John McCain suggests that no foreign entity would dare test the mettle of a President McCain. To me that sounds like a dangerous dare.
Something’s been niggling at the periphery of my mind as I listen to John McCain constantly repeating the refrain “I’ve been tested; my opponent has not.” Of course the implication is that McCain is Commander-in-Chief ready, while Obama has too steep a learning curve. McCain’s tests include his confinement in the Hanoi Hilton, where he was a Vietnamese prisoner of war. That certainly is a test of a person’s mettle. I’m not denying that his survival was an act of pure courage and strength.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Clavos
I think that everyone who isn't saying to the pollsters that they will vote for him are NOT supporting him, no. There ARE minor candidates, and significant number of people (like Les, e.g.) who don't support anybody.
The bottom line is, according to the polls you cite (others show lower support for Obama), only 52% support Obama, so Arch's statement is not off the mark, especially since he qualified it with "roughly."
I think his support is far greater than that and it looks like he might have one of the most decisive victories for many a year.
As you say, you "think;" there's no verifiable evidence at this point for your optimism.
The decisive poll is Tuesday.
27 - Arch Conservative
"So you think that everybody who isn't actively supporting Obama is against him? "
No it's most likely that a great deal of them are politically apathetic or suspicious of all politicians. But of course it's no surprise that you attribute some type of latent Obama support to them Christopher.
The idiots that support him are going to have to learn the truth the hard way.
28 - moon
McCain has been tested?
For WHAT?
I suggest a rabies test. We have a lot of rabid yellow street dogs in the Third World, and he sure looks like one to me.
If he's referring to his stint as an extra in The Deer Hunter, he needs to be reminded that that was 30 years ago.
HMMMM. Maybe a test for Alzheimer's would be wise, too.
29 - Les Slater
Clavos,
I support the campaign of the Socialist Workers Party in this election. Their pres and v-pres candidates are Róger Calero and Alyson Kennedy.
Neither candidate is on the ballot in Illinois nor has official write-in status.
The party is on the ballot in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington State, and has official write-in status in California,
Connecticut, and Georgia.
Les
30 - Les Slater
"The idiots that support him are going to have to learn the truth the hard way."
Too bad that McCain supporters will not likely have the same opportunity to watch him fumble as chief exec of the U.S.
If only both groups could learn the lessons at the same time, maybe we could find a more fruitful endeavor instead of supporting these turkeys.
31 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch -
Ah, you're bringing up ACORN too? Dave Nalle tried to do the same thing, and I shot down EVERY SINGLE ACCUSATION he made against ACORN.
Actually, I didn't 'shoot down' those accusations - the FACTS did...some of which came from his OWN references. I'll give him E for effort, though.
Think you can do any better? Care to see if the right-wing propaganda in which you're so deeply steeped is as true as you think it is?
I mean after all, you're a big tough alpha-male ARCH-conservative, and I guess Ah-nold would probably call a wussy can't-we-all-get-along liberal old office bee-yatch like me a 'girly-man'...so I'm sure you'll trounce me from boast to boast - sorry - I mean, coast to coast.
Like Dave, you are an intelligent man, and I certainly won't misunderestimate you.
Actually, there's less sarcasm there than you think. I use the name 'Contrarian' because there are things Dems are wrong about, too...just a lot less than what the Republicans are wrong about. I do my best to deal in provable fact, and if I use flighty rhetoric, it's because that's where the facts are pointing. I really don't doubt you'll land a punch or three in there - sometimes I'm wrong, too...but howzabout it, Arch? You show me yours and I'll show you mine - facts and references, that is.
32 - moon
The ACORN nonsense is like the Chupacabra--a mythical animal that was passed off as real during the mid-90s financial crisis here in Mexico to distract folks from how grim things were.
It's the same smoke and mirrors, and will disappear as soon as this election is over.
Nobosy has heard squat about the Chupa since 1996....
