<p>You gravely misunderstand McCain if you think that – or you put him on some pedestal. He was the son and grandson of Admirals who got himself admitted to the naval academy probably with their game-changing assistance, didn’t do that well in the academy, got shot down in Vietnam and was a prisoner of war, came back, dropped out of the military (and by the way, why won’t he release his service records like Kerry did), and dumped his first wife to marry a rich heiress so he could live a higher life, became a Senator and lived the high life.</p>
<p>He’s been a serial opportunist, couldn’t hack the service to his country required by staying in the military, and tossed his wife over for a better deal. Give me a break if you think he’s been selfless. </p>
<p>And by the way, I don’t fault him particularly for his choices, but please, don’t overlook his egoism and suggest he’s doing things for reasons of a higher calling.</p>
<p>True, marite. I worry about McCain’s temper. I agree BHO may have a “first class temperament” (as we said about FDR) in some respects, but he is definitely lacking in humor about himself (which FDR had in spades) and I think that could point to an even more serious problem than McCain’s temper.</p>
<p>BedHead: I know all the pros and cons about each candidate. I’m not putting either on a pedestal, believe me.</p>
<p>1st of all nobody chooses to get shot down, and only the best make it into the fighter world. Daddy Dearest can be an admiral, but if he scores 0 on his evals, there is nothing Daddy can do! Why don’t you try pulling several G’s while your a** is being shot at by SAMs and then you can say he sucked at it!</p>
<p>2nd. Came back and dropped out…the man served 20 YEARS, that means he came back and continue to serve his country for another 7 yrs.
That is hardly dropping out!</p>
<p>3rd. Most of McCains records cannot be released because of his POW status. The DOD chooses would can and will be released, since most of McCains record occurrred during his POW status it will most likely remain classified, unlike Kerry who was never a POW. Also Kerrys record was blacked out for classification purposes. Let’s see McCains record would be 1 big black out for the entire Vietnam War</p>
<p>4th. Carol McCain admits and has admitted for decades now that John McCain was never involved with Cindy before the dissolution of their marriage (both admit he was a philanderer, but not with Cindy)…look even further his adopted children Douglas and Andrew (Carols birth children) have been on the campaign trail for all of his campaigns. If her kids do not hold any grudges against him, unlike Guilianis kids, where does anyone have the right to continually say that he was a *****?</p>
<p>Ilsa: In BO, I see signs of ego but not narcissism; I also see his willingness to truly listen as a check on ego. The reason why he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review was not, as some would suggest, because he was smarter than everybody else, but because he could bring the liberals and conservatives together (and I remember those incredibly fractious times among both students and law faculty). He did so because he was seen as not injecting his own ego into the fray but getting people from very different places on the ideological spectrum together. A Harvard Law professor wrote a best seller entitled Getting to Yes. Obama had the knack of getting people to Yes. You cannot do this if you are wholly focused on yourself.</p>
<p>He actually moved to where I wanted him to move on the issue. (I’m actually not liberal; I’m a moderate/centrist.)</p>
<p>Anyway, some people say that its a flip flop, an indicator that he has no core values, etc. But you know what? That is absolute nonsense. If you consider the vote on the bill and on potential amendments, Obama remained against giving the telecom companies immunity. However, the Dodd-Feingold amendment that Obama supported did not pass, while the bill that Obama supported, which was a compromise that resolved the key problems with the old FISA bill but did give the telecom companies immunities, passed.</p>
<p>I think that certain groups on the left made too big of a deal out of the “immunity” that was given to the telecom companies. First, the provisions for immunity already existed in the original FISA bill. Second, I think that suing the companies is a stupid way of holding them “accountable” nor am I sure there is a way or a reason to hold the companies accountable. Why don’t we just hold the Bush administration accountable instead? I mean they told the telecom companies what to do and the companies complied because they essentially had to. Had they objected the Whitehouse simply would have used the media to pressure the companies to provide them with information. (This whole issue of immunity might have been avoided though because the Whitehouse would have been scrutinized more on this issue.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How are these things mutually exclusive? Most Americans believe people have the right to own a gun but still favor gun-control laws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Public financing was a good idea but was poorly implemented. In my opinion, Obama would have been naive to have “kept his promise.” I don’t think anyone is going to care about this especially once more people realize that McCain is going to have more money spent in his favor than Obama is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot express how happy I am that he said that. Where I live almost all of the major charity organizations are affiliated with religious groups. I am glad that these organizations will receive more assistance from the government especially now that the economy is doing so poorly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that you or whoever wrote this oversimplified this point quite a bit. Anyway, I agree with Obama saying that the death penalty ought to be reserved for the most heinous crimes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true:</p>
