Then there’s his fearsome temper problem.

I like bad tempered folk.

And I still cannot believe that he let Bush/Rove eviscerate him and his family in South Carolina in 2000, and ever have a single thing to do with them again — but that’s politics for you.

His North Vietnam experience may have taught him to play the long game. Or it may only have taught him to master vindictiveness.

What I don’t like is that he was a pilot. Pilots are divas [divi = masculine plural??]. Presidents should be more like conductors.

If the issue is American superpower, Obama and his wife will be on the spot. I don’t believe either are committed to preserving America’s superpower status. Michelle does not identify with American power. (Those F-18′s aren’t her F-18′s. Those carriers aren’t her carriers. They’re sent to hurt the people she identifies with.) What about Obama?

Now we can debate the smartest/most moral way to use American power. That’s a different question from whether a candidate identifies with American power, is proud of that power, and is committed to preserving American power. That’s not just an issue of security, terror or fear.

You don’t have to be a neocon to believe America should remain the most powerful nation. We’ll see if Obama can fake it. He’s good, but I’m not sure you can fake that–though Denzel does a prettty good Colin Powell imitation. Of course, we never see Denzel’s outtakes.

Regardless, whether or not the legislation was passed into law or not isn’t the point. The ridiculous assertion was made by Simon that “…he also must hate the military…”

Clearly, having his name attached to legislation (pending, failed or successful) that is for the betterment of veteran’s services, healthcare, their families and the protection of their futures proves the opposite.

Lets not play Republican Fox talking points tactics here. We should be better than that.

d.

Wow indeed.

So there are two points here.
Point #1 – “…and my goodness, once a month, her moods will be unpredictable, an old chestnut, worthy of McCain.”

The actual ENTIRE Barack Obama quote that i believe you’re referring too (correct me if i’m wrong…i had to google “Obama and sexism” to work out what you were actually talking about).

“I understand that Senator Clinton periodically, when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” Obama said. “But I think this kind of gamesmanship is not what the American people are looking for.”

Since when does “gamesmanship”, clearly a reference to being down in the polls have anything to do with her menstrual cycle?

Point #2 – “…he has insinuated Clinton is only qualified because she is married to Bill, what has she achieved on her OWN”

Actually that was Chris Mathews. Not Obama.
“…the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around.”

Interestingly enough when i did a search for the Matthews quote i found references to John Edwards supposedly making sexist remarks about Hillary too.

“I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business,” Edwards told reporters Laconia, New Hampshire.”

How is this sexist? If Edwards had said it about Barack Obama would it be racist? If John Mcain says it about Mike Huckabee is it just politics as usual?

There is real sexism in the world as evidenced by Chris Matthews ridiculous comments. And sexism is indeed unfortunately still a prevalent issue in our society. However pinning the “sexist” label on Barack (And John) over something as trivial as these otherwise innocuous comments does nothing but undermine and devalue REAL affronts to women.
(Shall we discuss rape statistics? Domestic violence statistics? Wage parity etc?).

The defunct stereotype of the shrill, hysterical female isn’t being revived by the likes of Obama. It’s being revived by those who see offense where there is none.

d.

Wonder why they won’t share?

According to the campaign, the sellers confirmed they “did not offer or give the Obamas a ‘discount’ on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot.”

Why does the above comment sound like it just lawyered up?

Northwest Rain

I am concerned about this point. It’s not difficult to see a “political shift” in the officer core will have winners and losers. The pressure that appears pent up in the military culture, the “interagency” disfunction, all of this will be expressed. I just worry about the “tell POTUS what he wants to hear” crowd vs “tell POTUS what he needs to hear” crowd.
In Obama’s case, he won’t know the difference and will be motivated to go “3rd party” . He has a proclivity for bad judgement and will be open to manipulation of the kind that is motivated by agenda rather than sound military principles.

I am I wrong in this construct?

McCain is hated by the hard rightwing because he’s bucked them on issues that appeal to moderates.

I think this is a tactical illusion – along with mythifying McCain as outsider, i.e., political air-wick to counteract the taint of the Regime.

And, do we know where Scaiffe’s minions are staying (he must have a “Chicago Project” team in place already) and which Chicago paper they’re using for a stalking horse?

Could it be the paper that Sam Zell controls?

My daughter, a full Commander (USN), might take umbrage at that idea.

They’ve used this technique for ages.

Conversely, if Obama DID use drugs, and heavily, like Bush, I want to know, too.

Word from that Fox viewer was Obama SOLD drugs, too.

A drug addict, possibly a pusher, an untreated drug addict, is not qualified to lead this country, what the hell is wrong with people? Untreated dry drug addiction is not permissible when one chooses to be President, make better choices, there are consequences. Being president is all fun and games, cool?

Look at Bush, for god’s sake.

WHY are Obama’s ties to Rezko left unquestioned or ignored, by Obamabots? Denial?

WTF?

Obamabots spent the last 8 years blogging, complaining about Bush, and here they are, embracing the same Rovian tactics, embracing their OWN manipulation in the exact same way Bush’s supporters did, because their reaction to Obama is emotional, he makes them feel powerful, something sorely lacking in their lives. Look at me! as opposed to Fired it UP!
(We knew a little girl who would say that exact same thing every time her father would lie down on the sofa, and fart, as men are apt to do. She would say “boy he really fired it up!” So, well, the association is priceless every time Obama opens his mouth…)

They’re supposed to be Democrats.

And McCain, if he’s dirty, he should be excoriated, too.

Again, they may all be unclean, but of that group, the Clinton’s are the best.

Oh, the irony.