33 - Cindy D
Les,
If only both groups could learn the lessons at the same time, maybe we could find a more fruitful endeavor instead of supporting these turkeys.
I wish that were true. At the moment, I am hearing more what Tom Hayden has been saying. I don't like what was being said by Palin (who is so clueless that it's obvious she was fed "her opinion") about Russia and Georgia. I don't like McCain's ties to Georgia's president or his Georgia lobbyist staffer.
In a nutshell, here is what should be said: the same Republican neo-cons who fabricated the reasons for going to war in Iraq are back, and now they have been paid to trigger a new Cold War with Russia that benefits John McCain. These are dangerous, expensive unwinnable games being played with American lives to benefit Republican politicians and their oil company friends.
I want to make progress toward a goal. Even if that goal is not exactly what I want. I have seen the word socialism come out of the closet and I think that is a good start. I don't want another Cold War.
34 - Arch Conservative
Wow you managed to get through an entire post without alluding to Obama saving the world Glenn.
Were you sweating profusely as you hit the publish button?
Must have been tough for you huh?
You obviously want to engage in Dem vs. Rep argument. You're barking up the wrong tree. The only thing that makes McCain supporters less disturbing than Obama supporters is the fact that they don't have a messiahianic complex about who they support.
"I do my best to deal in provable fact, and if I use flighty rhetoric, it's because that's where the facts are pointing."
NO...treating Obama as a savior is where your [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] mind has led you. The facts haven't led any rational, independent thinking person there.
35 - John Rider
Comments regarding "McCain, Obama and the "Readiness" Test" by Barbara Barnett
Ms Barnett,
You write "Obama, too, has had to survive in poor conditions. Now I’m not equating being a POW with being a poor black kid, raised by his grandmother". The passage you wrote above is filled with bigotry. Why would you think and write that Senator Obama was a "poor black kid" who "had to survive in poor conditions" Could it be that you look at Senator Obama's skin colour and see things that aren't there?
These are the facts: 1)Senator Obama was raised in Hawaii by his grandmother who was a powerful bank executive (google her bio). 2)His grandmother attended both the University of Washington and Univ. of Calif at Berkley. 3) Senator Obama grew up in Hawaii where his grandmother sent him to private school. 4) His mother was an apparently well educated college graduate. 5) His father attended university both in Hawaii and at Harvard.
This sounds more like an upper middle class background, not the background of a "poor black kid".
You write about Senator Obama "pulling himself up by the proverbial bootstraps to the highest levels of education". I usually don't think of a second generation "Harvard" man that has a Berkley educated grandparent and who attended private school as someone who "pulled" himself up by his bootstraps. I think of such a person as a child of privilege. You would think the same of any such person with "white" colored skin, but fail to see this is also Senator Obama's background (you don't see past his skin pigmentation).
Ms Barnett, assuming that you were not being disingenuous, what possible reason could you have for writing that Senator Obama was a "poor black kid" who "survived" poor conditions? Ask yourself what other beliefs you have that are not based in fact but are instead based on emotion and assumptions.
I believe that reasonable and honest people of both the right and left could agree to the following evaluation of Senator Obama as a candidate for President: 1) He lacks management experience; 2) He lacks a record of accomplishment in either the Illinois legislature or the US Congress; 3)He lacks any background in national defense or foreign policy; and 4) His political views are on the left side of the Democratic party. Believing the above does not make me a racist. Any person of either the RIGHT or the LEFT could reasonably reject Senator Obama as a presidential candidate based on 1,2 and 3 above. Any person of the RIGHT or CENTER could reasonably reject Senator Obama as a candidate because of 4), his left leaning political views that are not representative of their own views and values.
Many Republicans and independents are frustrated and angered that they are labeled racists by liberal leftists who are making emotional decisions based on skin color instead of taking the time to think and objectively assess the candidates.
36 - moon
The world is already in another Cold War.