<p>*In his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For,” McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.</p>
<p>“I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow,” McCain wrote. “I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.”*</p>
<p>Judging from the fact that he cheated on his wife multiple times before Cindy, considering that he met Cindy six months before divorcing his wife, it seems as though McCain was more than likely cheating on Carol with Cindy before separating too. In my opinion, it doesn’t really matter because it still indicates McCain has poor family values and could arguably be considered a bit of a womanizer.</p>
<p>B and P: Read the article. I particularly objected the characterization that McCain answered to some higher calling. Bollocks. He was ambitious and wanted to be president for a long time, and he also apparently wanted to be married to someone who was rich and gorgeous…</p>
<p>I am not saying there aren’t valiant interludes, or things, in his life. But the man also has a messy or dark side to him too. Just don’t oversimplify him by making into a one-dimensional hero.</p>
<p>I read the article… are you saying that a man who endured excrutiating pain in 1973/4 already had eyes on being President 30+ yrs later</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have lived the military life for the past 20 yrs…I can guarantee you I have been shocked each and everytime a commanding couple seperated. That’s the game,they smile, go to all the functions and pretend their marriage is great…just like the avg couple who doesn’t want to tell their family they are getting divorced…it happens! The warning sign was there when she did not go with him to DC, trust me it is a pain in the A** with movers and storage. They stayed together for the good of his career. It was over. It is not for a reporter to judge or you or I, if his adopted children (their birth mother is Carol) has given glowing reports of their adopted Dad and campaigning for him where is it anyones right to say the whole family is lieing to cover up?</p>
<p>BTW I agree he wasn’t a saint, he admits to being a horrible husband when he got home and I agree. I give him the pass because I cannot imagine living for yrs in a 5X5 crate with broken bones, dissentary, bombs being dropped on us and pulled out for propaganda whenever they decided!</p>
<p>Uh, I don’t get it. Are you playing dumb? Lying? Have an inability to consider the whole picture? Didn’t actually read the whole article? Here’s what the article said after what you quoted. I don’t see how you could ask the question you asked if you read the whole article. And by the way, I specifically chose an article about McCain that was not all good or bad because I don’t see him as either and reality is more complex:</p>
<p>Personally, I’d be leery of anyone who ran for president only a couple of months after s/he’d thought about it. You really have to think about what a campaign entails as well as your strengths, weaknesses both as a candidate and as a prospective president, what your policies and priorities are, your ethics, and a whole host of other questions.</p>
<p>i don’t fault either McCain or Obama for being ambitious and for having thought about running for president long and hard. I thought Obama would run as soon as I finished listening to his convention speech in 2004.</p>
<p>Marite, I’m not a McCain supporter, but I don’t think this remark was as bad as it was made out to be. I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt, but I think Senator McCain was talking about the political risks he had taken to do what he thought was right with regard to Iraq. Which is absolutely true. It’s not clear to me that Senator Obama has risked his future prospects in a similar manner. Listening to Senator Obama talk about foreign affairs and relationships with other countries, it’s not at all clear to me that victory was his goal. I’m sorry if some find this offensive, but it is a legitimate point to raise and for Senator Obama to address.</p>
<p>First, Obama is right that we should have continued to focus on Afghanistan. Iraq was a war of choice and a diversion from that focus. So now, troops have to be found for the Afghan front. We are losing ground in Afghanistan because of Iraq. Obama saw it at the time.
Second, McCain has the history of the surge backward. The Sunni Awakening happened well before the surge was announced. It was not made possible by the surge.
Third, McCain’s statement comes as close to accusing Obama of lack of patriotism as can be. That’s what Joe Klein and others are reacting the way they do.
