or a couple months now. (I'm so up on things and so avant-garde that I know about swell, excellent stuff even before Salon tells me I'm supposed to like it.)

It stars a lot of my favorite British actors: the actress who was so good as the put-upon housewife in "Subarban Shootout"...James McAvoy...the luminous Kelly MacDonald...Polly Walker...Marc Warren (memorably sleazy and grotesque here)...Bill Nighy. Etc., etc.

The description at Salon DOES NOT give a good or accurate impression of the picture. It may be nothing but journalists and journalism rightwards and forwards but it does not feel remotely dry or scribbler-ish. WHAT THE STORY IS is a riveting murder thriller. Completely gripping.

(Soon to be a major motion picture with Ben Affleck--alas?)

"Coming out of commercial during the broadcast of Anyone who would advise a political candidate to make hay out of McCain's verbal screw up needs to wear looser underwear."
Posted by: majarosh

"There is a vast difference between the commentator's error and McCain's. The first was a slip of the tongue. The second was either a frightening misunderstanding of Middle East reality or an arrogant statement of political flim flam from a man who should know better. Especially since his campaign is based on experience."
Posted by Everyman

Alternatively, McCain, who really, REALLY wants to bomb Iran, may have just been pulling the old Bush/Cheney conflate Al Qaeda and Iran trick. Nobody ever called them on it, after all. McCain, though, probably should have let Lieberman in on it beforehand.

Everyman,

1. They're not. I worked with him. He's quite intelligent and usually very succinct. (nice guy, as well)

2. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

There is a big difference between an announcer and a presidential candidate. I used the example in an attempt to show, with some humor, that someone who makes his living speaking on live TV can make a completely idiotic statement, one that he absolutely knows to be incorrect and totally embarass himself in the process.
My opinion is that trying to make political hay out of an obvious gaff will have the exact opposite effect than what is intended. Granted, the loyal will have a good smirk and feel superior, the opposition will claim 'foul' but the swing voters, the ones that will determine the outcome of the general election, will consider it petty and feel sympathetic toward McCain.
JMO FWIW

"Gee, I thought he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief..."

"Gee, I thought Saddam had WMDs (based on what the Bush administration told us at the time, even though she never did actually read the N.I.E.)..."

Hillary doesn't admit making mistakes in judgment.

After eight years of working as closely with Bill as she has claimed, and then seven years working in the same chamber as McCain, she never had an opportunity to evaluate McCain's Commander-in-Chief qualifications?

And,

"Gee, I thought Bush could be trusted to not abuse the powers granted under the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq..."

I sure wouldn't call the senile old coot at 3 a.m., if there were a national security emergency - he would probably be on dialysis or getting his Depends changed...

Not that I want to prolong our idiotic national discussion of what Rev. Wright, Barack Obama’s ex-pastor said or didn’t say, but I have an interesting link. During the 2007 Voters Value Conference in D.C., the GOP faithful asked the cute little question, “Why should God bless America?” Where was the outrage over that???

Hillary is someone who represents division, distortion and a do and say anything mentallity to win, may be you reprsent those traits too, I do not know. I do know she has no credibility on the Iraq war and can do all the speeches on Iraq that she chooses but no one really believes her. She represents the past ways of doing things which are negative and impedements to the qualities of goodwill and unity which we are trying to implement in a more holistic society. You know there are some who just don't want Unity, because with unity there is power, a force, either for good or bad but it is a powerful force. And Obama wants a force for good, for groping and solving our problems which effect us today and have not really been addressed or solved. We have to do something new for the old ways have not worked. He has shown by his willingness not to go negative that he indeed, represents something new.

re: During the 2007 Voters Value Conference in D.C., the GOP faithful asked the cute little question, “Why should God bless America?” Where was the outrage over that???

The key difference seems to be that they put their similarly inflammatory rhetoric in the form of questions. Hagee does the same thing.

I'm not sure how Pat Robertson gets away with merely putting a "maybe" in front (e.g.: "Maybe we ought to take [Chavez] out")

The other approach, used effectively by Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc., is to later claim they were just joking around.