The difference is this time there are more blocs--so it's not the US against the Soviet Union but the US against:
1. most of the Middle East (the Saudis take US bucks but back their Muslim brothers, leaving Israel playing the gringos' cards)
2. the Russian Federation
3. most of Latin America
4. China (and its tail, N. Korea)
5. India is playing both ends against the middle, but will eventually side with the energy producers.
37 - Cindy D
It seems that way to me moon :-(
Oh, I meant to post this 3 minute video in my reply to Les. Not that Les needs to see it. But, some interested others might learn something
BBC wakes up to Georgian `war crimes`
38 - moon
This readiness crap is just that: crap.
I don't get it. You've had a dull normal clearly damaged by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and subsequent cocaine abuse in the Oval Office for 8 years--who was READY, all right: ready to throw your tax dollars at the wallets of his cronies, contract the running of government to criminals, nuke the shit out of any country on the farthest reaches of the planet, spy on you and take away your basic rights--like habeas corpus, destroy the environment, and kill any number of you in the name of his crackpot genocidal Imperialism of the Sandbox.
He was ready to anything to advance his back ward (yep, that's back ward--the holding tank for the developmentally disabled whose fathers are not rich) fantasies of being One with HIS God (who is probably the Emperor of Ice Cream!)
He was ready, all right--to bring on Armegeddon and snicker as he smeared in his private bathroom off the Oval Office.
He still IS ready. And he doesn't leave office for almost 3 months.
Won't you folks ever learn that the difference between being PREPARED (to govern) and being READY (to raise hell) is a gap wider than the Grand Canyon?
39 - Lisa Solod Warren
No one is ever ready to be President. It is a job for which no one can actually prepare. That is the cunundrum.
40 - moon
Actually, one CAN prepare--spiritually and morally--to be a leader.
Which is another reason why the post should be UNPAID.
Hugo Chavez doesn't draw his presidential salary. Why should the president of the US?
The salary of the Mexican president was increased in 2000 by Vicente Fox to be the highest in the world.
Venezuela's president is a leader who inspires people, helps people of other countries instead of bombing the shit out of them, and is uniting South America to take on the role of Resources Leader of the planet.
Vicente Fox was--and still is--a mean-spirited shitkicker whose claim to fame was fracturing the Spanish language, conducting a Dirty War against his opponents, fighting with half of Latin America's leaders and marrying a rapacious little troll who squandered the people's money on designer clothes and jewels and thought she was going to be president.
Chavez was prepared--morally and spiritually-- and even his training in the military and his teaching taught him social strategies. And in his ten years in office he has CONTINUED preparing himself to be a leader in a difficult time for this planet.
Fox was READY--to steal, to bail his family and even the shirttail relatives of his little tootsie out of bankruptcy and into private jets and millionaire's clubs, to run his ranchero mouth all around the planet, to tell campesinos that it was great that they couldn't read, that t.v. would give them all they needed, to promote his fundamentalist catholicism and impose CocaCola with the end of a gun barrel if necessary and to spend 3 to 4 billions of dollars on a "21st century library" that has never been in operation because it is falling down and water has leaked in and destroyed the books --all so his contractor cronies could cash in.
Fox and Bush are very much alike--ignorant and proud of it yet ready to shoot from the hip. Their birthdays are 4 days apart.
What you get from these READY guys is a country in ruins.
If READY is what counts, go for it. Again.
41 - joan Pa.
I just read that Palin did a interview on fox She said when Mccain wins he is going to expand the war into Iran a start up the draft. God help us all if these to win.
42 - Arch Conservative
In 2012 if the GOP is looking to lure people like myself who have abandoned them and McCain this year back to the fold they're going to have to do better then they will have to do better than caribou barbie.
This talk of her being the GOP frontrunner in 2012 disheartens me. The GOP needs another Ronald Regan not another George W. Bush.
43 - Les Slater
Arch,
The 1980 Reagan would totally be out of his element now, never mind 2012. You will not see another Ronald Reagan.
