Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

He did talk about Russia's shadow a bit.

No, not thatPutin, this one.

[CamEdwards]

Well hell, if we're playing this game. From The Campaign Spot on National Review Online:

Psst! Senator! No Walls Have Come Down in Belfast!

Obama's speechwriting team needs to hire a fact-checker.

Obama, speaking in Berlin today: "Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together."

USA Today, earlier this year:

"Ten years after peace was declared in Northern Ireland, one might have expected that Belfast's barriers would be torn down by now. But reality, as usual, is far messier. Not one has been dismantled. Instead they've grown in both size and number."

[SFL Cat]

Never let the facts interfere with a good speech. C'mon.

[Groundhog]

Maybe he was talking in, uh, metaphors!

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by molson

Just like I'm not concerned about Obama's claim that he's "visited 57 states", or that he referred to the Senate Banking Committee as "his Committee" (when he's not actually on that committee), or when he referenced the "President of Canada", or that the Burma typhoon "may have killed 100 million people" (closer to 100,000).

Actually, I found the 57 states gaffe a little disturbing. That's pretty basic, especially for a presidential candidate.

Can you imagine what would have happened if someone like Dan Quayle had said something like that?

[RomaGoth]

Wow. Both McCain and Obama are looking rather clueless. I really want to find a reason to vote for one of these guys, but they are making it very difficult right now.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Obama's speech in Berlin. Worth watching.

I haven't listened to it yet. Did he close with "Ich bin ein beginner" ?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well hell, if we're playing this game. From The Campaign Spot on National Review Online:

eh, one could argue that the wall in belfast was defined by the people themselves in where they chose to live and whom they kept out.

[flere-imsaho]

You guys can pick and choose your gaffes, but there's a crucial difference:

Obama corrects his mistakes (it was a bill of his that went in front of the banking committee, there are actually 57 caucuses & primaries). Virtually all are simple verbal gaffes.

McCain, especially on important issues like the timeline of the surge or the difference between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, takes a long time to correct his mistakes, if at all. They're clearly not just verbal gaffes, but a momentary (or prolonged) misunderstanding or misremembrance of basic facts.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My bet would be no, which means this might be more talking point for the already convinced than influential on anyone who might change their mind.

Oh, I agree. It's all going to depend on whether or not the mainstream media pick it up.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well hell, if we're playing this game. From The Campaign Spot on National Review Online:

Color me surprised that the folks at the NRO have no conception of how things have changed in Northern Ireland. They probably think the IRA is still bombing London.

[flere-imsaho]

McCain in June:

And even as he vowed not to attack Obama while overseas, McCain said he would repeatedly question his opponent's position of trade pacts while in the U.S. "He's against them all," he said. "I don't understand how you can be for free trade and be against every free trade agreement."

Going to Latin America in the midst of a presidential campaign, he said, speaks less to his role as a senator than to what he's hoping to achieve if elected this fall. "It's more my ability to govern as president," he said, "my ability to lead as president, to keep up with these major issues."

McCain in July:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign rapped rival Barack Obama’s Berlin speech Thursday as a “premature victory lap.”

“While Obama spoke to 100,000 people in Berlin and proclaimed himself ‘a ‘citizen of the world,’ John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election,” said Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the Arizona senator’s campaign.

“Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear. John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving and protecting America. Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it,” Bounds said.

So it's OK for McCain to go abroad and pretend he's President (and attack Obama while doing so), but it's not OK for Obama to do it.

I don't know if I can handle another 3 months of this "straight talk".

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't know if we can handle another 3 months of partisan politics.

fixed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

McCain, especially on important issues like the timeline of the surge or the difference between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq

Gotta be honest here flere, I believe you're grossly overestimating the amount of importance most voters put on either of those specific points.

Again (as albion tried to explain me earlier), while it might matter whether a President can get either of them right if it doesn't matter/isn't clear to the voters then I can't think it's going to have any significant impact on votes.

And personally, considering how much candidates go through, I'm surprised either one of them gets their own name right 10 times in a row.

[flere-imsaho]

Obama speaks in Germany to an estimated 200,000 people:



Earlier, he meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

Mr. Obama met for about an hour with Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Federal Chancellery. A German diplomat said the discussions went very successfully, saying: "They quickly found themselves on the same page. It was not superficial at all."