So, I guess anything goes as long as the perpetrator can claim he's practicing to be a Jeopardy contestant or a stand-up comic.

How does a slip of the tongue [which really wasn't a slip of tongue since there was intelligence out there last year suggesting Iran was playing both sides of the fence] - but how does a slip of the tongue suddenly equal buffoonery? McCain is more of a man than anyone on this blog, or any blog anywhere, could ever hope to be. You people are really shameless. McCain deserves respect because of what he's done in his life, not for what a few good speeches that possibly suggest what he might one day do.

But you idiots are gonna get your wish, writing's on the wall, it will be president Obama - and I will enjoy watching you squirm when he either: does in Iraq exactly what Hillary or McCain would have, which is stay, and you assholes start crying about what happened to your great spiritual leader; or more likely, indeed does pull out and then six months later has to make a decision about going back in because of the shit storm unleashed and realizes a pretty speech ain't gonna solve the problem. You people in your desperation have convinced yourself that words equal deeds - Pericles gave some nice speeches, sure, but ya know, he had actually accomplished things, he was a great man with great works behind him, we remember the words but there were heroic deeds behind them - Obama is nothing more than a speech and for you pathetic fools to writhe around him with such adoration is sound evidence that this country is truly fucked.

Caught this thread kind of late but wish to remark on post #2--golf commentator confounds remark about weather: "heard lightning and saw thunder."

Since AlQaida is the organization that staged the first attack on the continental US since 1814 and killed more Americans than anyone ever in doing so....

And since John McCain is trying to convince us he should be our President....

Well...suffice it to say that your analogy shows very poor thought processes.

And anyone who watches televised golf should put on some underwear, then some trousers and get out a little bit. Breathe the air. Experience sunshine. Clear the cobwebs.

It just seems out of place. Hillary doesn't do sarcasm that well and I don't think the threshold comment is widely known enough to be a universal reference point. Reformulate it as a serious comment and then think about whether you want Hillary or Barack to say it. Then ask yourself why.

Why is everyone giving Obama a pass on his reverend being so discriminartory? Why did everyone get on HRC's case about Ferraro? Why NOT call McCain on his blunders?

All of these are good questions - we deserve to know all about the candidates. No one should be given a pass - not for blunders & stupidiity - and not for supporting for over 20 years a pastor that is extremely controversial & discriminatory & racists.

Shorter Orso: McCain didn't make a mistake, even though he corrected himself. And he is qualified to be president because he was a prisoner of war and doesn't give good speeches.

Why is everyone giving Obama a pass on his reverend being so discriminartory? Why did everyone get on HRC's case about Ferraro? Why NOT call McCain on his blunders?

All of these are good questions - we deserve to know all about the candidates. No one should be given a pass - not for blunders & stupidiity - and not for supporting for over 20 years a pastor that is extremely controversial & discriminatory & racists.

re: "McCain deserves respect because of what he's done in his life."

With all due respect (which he gets in abundance; some believe he even gets an undue "pass") for what he went through in Vietnam four decades ago, that certainly does not mean that John McCain is the most qualified candidate to be president in 2009. McCain's Vietnam experience does not help predict that our future as a nation will be better with him in charge.

While McCain's service in Vietnam was honorable, the outcome of the overall Vietnam experience was far from honorable. Honorable service toward a dishonorable end is not exactly a virtue, either.

I could easily draw parallels to others who served honorably, and suffered horribly, in dishonorable causes, but then I'd be accused of saying awful unpatriotic things, things worse than what Rev. Wright has said.

Oh, but they all had good intentions, right?

In this country, we need new leadership whose service consists of more than good intentions.

mcKane ain't abel.

It'll never happen because it means Hillary will have to admit she was wrong.

abc55 obviously thinks (well, maybe that's not the right word) that anything stupid enough to say once is worth repeating.

Obama's reverend repeatedly said racist & discriminatory things - many times not just once.

McCain's blunders were were stupid because he is smarter than that and people know it. HRC can call him on the mi-statements but they were not total idiotic statement like GWBush makes.

