<p>"The Washington Post adds that Obama challenged the notion that he had to follow the advice of his military commanders, saying, “The notion is, is that either I do exactly what my military commanders tell me to do or I’m ignoring their advice. No, I’m factoring in their advice but placing it in this broader strategic framework…that’s required.”</p>
<p>Does anybody really think that McCain, Bush, or any other leader thinks differently? Clearly, Obama disagrees with Petraeus (as well as McCain and many others) about the right strategy for Iraq. I hardly think it’s audacious for him to state what his strategy is–after all, he’s running for President. This is a good example of spin: disagreeing with somebody is recast as “ignoring” their advice or “refusing” to listen to them.</p>
<p>That’s certainly a different strategy from the one used by the current administration which is to either ignore the commanders or keep shifting them around until you find someone who agrees.</p>
<p>Obama made his decision about Iraq, that his right, he will either get Kudos or will be blamed. </p>
<p>Bush got slammed for listening to Rummy for way too long…McCain was the person demanding Rummys resignation.</p>
<p>I am betting Petraeus is taking direction from Powell’s history with Clinton (Gay issue) Clinton wanted the service to be open to homosexuals, he eventually agreed because of Powell with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell compromise.</p>
<p>You cannot be Commander In Chief without the support of the military. Petraeus has about the same amount of clout in the media and the military as Powell…it would not be wise to go up against him. He can fire Petraeus and replace him with another General, but then that would be a media nightmare!</p>
<p>Cartera BTW Franks had to retire, it is mandated by law how long someone can serve…Tommy Franks hit 30 yrs…he was forced into retirement. Same for Powell, 30 yrs and that is all you get, that and a hardy handshake. You cannot stay in the military just because you want to…even promotions for Captains are based upon Field grade retirements, field grade promotions are based on flag officer retirements. It really isn’t like JAG and you walk in 1 day and say I quit, it takes about a yr to retire.</p>
<p>“Everyone needs to be realistic…the majority of people who show up at the polls have made up their mind. I do not know one person who is still sitting on the fence. Someone tell me who they know that hasn’t made their decision yet and has voted in the primary.”</p>
<p>The mud is to:</p>
<p>1) Get your own people to show up, and,
2) Get the other guy’s (or gal’s) people to not show up.</p>
<p>I’m not supporting either of these guys. But I think that Obama would make the weaker president.</p>
<p>I’m not sure Reagan is a great argument against the age factor - not that it didn’t work to his advantage when he “forgot” what happened with Iran-Contra.</p>
<p>cathymee: I used to use “BO” as shorthand, but was told that was a no-no.
I was told that “BHO” was more respectful (GWB, FDR, JFK, etc.). </p>
<p>The rules keep changing. </p>
<p>I’m on the fence, but about whether I’ll cast a vote FOR McCain, which I will do if I begin to dislike BO (BHO?) so much that I feel I have to cast a vote against him. Otherwise, I’ll just sit home and watch fate take its course.</p>
<p>Why don’t you make your vote about actually voting for someone as opposed to voting against someone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t believe how easy the media is going on McCain on this mistake. McCain said the surge started the Sunni Awakening but now people in the media are saying that McCain said it helped it.</p>
<p>Just so I’m clear on this: Senator Obama can’t be referred to as BO or BHO because various posters get upset about that, and his race can’t be an issue. Fine. Can we all agree on Maureen Dowd’s use of “The One” to refer to Himself? ALso, it is acceptable in the context of this message board to dismiss Senator McCain because of his age and to make snarky comments about that? Are senility or Alzheimer’s jokes also acceptable?</p>
<p>Zoos, how about we refer to Obama as “Obama”? I call McCain “McCain” - neither name is too long (I don’t even know McCain’s middle name for a three letter initial) Honestly, other than for cretins line Anne Coulter who yuks it up with her “B. Hussein Obama” schtick, is there really a need to use terminology which has potentially negative connotations unrelated to the candidate himself? “Nobama” tells people what you think about the candidate. “McSame” - the same. I get it - it’s okay, you’re making a point. But these candidates initials just don’t lend themselves to use as identifiers.</p>
<p>And yes, there’s a difference between using race as an issue and using the very real specter of senility or Alzheimers as one. One is relevant to the office, the other isn’t.</p>
<p>He does have unfortunate initials. The “Mc” in McCain has opened the door to lots of interesting names too. Dowd stole that reference from McCain aides who refer to Obama as “The One.” And she also referred to McCain as “The Angry One.” I’m fine with using those.</p>
<p>Kluge, the use of “BO” or “BHO” (which I never use by the way was clearly not abusive in any way. Every poster has the right to move it along as they see fit and the sensitivity of Senator Obama’s supporters (and the man himself) is a bit much. </p>
<p>Saying “he’s oooooold” is not a way of questioning Senator McCain’s abilities. It is the very definition of an attack, and along with the comments on the other thread about elderly people being more likely to be prejudiced, represents some real ugliness. There’s a poster (too lazy to see who) who repeatedly expresses concerns about the changes in Senator McCain. That’s completely legitimate and even important. The other is neither and it is to that which I object.</p>
<p>Zoos - I don’t think it’s “abusive” - I just think it’s inappropriate. I don’t care but I can see why some people would. I just don’t think it’s necessary to use terminology which is needlessly offensive to anyone - even if only mildly so - when there’s a readily available and inoffensive alternative. It’s just being polite.</p>
<p>Dedhead - your desperaton is really showing. Klein is also desperately trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.</p>
<p>In case you didn’t know, McCain’s comment about Obama wanting to lose a war in order to win an election is just a correlation to his statements last summer when McCain alone was standing up for the right thing to do. At great political peril, McCain said he’d rather lose an election than lose a war. Obama’s actions & statements demonstrate that he is of the opposite mindset - so McCain’s comments actually make sense. </p>
<p>It would only be scurrilous if it were not true.</p>
<p>I am concerned about the changes in McCain, but I don’t think the man is particularly hidebound or bigoted because of his age. I think he’s always had a nimble mind and that he can be quite charming and vivacious. My concerns with his age relate to a growing sense of his detioration and tiredness. Look, who wouldn’t be tired with a heavy campaign schedule? But with someone 72, it begs different concerns and questions to see it. And because he has notorious temper issues, the “grumpy old man” persona can too readily stick a bit.</p>
<p>Kluge, I think that’s ridiculous beyond words. I have the greatest respect for you, but I think that’s just ludicrous. Were the Senator’s initials anything else, there would be no issue. The poster didn’t choose his name, for heaven’s sake. There is nothing wrong with addressing someone by his initials. Nothing at all. They ARE his initials. These silly things are what give rise to the view that Senator Obama isn’t tough. </p>
<p>I have a question for Obama supporters. Do any of you have concerns, questions, areas of disagreement with the Senator? I’ve seen lots of McCain supporters/republicans have great disagreements with Senator McCain, but not so with democrats and Senator Obama. I mean here on CC.</p>