McCain does a photo op at a sausage house in Colombus, Ohio where he "addressed about a half dozen Ohio small business owners in the historic village":

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Gotta be honest here flere, I believe you're grossly overestimating the amount of importance most voters put on either of those specific points.

Sorry, I don't mean to give that impression. I agree with you that most voters aren't going to care about those points. I'm more making the points that a) that's really unfortunate, b) they really should and c) this guy McCain, he really doesn't know what he's doing.

[Buccaneer]

Haven't thought it through much but I think being involved in a campaign is not like being President. Almost like apples and oranges. I'm not talking about all the "promises" and double-talk that is expected to get elected and ignored when reality hit. I'm talking about the office of the presidency and mechanisms that have long been in place in being in the Executive Branch. There is a lot about that office that is rote, predictable and expected (in a handler type of way). You have the power of the federal govt behind you, which if far, far greater and more influential than any campaign staff and organization.

[flere-imsaho]

I doubt there's any job that really compares.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I doubt there's any job that really compares.

I think the point is that talking and pandering for votes (or the inability to do that well) has little bearing on the effectiveness of being President. The latter is a controlled situation while the former is salesmanship. There maybe a closer relationship to that of a Congressperson (since much of the job is pandering for votes, behind the scenes deal-making and the ever-present job of being re-elected), but not for a largely pre-defined role as president. Perhaps the one thing we can get a sense of during a campaign (apart from how telegenic a person is), is whether a candidate is over-rehearsed (thus, being more of a puppet) or stubborn (thus, my way or highway). I think Bush2falls in the former, while Clinton as the latter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sorry, I don't mean to give that impression.

My bad, I really did think that was along the lines of the point you were looking to make. Tired, I don't read as well (between the lines or on the lines) as I do on the odd occasions when I can actually get a reasonable amount of sleep.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It will be interesting to see if McCain and Obama will actually have a legitimate debate (where they can actually question one another, rather than tee up on softballs from moderators).

McCain has stuck to his guns about the surge working and "winning" in Iraq (equating Obama's pull out plans to "losing"). I would like to hear some substance on these two issues from McCain. For example, on a surge, is it really that surprising that adding unlimited supplies/dollars/manpower would improve things? And, what exactly does "winning" in Iraq entail?

Good to see someone call McCain on this... A bit odd that it was Hagel, but I hope it gets some attention: Hagel Chides Candidates on Iraq - TIME

"When you flood the zone with superior American military firepower, and you put 30,000 of the world's best troops in a country, there's going to be a result there," Hagel said.

Whether the surge worked, though, can't be measured, Hagel said, arguing the small gains came at a high price. He said President Bush's decision last year to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq has cost more than 1,000 American lives and billions of dollars.

[Buccaneer]

I agree about small gains came at a high price but if Hagel said is can't be measured, how would he know if it were small gains? Would the gains be greater or would the gains be there without a surge or something totally different?

I am still haunted by my readings on Cold Harbor in the Civil War. One has to place yourself in that moment without the benefit of hindsight. It seems it was a case of no gains coming at a very high price (about 12,000 Union casualties). But was it really? While it gave rise to intense anti-war feelings, it did serve a purpose (cornering Lee and the ANV). But they didn't have a clear idea that Lee was trapped at the time, only in hindsight.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Obama speaks in Germany to an estimated 200,000 people:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

McCain does a photo op at a sausage house in Colombus, Ohio where he addressed about a half dozen Ohio small business owners in the historic village.

And the punchline is that McCain actually spoke to more people who will be voting in November than Obama did.

[molson]

The fascination with Obama's speeches and big crowds is getting really close to being creepy.

Where would Obama be in politics right now if he wasn't so eloquent?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by molson

The fascination with Obama's speeches and big crowds is getting really close to being creepy.

Where would Obama be in politics right now if he wasn't so eloquent?

True, I mean, if my mother had balls she'd have been my father.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

And the punchline is that McCain actually spoke to more people who will be voting in November than Obama did.

I don't get the "European tour" in Germany, meeting with Iraq/Germany's PM, ect.

Last time I checked, he is NOT the President or any cabinet member. He's just a young senator from Illinois.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by molson

The fascination with Obama's speeches and big crowds is getting really close to being creepy.

Where would Obama be in politics right now if he wasn't so eloquent?

I'm not a fan of Obama (I think he lacks substance and is more of the same in his proposals), however I think he could turning voters off with the "rock star" approach. The use of the Broncos field for the convention is kind of creepy as well.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I don't get the "European tour" in Germany, meeting with Iraq/Germany's PM, ect.