Les
44 - moon
Considering that the US economy hit the toilet because:
1. Nixon abolished the gold standard
2. Ronald Reagan decided to cast The Chicago Boys in bronze and deregulate everything
I would like to hope that Gringos have learned their lesson.
But I very much doubt it.
45 - Les Slater
Moon,
"Considering that the US economy hit the toilet because:
"1. Nixon abolished the gold standard"
Actually, it was the other way around. Nixon went off the gold standard because of substantial weakening of the U.S. economy, compared to some of its rivals.
Les
46 - moon
Les,
I remember the early 70s economic trough well, as I was making my living trading Lebanese currency--which was still backed by silver at the time.
Nixon went off the gold standard in the misbegotten strategy of making money worth nothing and thinking it would pull the US out of the trough. It didn't.
Nixon wento out of the Oval Office, but the damage was already done--and it wasn't Watergate.
47 - Les Slater
Nixon went off the gold standard because the value of the dollar was worth much less than the guaranteed gold exchange rate. Foreign holders of dollars were cashing in their greenbacks for gold. If something weren't done, the U.S. would have had its gold reserves totally depleted.
48 - moon
So?
Nixon's response was to make the dollar worthless.
And nothing but piles of paper have been printed ever since--all of which led up to Reagan's giving free rein to big businesses, and finally to Black Monday.
49 - Les Slater
So....the dollar was becoming worthless BEFORE Nixon detached it from gold. The U.S. could not afford the charade of pretending the dollar had a certain fixed exchange rate with respect to gold.
50 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch -
So you wanted to decry ACORN...but you didn't want to back it up when called on your 'fictitious vote' accusation, huh? 'sokay - you're not the first one. There's a whole Republican hierarchy that's just as reluctant to back up their accusations.
Where did I ever claim or even infer that Obama was some kind of 'savior'? I did NOT do so - that is only in your mind. Such would be heresy to me and to the Church of which I am a member.
What I DID say was that he, unlike McCain, can LEAD the world, and that all McCain could do would be to bully the world to obey him...and if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that already.
Nah...I'm long used to false accusations and insults from holier-than-thou 'christians' on religious forums - and like them, it looks like all you're doing is thinking of just how spiteful you can sound, somehow believing that your insults do anything more than reflect your own personality.
Personally, I have no need to use insults. I have no urge to beat down those around me just to make myself feel better or more important.
I, sir, am a liberal. Walk with me. Let's you-and-I examine facts and references as between men who are created equal before we go hurling insults and accusations. Can you do that?
51 - Clavos
What I DID say was that he, unlike McCain, can LEAD the world
An unwarranted assumption, since The Messiah has yet to lead anything...
52 - Les Slater
Glen,
Obama's military policy is very little different than Bush's. What Obama is advocating is already under way.
The U.S. will still use its military might to get its way regardless of who wins Tuesday.
Les
53 - Glenn Contrarian
John Rider -
Did you miss the part where Obama's mom had to go on food stamps for the two of them to eat?
And have you ever spent much time in Southeast Asia? I have. He lived in Indonesia - and NOT in a particularly nice place. He knows - as do I - what real poverty is, and what it's like to be the only one for miles around to be of a particularly foreign color.
Maybe you did know all that...and if you did, that means you were trying to deceive others by making it seem as if Obama had never known poverty.
McCain, on the other hand, while he did spend five years as a POW (as he never fails to remind anyone who will listen), grew up with a particularly privileged silver spoon in his mouth (as anyone who has a clue of the lives of flag-officer families can tell you). Other than his time as a POW (yes he WAS tortured...but he also had access to medical care and food), McCain has NEVER, repeat NEVER - as child OR adult - had to worry about money, food on the table, and good medical care.
Colonel David Hackworth - the most decorated military man in American history - said that McCain wasn't a POW 'hero', but a POW survivor. Why? Because McCain admitted that FOUR DAYS after McCain was taken prisoner, in strict violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, offered to give 'military information' to his captors if they would just get him to a hospital.