No one deserves a pass - especially the anger & loud retoric from a LONG TIME friend that Obama used & uses to guide him - this is scary.

My opinion is that trying to make political hay out of an obvious gaff will have the exact opposite effect than what is intended.

McCain made this "mistake" not once but three times in 24 hours. Paraphrasing what I said to Donald re Clinton's cheerleading for McCain: once is a gaffe, three times is a serious problem.

grouse as you hippies will about old man McCain - Tibet and to a less obvious degree Taiwan are and will use the Olympics to try and pry themselves loose of China's evil grip - and things will get nasty, potentially very nasty. That, along with those cancerous videos of Wright, will serve McCain very well in November.

If both candidates don't go big on McCain's repeated gaffe they are fools. If you are the Iraq/Iran war candidate and you don't know that Shiite Iran doesn't support Sunni Al Qaeda you not qualified to be commander in chief.

Joe Lieberman's whisper made John McCain look like a senile old fool.

Hillary doesn't have to admit making a mistake. All she has to do is say that she is saddened to watch her old friend John McCain walk back over the commander in chief threshold out into the cold winter air wearing nothing but a house coat and slippers. She might call on senior services to gently take him to a nursing home for observation while she calls his family.

So, McCain will need LIEberman attached to his side to "correct his mistakes" from now on...and to listen to SOME in our media/blogosphere Obama will be diminished by his radical preacher...so, you GOOD OLD BOYS who have spent the past winter punching Hillary may just be STUCK WITH HER...HA!!!!! Let's watch the media spin around and begin to suck up to those they have been bashing for months...no wonder the world is LAUGHING...a once great super power downed by an idiot president and a joke of a media...

I don't think Obama's diminished in the slightest. The dittoheads and racist rednecks weren't going to vote for him anyway. Fortunately there aren't as many of those folks as there used to be.

After yesterday beating Obama is going to be damn near impossible. If Hillary can pull it off without destroying the party she will have earned my support.

Darcy Burner for President in '16!

We can't have that senile fool McCain running the nation. Go for it Hillary!

McCain is a monster. Who wants to send our troops overseas to fight one set of enemies for one set of reasons but have the commander in chief tell them they're fighting someone else for something the someone-else isn't even doing? That kind of governing should be as obsolete as the Nazis.

To expect Clinton to disown or criticize McCain would be to expect her to disown the whole system of DNC-style shifty half-ass-ed-ness, the world of do-nothing, be-nothing, think-nothing, stand-for-nothing into which our government has sunk ....

Well, I've been trying to explain to my wife why I don't support Hillary, and this is pretty much it. Except if I put it this way (including the following lily-pad metaphor), she'd think I'd lost my marbles.

People keep characterizing it as a "gaffe." A gaffe is a mistake, where there's something you know but, through a slip of the tongue or whatever, get it wrong.

But what McCain said wasn't a gaffe -- he honestly doesn't know that Shiite Iran is enemies with Sunni al Qaeda, either because (a) he's senile and/or deluded or (b) he's really ignorant and kind of stupid. But whichever it is, crazy or stupid, it's not what you want in a commander-in-chief.

And Republicans wonder why no one trusts them on national security.

McCain deserves respect because of what he's done in his life,

Here's a deal: I'll give Vietnam veteran John McCain exactly the same amount of respect for his service that Republicans gave Vietnam veteran John Kerry for his service. Sound fair?

McCain was too busy gaining valuable foreign policy experience to learn the difference between the different Iraqi insurgents.

orso, it wasn't a slip of the tongue-- McCain keeps repeating it because he, like most ignorant right-wingers, cannot tell the different factions in Iraq apart.

The man is too stupid to be president. Period.

I want an intelligent, thoughtful president, and Obama proved to me yesterday that he is that man. McCain showed that he's just a buffoon who hasn't done much to understand anything about Iraq or foreign policy in his long political career.

"The man is too stupid to be president. Period."

This line of thought doesn't work with Republican voters. As far as they go, the stupider (and meaner), the better.

How typical that Obamabots can never focus on anything other than their guy or the evil that is HRC.