Last time I checked, he is NOT the President or any cabinet member. He's just a young senator from Illinois.

Sure, that never ever happens and McCain would never consider doing that.

John McCain, the Republican frontrunner in the race for the White House, today abruptly cancelled a trip to Europe that would have involved dropping in on Gordon Brown.

I mean, he knows that this never happens.

"Senator McCain is a senior American politician and it's not unusual when such people are in London that they request meetings and the prime minister and other ministers meet them."

hxxp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/06/gordonbrown.labour



I'm sure senator Hagel ( R ) wouldn't consider doing this either.

The thought of senators meeting world leaders is absurd.

Thus Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev welcomed visiting U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy in March 1990 (according to the archives of the Gorbachev Foundation).

During the Cold War, the behavior of Western politicians in their contacts with the Soviets varied quite widely, from hostile polemics to shameless collaboration. What was Senator Kennedy’s place in this wide spectrum?

Of course, Kennedy was not the only U.S. senator to visit the USSR. A few exceptions aside, however, they usually came as a group. As far as we can see in the documents, Kennedy always came alone.

hxxp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGM2ZTE4Y2ExNDU3NGMyNmNhMWNkYjU3ZWNhYTk0NGQ=

Senator Bill Nelson, not a president or cabinet member would never meet a foreign leader either.

That's why, during my face-to-face meeting with Chavez, I told him we find some of his policies and actions unacceptable,and our relationship cannot help but be harmed if he continues down his current path.

hxxp://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:kzbB6LMRP7EJ:vcrisis.com/index.php%3Fcontent%3Dletters/200501291926+senator+meeting+dictator&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Jeez, who's this Obama think he is? He's not the president or a cabinet member but he's doing things that are simply never done by senators and clearly his esteemed opponent is way too honorable to even consider such a tour. Man.

[Flasch186]

lets not let facts get in the way of a good talking point, right SFL?

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

And the punchline is that McCain actually spoke to more people who will be voting in November than Obama did.

The BBC spent quite a bit of time last night talking about Barack Obama acting as if he had already won the race.

As their correspondent said, nobody has ever won a US election because they were popular in Europe.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm not a fan of Obama (I think he lacks substance and is more of the same in his proposals), however I think he could turning voters off with the "rock star" approach. The use of the Broncos field for the convention is kind of creepy as well.

Oh yeah! But when I pointed it out some Obamaniacs, they thought I was just jealous of him! They said so its that everyone who wants to be there can be. Really? He can't speak at the convention floor like everyone else? It just seems so utterly egotistical, like I want more than merely 20,000 in attendance to bask at my glory!

[JPhillips]

Do you honestly believe McCain wouldn't do the same thing if he had the ability to draw the same kind of crowd?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Do you honestly believe McCain wouldn't do the same thing if he had the ability to draw the same kind of crowd?

Actually I do. I think the example I brought up is that I'm sure Reagan could have filled a stadium when he was running for reelection in 1984.

I really don't see McCain being as full of himself.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

And the punchline is that McCain actually spoke to more people who will be voting in November than Obama did.

Unlikely. McCain spoke to 6 people, who we can assume were all registered voters. Out of 200,000 people in Berlin, I'm sure more than 6 were Americans (and not just the press, even).

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually I do. I think the example I brought up is that I'm sure Reagan could have filled a stadium when he was running for reelection in 1984.

Poor comparison. Reagan didn't need to do any such thing in 1984 because the election was almost from the start a foregone conclusion.

I really don't see McCain being as full of himself.

Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you there.

[ISiddiqui]

Reagan didn't need to do any such thing in 1984 because the election was almost from the start a foregone conclusion.

You think Obama is doing that because he needs to show himself being the Messiah by getting Pope sized crowds?

[BrianD]

Who originally tagged Obama as the Messiah? Was it the Left or the Right?

[flere-imsaho]

Let's be clear here:

Obama's done this trip for two major reasons: one, it's good press. Two, it makes him look Presidential, which is good given that one of his weaknesses with voters is the perception of whether or not he's up to the job.

Reagan didn't do it because he was already President and was facing a very easy re-election campaign. There's no comparison.

