<p>Jonathan Martin is too generous to the McCain campaign. Very clear footage of Obama shooting hoops with the troops (complete with audio) has been widely available on the Internet. Otherwise, how could the ad have gotten the footage? And in the footage provided by the Pentagon and available on the Internet, it is absolutely clear that the figures are in uniform. In other words, the picture was deliberately blurred to that the uniforms would not be clear.
[Videos:</a> Obama in Kuwait with U.S. Troops Let Us Talk](<a href=“http://letustalk.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2008/07/19/videos-obama-in-kuwait-with-troops/]Videos:”>Videos: Obama in Kuwait with U.S. Troops | Let Us Talk)</p>
<p>There may be a new thread title here: McCain and mendacity? or Has McCain jumped the shark></p>
<p>The problem is that McCain and his campaign are going to lose all credibility. Kind of a “candidate who cried wolf” approach – he’s made himself into the grumpy old man that no one is paying any attention to. </p>
<p>I know what they are afraid of – they know that all of thosObe pictures of Obama meeting with world leaders and with the troops are going to show up in Obama commercials. Obama is paying $5 million to run ads during the Olympics. So maybe McCain is worried that the ads will include Obama’s 3 point shot and they want to try to neutralize the image by creating a negative association. The problem is that very few people are going to see the McCain ad – whereas the Obama ads will be seen much more widely.</p>
<p>I guess the main point of those negative Obama ads is to try to supress the Obama enthusiasm and suppress the Democratic vote… but I think that they are only going to backfire. Obama’s people know what they have to do to get out the vote. They’ve got a strong on the ground operation in all 50 states, thanks in part to Hillary’s dragging out the primaries.</p>
<p>It’s okay to run negative ads–as long as they are truthful. It’s not okay to run ads featuring Obama shooting hoops with troops to claim that he does not care for soldiers. It’s inaccurate and it’s plumb stupid. McCain could have gotten away with it if the clips had been much older and people could not remember in which context they were shot. But to run them so soon after the Obama trip is pure folly.</p>
<p>Knowledge, wisdom, ethics. Which of the candidates has those qualities?</p>
<p>But did he actually gain any foreign policy experience? Didn’t he accuse Hillary of moving from the airport to talk to leaders without interacting with the people? I didn’t see him interacting with the Iraqis and the Afghanis. </p>
<p>How can this trip be considered a foreign policy experience? Was anything of substance discussed with these leaders other than having dinner and lunch?
For someone who is counting his trip to Pakistan and India for a couple of weeks (when he was in college) as part of his his foreign policy experience, I would have expected him to walk through the streets of Bagdad to get some real experience.</p>
<p>I was surprised this is the first time he has been to some of the European countries he visited.</p>
<p>Thanks, calmom. At least the words do not accuse Obama of failing to visit troops.</p>
<p>What fuels my anger is that I truly respected McCain. Not for being shot down; not even for being tortured. But for refusing to be released earlier than the other POWs because this, as opposed to being shot down or tortured was a choice he made, knowing what he would be enduring. By the same token, I honored him for spearheading, together with Kerry, normalization with Vietnam. it can’t have been easy, and it was far more difficult for him than Kerry to let go of the past. There are other things I honored him for, as well. But the last few months have seriously eroded my respect. And last week threatens to wipe it out completely.</p>
<p>To quote Andre Gide, “Le desenchantement est la ferveur retombee” which roughly translates as “Disenchantment is fervor that has fallen flat.” Sorry about the lack of accents).</p>
<p>Ah, Tega. Obviously, Obama needs more seasoning. A semester in one country, a semester in another country… Eventually he’ll be old enough to be POTUS. About the time when he reaches McCain’s age maybe? Did McCain learn anything walking through the Green Zone in his body armor?<br>
Obama made a more favorable impression on the Jerusalem Post in one day than McCain did after several trips. He did not need his aides or another senator to help him answer a pretty important question about Israeli settlements, the way McCain did.</p>
<p>Marite, I think he should have spent more time on his committee duties in the Senate. This would have allowed him to pick up valuable experience, and it would also have given him the opportunity to try his Afghanistan policies to make sure that they will work. He never held a single meeting on Afghanistan even though he is the sub-committee chairman in charge of Afghanistan. </p>
<p>If Afghanistan is as important as he claims, why did he not hold a SINGLE meeting on Afghanistan? </p>
<p>Do you mean when he said Jerusalem should be an undivided capital of Israel?</p>
<p>Anyway, I think you don’t know enough about politics to truly understand why Obama made the trip. It’s always been the case that presidential nominees meet with foreign leaders and such so that they can get a head start in learning how to deal with them. Whomever is elected president doesn’t want to have to spend time traveling around the world getting to know foreign leaders when they’re elected president; it’s an inefficient use of time. Once elected the president should be in a position to get to work. Lastly, McCain did the same thing when he became the presumptive nominee.</p>