To lots of people, not just Republicans, strength is more important than brains in a President. You can always hire people with brains. Which is why hitting McCain on this doesn't really do much.

The lobbyist angle is much better to go at, since it actually makes him look like a weak fool who is led around by lobbyists. Ahem.

Obama must figure out how to pass the strength threshold. Does he even realize this? Can he stand on a podium and say "John McCain can't say no to his lobbyist buddies"? I hope he can, or can learn very fast.

"How typical that Obamabots can never focus on anything other than their guy or the evil that is HRC."

Dear heart, did you, perchance, have anything relevant to say? And calling Kevin an "obamabot" is so far from the truth that you just make yourself look foolish when you say it.

McCain keeps repeating it because he, like most ignorant right-wingers, cannot tell the different factions in Iraq apart.

Is it ignorance, though? Far more likely is the possibility that he can't be bothered, or doesn't think there's a difference, or thinks it's a distinction without a difference.

And from 30,000 feet, or whatever altitude you drop bombs from, it probably is a distinction without a difference.

Some people see an infinite number of points on a line between Us and Them, like the real numbers.

And then there are those who only deal in integers.

Hard to tell whether McCain is "that stupid" or just damaged goods who can only think in military metaphors...well, we've already done STUPID and FEAR and Be Afraid, Be very AFRAID!!! But I'm losing interest in either or OUR choices unless they find a way to STOP and move on to what's best for America!

"Which is why hitting McCain on this doesn't really do much."

I'm not convinced that's correct. As I see it, there are two reasons to go after McCain on this:

1. Follow the Rove example of hitting him where he is presumed to be strongest. You're not trying to convince the 30 percenters; you're going after media coverage and the mushy middle, the latter of whom is definitely persuadable, in my opinion.

This is all about changing the debate -- not to who is strongest on national security but on who's smartest. That's a debate that McCain loses, hands down.

2. At least partially repair the rift in the Democratic Party. Clinton screwed up big time when she said that there was a threshold for being CinC and that both she and McCain had crossed it. You just do not do that in a Presidential primary.

Even if reason 1 is as futile as you think it is, I think reason 2 is sufficient. Sadly, however, I also agree with the consensus that Clinton will not do this.

Hey, knock it off! Hillary's a busy person. Obviously too busy to read Obama's speech (yeah, like I believe that!), too busy tearing down the Dem Party, too busy to do her tax returns (like she does them herself? LOL), etc. How do you expect her to pay attention to McCain?

McCain... cannot tell the different factions in Iraq apart.

McCain plans on staying in Iraq 100 years. By then there will at long last be unity in Iraq.

All the terrorist/insurgent/AQI factions will have cast aside their differences and be united by their opposition to the U.S. occupation.

McCain was just projecting forward to that point when there will be no differentiation.

I think Hillary Clinton has made it very clear that if she isn't going to become the next president, she would genuinely prefer that John McCain become president instead of Barack Obama.

well, Mark and you will be happy to know this is EXACTLY what Obama just said in his five-year anniversary speech:
I quote

"Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades."

abc55 posted: "Obama's reverend repeatedly said racist & discriminatory things - many times not just once."

I see how you could be confused. Rev. Wright's speech was taped and the tape was replayed over and over on TV. He actually gave the inflammatory speech live only once.

Kerry is more of a man than anyone on this blog, or any blog anywhere, could ever hope to be. You people are really shameless. Kerry deserves respect because of what he's done in his life, not for what a few good speeches that possibly suggest what he might one day do.

But you idiots are gonna get your wish, writing's on the wall, it will be president Bush - Bush is nothing more than a speech and for you pathetic fools to writhe around him with such adoration is sound evidence that this country is truly fucked.

PaulB

I totally disagree. The venerable John McCain is easily challenged on the issue of whether he is ready to be the commander in chief. How much strength does a 71 year old have anyway? Given his age, and history of illness and hotheadedness the burden is on McCain to prove he is up to the job of commander in chief.

Hillary made a major tactical and strategic mistake by giving McCain a pass on his qualifications to be commander in chief. Frankly, she might not recover from that mistake.