McCain's not doing it (although he did travel to both Canada and Colombia, before he started critizing foreign trips) because he can barely get a crowd for his U.S. events.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Axxon

True, I mean, if my mother had balls she'd have been my father.

Or to put it another way - how many Democrats are more qualified to president than Obama. 500? But he talks pretty and thus has cult-like status.

Obama fans bragging about how many people he can get at a German rally is kind of disturbing. He has you all under his spell.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Let's be clear here:
Obama's done this trip for two major reasons: one, it's good press. Two, it makes him look Presidential, which is good given that one of his weaknesses with voters is the perception of whether or not he's up to the job.

It also makes him look presumptious. With this trip (where people think he's getting ahead of himself in acting like a President rather than a candidate), the whole flap with an Oval Office like seal on a podium he was speaking at, and the Invesco thing, people are going to start thinking he believes this to be a coronation and not an election.

although he did travel to both Canada and Colombia, before he started critizing foreign trips

How many speeches did McCain give to the Canadian or Colombian people? Its not the trip he's criticizing, but the way it is being done... like Obama is running for President of the Mid East and Europe as well.

[flere-imsaho]

The not-exactly-left-leaning Economist:

THIS week Americans have been bombarded with images of Barack Obama posing as the commander-in-chief. Mr Obama standing shoulder-to-shoulder with world leaders. Mr Obama flying in a helicopter over Iraq with General David Petraeus. Mr Obama shooting hoops with the troops. Mr Obama boarding a jumbo jet with his name emblazoned on the side. And John McCain? He was photographed on a golf cart with the 84-year-old George Bush senior.

Mr Obama’s carefully choreographed trip was clearly designed to address his biggest weakness—his wafer-thin CV on foreign and military affairs. He had not visited Iraq since January 2006. Before this week he had never visited Afghanistan, the country that he describes as the front-line in the war on terror. He has not served in the army. In polls Mr Obama lags behind Mr McCain by some 20 points on the question of whether he has the experience to do the job.

But Mr Obama’s trip was designed to do more than address a weakness. It was designed to turn a weakness into a strength. Mr Obama wants to prove that he represents a new kind of leadership, as different as you can get from that of Messrs Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. This means demonstrating that he can offer new solutions to vexing problems in the Middle East—hence the first half of his trip. It also means demonstrating that he can wield America’s soft power effectively—hence his triumphalist romp through Old Europe. An Obama spokesman summed up the trip’s implicit message simply: “When President Bush goes abroad, there are big crowds protesting. When I go abroad, there are big crowds cheering.”

This was the boldest move in a campaign marked by bold moves. Democrats usually adopt a defensive crouch when it comes to foreign policy. Bill Clinton and Al Gore all but ignored it in their runs for the presidency. John Kerry wore his service in Vietnam like a shield. But Mr Obama has marched into Republican territory with his head held high.

It was also a risky move. There was the risk of looking presumptuous. Presidential candidates do not usually fly around the world in their own personalised versions of Air Force One. There was the risk of crossing the line between talking to foreign leaders and negotiating with them. And there was the risk of a gaffe; Michael Dukakis never recovered from looking silly in a tank.

But these worries have been silenced by events. The decision of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, more or less to endorse Mr Obama’s timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq sent shock waves through Washington, DC, discombobulating the White House and driving the McCain campaign into panic. And the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan underlined Mr Obama’s argument that America needs to devote more resources to the country that nurtured Osama bin Laden.

Even the Bush administration played into Mr Obama’s hands. It signalled its willingness to work with the Iraqis on a “time horizon” for troop withdrawals. And it dispatched a high-ranking State Department official, William Burns, to participate in multilateral talks with Iran over its nuclear programme. Mr Obama had made talking to Iran a centrepiece of his campaign, something the Republican right has fiercely resisted.

Mr Obama still has problems with his Middle East policy. He loudly opposed the “surge” that has clearly helped to stabilise the country and has made all the heady talk of a timetable for withdrawing American troops possible. Many American military commanders, including Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Petraeus, worry that a 16-month timetable may destabilise the country, as do lots of Iraqis.

Still, there is no doubt that this week has seen the balance of advantage shift in Mr Obama’s direction. Mr McCain’s ace in the hole has been his claim that his opponent is too naive and inexperienced to be trusted with the big decisions—that he will withdraw precipitously from Iraq to satisfy his liberal base and thereby undermine America’s war on terror. But Mr Obama can now claim some vindication. The Iraqi government has seemingly moved closer to the central tenet of his foreign policy. And the facts on the ground in Afghanistan give credence to his original objection to the Iraq war, that it was distracting attention from the real front-line in the war against terrorism. He also stepped through Israel and the West Bank with a fair degree of agility. This was the riskiest part of his tour, and it went off without running into serious problems.