<p>Tega: A Senator doesn’t get to try “his” policies. He has 99 other colleagues, the whole House, as well as the Executive branch. Do you think that if McCain were elected he would implement Obama’s policies to see if they worked? Please.</p>
<p>Obama opened himself up to that attack? What? You mean by avoiding any possibility that his visits to the troops would be viewed as using the troops for political gain?</p>
<p>Actually, I saw McCain’s ad and it made me really happy since I think McCain is too old and has sold out. He’s taking just the wrong approach and therefore won’t win. Negative ads are effective in a lot of cases, but people want hope and all McCain is succeeding doing is whining about Barack and about things that people firstly don’t believe and secondly don’t think are important.</p>
<p>Also, since the ad lies and furthermore shows no class in making a cogent argument – not quite as bad as blaming Obama for high gas prices, but almost – it’s just not effective. Though maybe I give the press too much undeserved credit for likely getting down to the fact that the ad is a lie.</p>
<p>Republican Senator Chuck Hagel on McCain’s ad:</p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>Keep it coming, McCain. Keep lying. Keep sounding grumpy. Keep shilling for the oil industry (by stumping for drilling) and then turning around and going to raise a lot of money from the oil industry to get your payoff. Keep listening to the Rove-heads who advise you to do things that hurt your brand as someone who is above the fray and has too much class to do what you are doing…</p>
<p>Would you be kind enough to enlighten me? Are you a politician or a political scientist? Or did you take the obligatory American Politics class in college? Or maybe you have been watching a lot of CNN and MSNBC. </p>
<p>I don’t know enough about politics because I am neither a political scientist nor a politician, but I know that nothing substantive (no policy) was discussed between Obama and the leaders he met this last week because we only HAVE one president at a time, and ONLY ONE foreign policy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would rather wish that all presumptive nominees of both parties would limit their travels until they become the president of the country. They can do their traveling after they are elected. </p>
<p>You do know that Bush wont hand over until January right?</p>
<p>Committees are supposed to make recommendations to the full senate, so if you have any substantive amendments to a bill you can do it in the committee before it comes to the senate floor. If Obama had any substantive suggestions to add to the debate on Afghanistan, he should have made those suggestions in his committee meetings.</p>
<p>McCain does not have to implement Obama policies on Afghanistan if he becomes the president, he will listen to them. Obama is yet to recommend any suggestions on Afghanistan to the senate.</p>
<p>Obama has made his recommendations about Afghanistan loud and clear. He is not the one setting the agenda. What might emerge from Congress would be very different from the policy recommendations he has proposed. But you asked about “trying out HISpolicies.” Who would do the trying? Bush? McCain? Clinton? Did I hear Clinton say anything about Afghanistan? Did you?</p>
<p>Quit taking your cues from Rush Limbaugh. Obama didn’t talk policy because he’s not president yet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s why I don’t think you have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. Why should they wait? Do you know? You don’t think it’s important for the newly elected president to hit the ground running? They shouldn’t make any preparations ahead of time and instead should waste valuable time setting up their cabinet, agenda, etc.?</p>
<p>Also, what do you think about McCain going to Colombia, Mexico, Europe, and Canada? McCain is the one who is going abroad pretending to be president. McCain went to Colombia and advocated his support for increasing virtually unconditional free trade with Colombia.</p>
<p>So, now you think that candidates should NOT travel abroad? No doubt you expressed this sentiment last March when McCain, having clinched the nomination of his party (but Obama had not clinched the nomination of HIS party) embarked on a tour of exactly the same countries of Asia and the Middle East as Obama recently. </p>
<p>Hillary went abroad as a presidential spouse. She was not expected to take part in substantive discussions. Obama held what, by all accounts were substantive discussions with leaders of various nations, unless you know something that those leaders do not know. As for talking to ordinary Afghani and Iraqi, how many would have been enough to represent the range of interests and perspectives and experiences of millions of people?</p>
<p>The “issue” of Obama’s travel is a non-issue. Senators with an ounce of leadership blood should be traveling overseas rather regularly; in addition, House members often do so, including Junior members. They’re supposed to actually be informed (sorry about the split infinitive). No permission is needed. No annointing by a party or a country is called for. No seniority is presumed. There is nothing audacious about it.</p>
<p>Do you know that Bush doesn’t have to hand over until January ? The elections is in early November, the new president has about two months until he takes over. Obama spent 9 days on this trip, so 9 days out of 60 days, do the math. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I unequivocally believe in free trade, McCain can travel to the moon and shout out for everyone to hear.</p>