Until now, I’ve had a lot of respect for McCain as a person; I have downplayed his misstatements as understandable errors committed out of tiredness (and I don’t worry about his age). But this has really shaken me.</p>
<p>I don’t think McCain was “right” about the surge. A lot of its one-dimensional “success”–reducing the level of violence–is something that is more likely a result of the Sunni Awakening. I think that McCain should be saying the surge made more Iraqis feel comfortable in supporting the Sunni Awakening instead of taking credit for everything. </p>
<p>McCain should take his cues from Obama on this one and attribute the success to the troops and to the Iraqis instead of trying to play politics with it and attributing the “success” of it to himself.</p>
<p>Also, McCain is probably going to end up taking back his comments. On most of the shows this evening/night, McCain surrogates were trying to diffuse McCain’s comments.</p>
<p>Marite, I do see and as always, respect your point. I just think that reasonable people can view the specific words spoken by Senator McCain differently, and I do think that legitimate issues were raised. THis is an issue of substance, why shouldn’t it be discussed honestly?
I do not agree with you about Iraq being a diversion from Afghanistan, although I do agree about the timeline of the Sunni Awakening. As far as Obama’s patriotism, well I can see why you would hold the view that you do of the statement, but I don’t think it was intended that way. I do, however, think that Senator McCain was referring to Senator Obama’s lack of long-term commitment to victory in Iraq and I do think that is legitimate point to be raised. If Senator Obama can address that, great. It will answer questions for many people. But he really needs to stop being such a delicate little flower. Becoming president requires answering tough questions and addressing difficult and unpleasant issues.</p>
<p>I doubt he even realizes the seriousness of his comment. He’s calling Obama a traitor. Or are we supposed to think this is humor? Humor, like the comments about Chelsea, or the joke about bombing Iran? Or does he really mean it? Who knows.</p>
<p>How can Iraq not be a diversion from Afghanistan? That is where Osama bin Laden was; and we were closing in on him. Hussein had been around for a long long time, we could have waited a bit longer. There were NO WMDs. And now, by every account, Afghanistan is in worse shape than it was prior to the Iraq invasion. And Osama is still thumbing his nose at us and plotting.</p>
<p>Obama is abroad sounding presidential, well informed and eager not to engage in criticizing his opponent; McCain is as near as can be calling him a traitor.</p>
<p>Marite, I think that Iraq was an entirely separate front. I agree that Bin Laden is thumbing his nose at us and our lack of will kept us from capturing him. However, I accept the pre-emption aspect of the Iraq War, although I’ve never been a fan. The point is still that Senator McCain was addressing the political risks that he took. Those are indisputable. That was what the statement was about, not a further debate on the Iraq War.</p>
<p>Of course Obama is abroad and sounding presidential (did you see what his aide said about presidential trips not being political – forgetting that he is not yet president?). He has assumed for himself presidential tour and is being treated with kid gloves. This is what I don’t like about Obama. He’s just too darn precious. That’s a quality I actively dislike in people over the age of five. McCain did not nearly call him a traitor. He compared both and found that he had taken political risks that Senator Obama hadn’t. I would dispute any claim of Obama being unpatriotic. Period. Full stop. The man is a patriot of the first order. He did not, however, ever risk his political future on the Iraq War or on any unpopular positions, thus the “present” votes. I still do think the McCain comments were legitimate and Senator Obama does need to toughen up. I’m a brash, hard, outspoken New Yorker and like plain speaking.</p>
<p>McCain said that Obama would rather lose the war if it means winning the Presidency. That’s pretty plain speaking. Is it true? Some people, no doubt, believe it is.</p>
Can you please explain to me what you mean by “victory”? I wasn’t aware until McCain started running that we are at war with the Iraqi’s. I thought that we were allied with the sovereign Iraqi government that we put in place, and that our role there was to help provide the government with what essentially is police support. So haven’t we “won” already? </p>
<p>It’s easy to talk in buzzwords, but our ostensible goal going into Iraq was to topple Saddam Hussein; we did that. Then our goal was to see an elected government put in place; we did that. Now the government leaders there say that they want a timetable for withdrawal and that Obama’s plan sounds about right to them… so please explain to me how that isn’t “winning”?</p>