Mr Obama’s progress has been making the McCain campaign look even more flat-footed than usual. Mr McCain added to the misery this week by making another in a long list of foreign-policy slips of the tongue by referring to the “Iraq-Pakistan border”. And a campaign ad blaming Mr Obama for the rising price of oil was met with widespread ridicule. The McCainiacs have resorted to lashing out at the media’s liberal bias: a complaint which is perfectly justified. Even before three news anchors accompanied Mr Obama on his trip, the networks had devoted twice as much coverage to the Democrat as the Republican and much the same is true of newspaper column-inches. But it is the complaint of defeated conservative campaigns the world over.

Mr McCain may yet prove to be a more formidable candidate than he now seems. He is still only an average of two points behind Mr Obama in national polls, a remarkable result given his shambolic campaign. But he needs to introduce more order into the chaos that surrounds him. And he needs to do a much better job of defining his opponent rather than allowing his opponent to define himself, which will mean recalibrating his arguments about Iraq as well as sharpening his tone. This week has made that job a lot harder.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It also makes him look presumptious. With this trip (where people think he's getting ahead of himself in acting like a President rather than a candidate)

It's funny, but I thought the whole point of campaigning was to convince the public that you can be President.

How many speeches did McCain give to the Canadian or Colombian people? Its not the trip he's criticizing, but the way it is being done... like Obama is running for President of the Mid East and Europe as well.

It's very plainly sour grapes. McCain's #1 argument was that he's good on foreign policy, and Obama's week has made McCain into a sausage-house sideshow. Of course, McCain hasn't helped himself, but there you go.

Also, any thoughts on McCain's fundraising on his trips, which is expressly forbidden by legislation that bears his name?

[ISiddiqui]

Why post an article which says the trip made him risk looking presumptuous, but other events happening may have saved him from that?

[flere-imsaho]

Lots of new polls (NOTE: most pollsters say we're probably a week away from seeing any impact from Obama's trip):

Colorado        Obama=44%  McCain=46%  Quinnipiac U.  
Michigan        Obama=46%  McCain=42%  Quinnipiac U.  
Minnesota       Obama=46%  McCain=44%  Quinnipiac U.  
Mississippi     Obama=42%  McCain=51%  Research 2000  
North Dakota    Obama=42%  McCain=45%  Research 2000  
New Hampshire   Obama=47%  McCain=41%  Rasmussen  
Pennsylvania    Obama=47%  McCain=42%  Rasmussen  
Wisconsin       Obama=50%  McCain=39%  Quinnipiac U.  

There's a lot of commentary about the Quinnipiac results, which are generally pretty different from recent polling, but there you go....

No huge surprises. MN looks closer than it has recently. ND continues to be much closer than anyone expected it would be. Wisconsin (if you can believe Quinnipiac) has gone from a potential McCain pickup to firm Obama territory (I can hear st.cronin's screams from here).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why post an article which says the trip made him risk looking presumptuous, but other events happening may have saved him from that?

1. I thought the article was interesting.
2. It's the Economist, which is based in Europe, so offers a foreign perspective.
3. It's the Economist, which isn't pre-disposed to like someone like Obama.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's funny, but I thought the whole point of campaigning was to convince the public that you can be President.

Proving that you can be President and acting like you've already won the job before the Convention are two, vastly different things.

It's very plainly sour grapes. McCain's #1 argument was that he's good on foreign policy, and Obama's week has made McCain into a sausage-house sideshow. Of course, McCain hasn't helped himself, but there you go.

We'll see what happens in the upcoming months, but I believe that it will start to come out more and more that McCain was right on the surge.

As the not so right leaning NY Times pointed out:

NY Times Advertisement

Obama was, as he tends to be, quite vague on the actualities.

Also, any thoughts on McCain's fundraising on his trips, which is expressly forbidden by legislation that bears his name?

If he's violated the law, then go after him.

Though if I recall, the campaign, prior to the event, refunded the treasury for flights and expenses relating to overseas fundraising on his London trip.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's very plainly sour grapes. McCain's #1 argument was that he's good on foreign policy, and Obama's week has made McCain into a sausage-house sideshow. Of course, McCain hasn't helped himself, but there you go.