We have had 8 years of a guy who wasn't smart enough to tell the difference between sunni and shiite. I think America wants a change.

I forgot to mention that this is Hillary's chance to walk back from her blunder without appearing weak. Obama is already beating the tar out of McCain for his mistake.

PaulB at 11:32: Excellent analysis.

I am sure someone above has already mentioned this, but it should be Obama, not Clinton, who uses this by stating "Clinton can't even judge who has the competence, or in her campaign's lingo, to pass the test, to be commander-in-chief, as she thinks Senator McCain is qualified, and he can't even determine who our enemies are after 5 years of this war."

Obama this morning:

"Senator Clinton says that she and Senator McCain have passed a “Commander in Chief test” -- not because of the judgments they’ve made, but because of the years they’ve spent in Washington. She made a similar argument when she said her vote for war was based on her experience at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

"But here is the stark reality: there is a security gap in this country -- a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions. A gap between Washington experience, and the wisdom of Washington’s judgments. A gap between the rhetoric of those who tout their support for our troops, and the overburdened state of our military.

"It is time to have a debate with John McCain about the future of our national security. And the way to win that debate is not to compete with John McCain over who has more experience in Washington, because that’s a contest that he’ll win. The way to win a debate with John McCain is not to talk, and act, and vote like him on national security, because then we all lose.

"The way to win that debate and to keep America safe is to offer a clear contrast, and that’s what I will do when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party – because since before this war in Iraq began, I have made different judgments, I have a different vision, and I will offer a clean break from the failed policies and politics of the past."

Benjamin quoted Obama: "Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades."

And Obama might very well add that just recently, we heard Senator Clinton opine that John McCain has met the "threshold" to be "commander in chief". What in the world is she talking about?

"Given McCain's buffoonish performance in Jordan, wouldn't this be a good time for Hillary Clinton to say.."

Advice or no advice, Clinton won't go after McCain until (and if) she captures the Dem nomination. Once Clinton begins bashing McCain, the votes she's receiving from Repubs will dry up. If that happens now, she'll fall further behind Obama in the Dem primary.

Right now, Clinton isn't running for president, she's running to win the Democratic nomination for president...And much like her lack of planning for a post-Super Tuesday campaign, Clinton is ignoring the race the Dems have to run after their nomination is settled.

"I totally disagree."

That's what makes this comments section fun. :)

"The venerable John McCain is easily challenged on the issue of whether he is ready to be the commander in chief."

On this, we agree. I think we're just disagreeing on the specific tactics.

"How much strength does a 71 year old have anyway? Given his age, and history of illness and hotheadedness the burden is on McCain to prove he is up to the job of commander in chief."

Obviously, I agree with your assessment of McCain. I see two problems with an attack of this nature, though:

1. The national media still have not gotten over their love affair with McCain. To them, he's proved his "toughness," how strong he is. I believe that, to them, his fitness for the office is a given, not something he has to prove. You need to break through that conventional wisdom and this is just one way of doing it.

2. Attacking a guy for being old, ill, and crotchety, is pretty difficult to do well, particularly if you want to avoid a backlash and even more particularly if that individual is still being swooned over by a national media who just love his "straight talk".

Again, I agree with you regarding McCain, but I'm not convinced that you can pull this off.

"Hillary made a major tactical and strategic mistake by giving McCain a pass on his qualifications to be commander in chief. Frankly, she might not recover from that mistake."

No argument here. It was stupid.

"We have had 8 years of a guy who wasn't smart enough to tell the difference between sunni and shiite. I think America wants a change."

And no argument here, either.

I don't have a problem with combining these approaches -- pointing out that McCain hasn't demonstrated his fitness for the office and reinforcing that by pointing to his routine gaffes on the subject of Iraq and the "war on terror."

And Obama wants a force for good, for groping - Angellight.

What! Are you suggesting he wants to do a Spitzer?

"The way to win that debate and to keep America safe is to offer a clear contrast, and that’s what I will do when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party .." - posted by Shortstop.