By his admitted actions, McCain did not have the courage THEN...and by his flip-flop on torture, does not have it NOW.
54 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
If you are in a position of leadership, and if the great majority of people have a good impression of you, then you stand a very good chance of being able to LEAD those people.
That is why Reagan was able to lead much of the world.
What does the world outside of America think of Obama? Of McCain?
55 - Glenn Contrarian
Les -
It was OBAMA who proposed a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Bush (in front of the Israeli KNESSET!) and the Republicans ridiculed him for it. Now what is the Bush administration working on? A timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.
It was OBAMA who proposed late last year that we send two more brigades to Afghanistan because of what was happening there. Did Bush listen to him them? Of course not. But now that things are getting truly dicey there, guess what? "We need to send more troops to Afghanistan right away!"
No, Obama's military policy is NOT the same as Bush's...but Bush has been forced by events to emulate Obama's policy.
Thus endeth the lesson.
56 - Les Slater
Glenn,
"No, Obama's military policy is NOT the same as Bush's...but Bush has been forced by events to emulate Obama's policy."
Forced by events to emulate Obama's policy? You have an exaggerated view of the importance of Obama.
I never said that Obama's military policies were the SAME as Bush's. I said very little different. In the bigger picture of things, McCain would follow very similar policies. Neither of the three, Bush, McCain nor Obama have many major choices.
The military is playing as big of a role as it has been of late BECAUSE of the economic crisis. This crisis is deepening and the use of military will also deepen. You will NOT see Obama altering that.
Les
57 - Cindy D
RE# 41
Joan,
It appears that Palin made a comment during the interview, thus:
"...OK, we're confident that we're going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?"
There is video here for it.
So, it is all speculation regarding that single comment. As the thought goes, was it a slip based on information she knows? And if so, there will have to be a draft.
I personally am inclined to think she simply meant Afghanistan and Iraq.
58 - bliffle
Clavos' needle seems to be stuck on this messiah thing.
59 - cortacésped vehiculo
Clavos: "An unwarranted assumption, since The Messiah has yet to lead anything..."
Eh, Cabron, you've got it wrong .... come on, he was a great community organiser.
I believe the community is now very organised
[Stan, why are you (a) impersonating a lawnmower and (b) commenting under multiple user names? You know we frown on that sort of thing here.
Dr Dreadful
Assistant Comments
NaziEditor]60 - Clavos
Clavos' needle seems to be stuck on this messiah thing.
IF he gets elected...
You're gonna get SOOOOOO tired of my stuck needle.
61 - Dr Dreadful
That's what YOU think, fellow editor...!
62 - Clavos
If you are in a position of leadership, and if the great majority of people have a good impression of you, then you stand a very good chance of being able to LEAD those people.
Haven't seen a "great majority of the people" so inclined yet, Glenn.
In fact, the race is pretty close so far.
That is why Reagan was able to lead much of the world.
Reagan led the world???
Not even his most mindless supporters really believe that. Hell, half of the americans think he didn't lead the US.
What does the world outside of America think of Obama? Of McCain?
Doesn't matter, they're not voting. And we're voting for president of the US, not the world.
Don't be such an arrogant american. In Mexico, who you elect won't put any more tortillas on the table.
Most of the rest of the world (China, India, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, e.g.) cares even less.
63 - Clavos
Hey, lawnmower,
To you, it's chingón.
64 - Clavos
That's what YOU think, fellow editor...!
Care to elaborate, Doc?
65 - Jet
Les, Moon, Clavos... exactly where did you acquire the delusion that everything you utter is fact and everyone else's thoughts are mere opinion?
How influencial can you possibly be with an attidute that exudes "I'm right and your wrong-so you deserve to be discarded and belittled at every opportunity"?
a conversation is an exchange of ideas, a forum where one learns from the other, but have you really changed any minds? are there any converts you can point to?