This is so bizarre.

Obama has outshined McCain on foreign policy this week because he's in Germany yapping about bridges and playing basketball with the troops, and McCain's instead in America?

I don't get it....

What's the big selling point on Obama (compared to other Democrats, not McCain)? His "vision"?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

What's the big selling point on Obama (compared to other Democrats, not McCain)? His "vision"?

Compared to other Democrats? That's somewhat irrelevant. He's running for the Presidency against John McCain. Let's stick to comparing him to McCain on foreign policy.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Proving that you can be President and acting like you've already won the job before the Convention are two, vastly different things.

Sure. Hey, you're going to think of Obama's intentions what you want to think of Obama's intentions. I can't change that.

We'll see what happens in the upcoming months, but I believe that it will start to come out more and more that McCain was right on the surge.

I'll leave that to Chuck Hagel:

Originally Posted by Chuck Hagel

Hagel, too, opposed the troop increase strategy, though he acknowledged Thursday it brought about positive changes. "When you flood the zone with superior American military firepower, and you put 30,000 of the world's best troops in a country, there's going to be a result there," Hagel said.

Whether the surge worked, though, can't be measured, Hagel said, arguing the small gains came at a high price. He said President Bush's decision last year to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq has cost more than 1,000 American lives and billions of dollars.

Anyone even casually interested in Iraq knows that the "Surge" worked because:

1. The Anbar Awakening gave Al-Qaeda real problems.
2. Al-Sadr called a ceasefire during the middle of the "Surge".
3. Hagel's point above (which, frankly, refers further back to the "Powell Doctrine" which McCain initially opposed).

Without points #1 and #2, we're probably only marginally better off in Iraq today than we were when my brother served there.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama has outshined McCain on foreign policy this week because he's in Germany yapping about bridges and playing basketball with the troops, and McCain's instead in America?

You're forgetting the part where McCain can't remember how the "Surge" started, doesn't understand that Iraq and Afghanistan don't share a border, and confuses Somalia with the Sudan.

Heck, he can't even keep the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers straight!

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're forgetting the part where McCain can't remember how the "Surge" started, doesn't understand that Iraq and Afghanistan don't share a border, and confuses Somalia with the Sudan.

Heck, he can't even keep the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers straight!

I'm pretty confident that if you asked McCain, point blank, not on the campaign trail, do Iraq and Afghanistan share a border, or when and how the Surge started, he'd know the answer. (Just like Obama knows that Canada doesn't have a "president"). You're either confident in that or you're not - if you are, it's completely irrelevant, if you're not, then well, I guess I can understand why you wouldn't vote for McCain.

But if we're just looking for the candidate that commits the fewest gaffes, we can probably find someone better than either of these guys.

I also think the number of people in a crowd in a given week is irrelevent, and a pretty strange thing to brag about. Why aren't the poll ratios 200,000-6 in favor of Obama?

[flere-imsaho]

How do you account for McCain mixing up Sunnis and Shiites, while in Iraq, while giving a prepared speech?

Look, I understand I'm biased here, and I'm pretty sure you all think/know the same thing and read what I write with the correct grain of salt. But I honestly believe that a good number of McCain's gaffes are the result of an actual mental confusion or even lack of understanding on McCain's part, and I think people should find that worrying.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

How do you account for McCain mixing up Sunnis and Shiites, while in Iraq, while giving a prepared speech?

Look, I understand I'm biased here, and I'm pretty sure you all think/know the same thing and read what I write with the correct grain of salt. But I honestly believe that a good number of McCain's gaffes are the result of an actual mental confusion or even lack of understanding on McCain's part, and I think people should find that worrying.

So you think he really doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites? I guess I just don't buy that. I guess I'm also not concerned about him mixing them up - it's not like any serious US policy is going to be compromised or "backwards" because McCain got them mixed up. What's the practical effect of confusion like that if he was president?

And I'm not sure what Obama's European road show is supossed to tell us about his ability to handle foreign policy, except that young unemployed Germans apparently like him. His speeches are an event, no doubt. People in their 20s went in huge groups when he came to Boise, and then drank downtown afterwards. It was a party. I don't know how many of them are voting though.

This campaign is just starting to annoy me - hopefully the debates bring in some substance.