Short,
My question is why won't Obama offer a clear contrast now? Why does he have to wait until he's the nominee to do so? If he has the ammo he should be using it now. I don't see that he has any ammo on this.
And can we have a serious discussion about this, without the rude name calling?

Obama this morning:
Too bad he didn't quote or paraphrase Juan Cole:

Bottom line, if you are so ignorant or confused that you think Shiite ayatollahs in Tehran are training and arming radical Salafi Sunnis to blow up Shiites in Iraq, you really should not be president.

Unless Clinton and/or Obama do a better job educating the public (because the MSM won't), they will lose.

"My question is why won't Obama offer a clear contrast now?"

I think he is. Certainly, this morning's speech makes it pretty clear. Or do you want him to get down into the nitty-gritty details? If so, I would argue that it's not only entirely unecessary, it's counter-productive.

PaulB, It is nice to see that we really agree. I thought you were advancing another "woe is us, we can't win, we shouldn't even try" assessment.

I think McCain is going to be easy to beat on the CinC issue. He has never impressed me as being anything more than a Vietnam POW. Any damn fool can get his plane shot out of the sky. I don't want any damn fool as president. Been there, done that.

Before people jump on me, I understand that McCain was a pretty standup POW. That should be respected, but that just isn't enough to justify electing him president.

PaulB,
I am a scientist. I like details and hard facts and need these to be convinced of what the next course of action should be.
I probably do not represent most people in that regard. I am a high information voter - primarily because I am tired of having the wool pulled over my eyes by a host of politicians before.

So your argument that it is entirely unnecessary and counter-productive for Obama to give nitty-gritty details is not something that will convince me over into your camp.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to not enter into the dialog I am asking for. But in the future, please do not call me an ignoramus (or all the other terms you have used here on this board) for not choosing to follow the path you have taken.

*

Any damn fool can get his plane shot out of the sky.

Yes, but can any damn fool lose five planes.....?

optical weenie: I like details and hard facts and need these to be convinced of what the next course of action should be.

Good to know facts are your goal, if not your current practice. The few posts of yours I still bother to read consist mostly of overblown emotion, melodramatic accusations and Republican talking points. Still, eyes on the prize.

Stefan: Yes, but can any damn fool lose five planes.....?

I believe B-1 Bob Dornan gave Senator McCain a run for his money. I can't really think of anyone else.

I am a high information voter - primarily because I am tired of having the wool pulled over my eyes by a host of politicians before.
-optical weenie

I think a more accurate description of you would be high information/low motivation voter. You seem to want all policy detail communicated to you in speeches. Not sure why that's the ideal format for those details or why you haven't looked to BHO's website for the details you so assiduously seek without actually looking for them. But here's a link to an interesting diary on DKos that compares Hillary's legislative record to Barack's; if you click on it and spend a few minutes reading, you might find the information illuminating.

but how does a slip of the tongue suddenly equal buffoonery?

McCain said the same thing several times over several days before Joe Lieberman had to tell him he was being an idiot.

It wasn't a "slip of the tongue".

"I am a scientist. I like details and hard facts"

Unfortunately, those are hard to come by with respect to Iraq. And even harder to come by with respect to forecasts of what will happen in Iraq. There are simply no "hard facts" available as to what will happen when we withdraw, nor how to make the best of a horrible situation.

"So your argument that it is entirely unnecessary and counter-productive for Obama to give nitty-gritty details is not something that will convince me over into your camp."

Sorry, but I stand by that assessment. Obama is simply not in a position to say which troops he will withdraw, when they will withdraw, what will happen when they withdraw, and so on. All he is in a position to do, and all he really should do, is state his overarching position and philosophy and let it go at that. All of the candidates will be doing this, I believe, so you'll simply have to accept this when it comes to making your choice.

"But in the future, please do not call me an ignoramus (or all the other terms you have used here on this board) for not choosing to follow the path you have taken."

I use those terms and that tone only when the person with whom I'm debating has made it abundantly clear that they are not worth taking seriously and are not interested in a serious debate. At that point, mockery or ignoring them is the only appropriate response.