The only people you "converse" with seem to be likeminded and closed-minded quasi-intellectuals who already agree with you.
Makes for a very boring interplay
66 - zingzing
clavos, i think you missed the point. whoever was talking about "leading the world," which is a bit of an overstatement, was saying that obama commands respect from many world leaders. he wasn't talking about the u.s. election.
obama is well-liked around the world, unlike bush. he is respected. sure, a lot of countries aren't going to suddenly change their behavior towards the united states just because he is president, but a lot of countries will.
being the president of the united states should put you in a position of leadership (not THE leader, but A leader) in the world. because of other nations' views on obama, he would bring more consensus to the world, or at least a more positive consensus in their views on the united states.
we live in a world economy and in a world that is much smaller, in many ways, than it was even 10 years ago. we need a leader that the world can respect, and given our choices, it appears (at least to me) that obama is the better choice between the two. and the world agrees.
you could say that you don't care what the world thinks. but that's probably not true. i think we all know that an obama presidency will (at least at first) regain us some good will.
67 - Dave Nalle
Glenn & Les.
At this point everyone's military policy in Iraq is the same, because since the success of the strategy changes which coincided with the surge, the march towards a conclusion of the Iraq war has been pretty much inevitable, and it's more on the Iraqis than it is on us, so everyone's strategy is just to wait and let it resolve itself.
Dave
68 - Clavos
I didn't miss the point, zing. I just disagreed with the hyperbolic Messiah worship.
However, props to you for making a much better point in a much more thoughtful and measured way.
I still stand by my original assertion, that it remains to be seen whether or not he can lead the US, let alone the world, since he's never led anything yet.
69 - zingzing
true, he hasn't lead jack shit yet.
still, because so much of our politics centers on things outside of our borders, i'm inclined to believe that obama, merely by have world opinion on his side, would be a great boon to our nation.
(ESPECIALLY in the middle east, in which he can play up his name as crassly as republicans have been for the last year or so.)
but yeah, you shouldn't go on about hyperbolic this-n-that when you're the only one using the word "messiah." what other words do republicans use for him? oh yeah, "terrorist," "arab," "nigg..."
don't use those either. that's hyperbole. or hatred. or something.
70 - zingzing
and i'm not saying that you have or would use those words. it's just that no one is calling obama "messiah," except for republicans, who have also used negative words such as those above. all (ok, most of) the hyperbole is coming out of one side.
71 - Clavos
Oh please, zing.
The hero worship on the part of all his avid supporters right here on these threads (never mind the truly partisan garbage sites like Huffington and kos) is hyperbolic beyond reason.
It's why I use the Messiah thing (my use of which, btw, is intended to be sardonic, not hyperbolic) aside from the fact that Farrakhan literally said it, a lot of those supporting him attribute near messianic powers and qualities to him in their paeans. The whole thing transcends politics and has ludicrously become literally religious in tone.
The Messiah label is entirely appropriate, IMO.
He's just another fuckin' pol, and one who has at least some clay on his feet, to boot.
72 - Franco
I have to agree with Clavos. He has made a correct accounting of this and makes a solid argument. And I do not see the harm in is opponents admitting it. Whats to be afaid of.
73 - Dr Dreadful
@ #64:
For now, let me just refer you to para 3 (and, if you wish, 4) of the comments policy, Clav.
Then again, perhaps my expectations for the level of discourse in the Politics section are unrealistic - !
74 - Dr Dreadful
Franco, I can see your point. From the POV of a center-left-oriented person like myself, I guess it would be akin to the boot-licking loyalist (there's always one, no matter who the president is!) who stands up and pronounces publicly, without a hint of irony, their belief that George W. Bush is the greatest president of all time. It's that annoying, right?
But seriously - with Obama, is it really as pervasively hyperbolic as you claim?
And is it really all that outrageous to express admiration for a political candidate?
75 - Jet
To say the least Doc!