Home / Sick and Tired of the Election

Sick and Tired of the Election

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I am sick and tired of Obama.  He has proven over the last month or so that he has no platform, does not stand for anything, is disingenuous and not nearly as inspiring as his cadre of devotees claim him to be. From not keeping his word on using public election financing, to his on again, off again support for free trade, to his seeming approval for the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case, while also having a record of staunch gun control, and his support of the FISA compromise, it’s clear Barack Obama will say and do anything to pander to voters in the hopes of being elected.

His glad handing of Hillary Clinton, following the nasty primary race where he was claiming some faux mantle of change, is just another case in point. As is his supposedly “hopeful” speeches where he talks about big oil companies robbing the consumer, medical care that he believes is completely broken and not worth salvaging, and his package of higher taxes for all tax paying Americans. Not so hopeful, but certainly audacious and I don’t mean that in a good way.

The height of Obama’s chutzpah, was when earlier this week he held a speech on patriotism. This, after a member of his own staff made light of McCain’s service record saying, “I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” Obama’s speech was given in front of several American flags, and with Obama sporting a flag pin of all things. My favorite quote: “I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.” Never mind that it was his own staff questioning McCain’s patriotism that prompted the whole thing.

I am sick and tired of the media.  They have made a collective decision to abandon their jobs in favor of a candidate whom they’ve fallen in love with. Judging by the media’s recent behavior, any comment that can be construed as racist towards African Americans is extremely bad. But reverse racism is justified, as are false claims of whites being racist (the Clintons) and apparently any form of ageism is absolutely A-OK (the media’s number one comment about McCain)! CNN recently published on their political ticker, that “The Illinois senator now has 231 electoral votes — 39 shy of winning the presidency” – nevermind that there is still an election to carry out. This is CNN mind you!

From Chris Matthews leg chill, to not challenging Obama on a single policy claim, or delving into his many flubs, or his association with the Countrywide CEO by way of his VP selection committee, the Obama campaign’s flippant use of charges of racism against anyone who disagrees with him, and most importantly his total lack of a cohesive platform (pandering is not a platform), the media has chosen their guy, and like most Obamamaniacs, simply does not want to hear anything different. It’s to the point where any news show has been reduced to the old joke, “Enough about Obama, what do you think about Obama?”

My non-scientific perception of most news hours lately comes out to a 80/20 breakdown between Obama’s coverage and McCains. OK, perhaps that’s a bit extreme, they do talk about McCain, as in how badly he is doing against Obama. After all, according to CNN, Obama only needs 39 more electorial votes to win the presidency! Was the media tough on Obama regarding Rev Wright? Somewhat, but then they loudly proclaimed that it didn’t matter and went about their business. Had the race roles been reversed, Obama’s answers on Wright (that he “never heard” those things, that he “didn’t realize”, and that he denounced the words but not the man) would not have been satisfactory. Don’t believe me? Just ask Hillary and Bill.

I am sick and tired of McCain’s seemingly tepid campaign.  On numerous occasions, McCain has had an opportunity to really expose Obama for the charlatan that he is. Yet McCain seems to continuously burden his own chances for the presidency by making statements like, he doesn’t know much about the economy, or that we might be in Iraq for 100 years, and that is fine by him. Those of us not given to extreme cases of hyperbole understand McCain’s points on these issues. But then again, these same people are probably already voting for McCain. I can’t tell you how many independents I’ve spoken to, voters who would possibly vote for McCain, cite the 100 years comment, or the lack of economic knowledge, for perhaps voting Democrat this year.

McCain seems to have an identity problem. Is he a maverick? Is he a steadfast Republican? A Bush third term? Is he an environmentalist or generally against tax cuts? Is McCain the real “post-partisan” candidate that Obama claims to be? I know what I thought going in, that McCain was truly “change we could believe in.” Just look at his legislative history – full of bi-partisan compromises and working-across-the-aisle goodwill (not nearly all of which I agreed with). I’m not so sure what McCain is anymore, and I have a feeling that view is shared by many Republicans and Independents. Not too inspiring.

I am sick and tired of Republicans who got all excited about voting for George W. Bush, not once, but twice. They stuck by the GOP throughout 2 tough wars, through a recession and the beginnings of another recession, through corporate scandal and government scandal, through crisis of fuel and homes. And in 2008, some of these same people would stay home from voting in order to let the Dems have their own failures? They’d bicker about the quality of the GOP candidate because he isn’t totally pro-life or totally pro-tax cuts? These people are starting to resemble the Bush deranged liberals who actively wish for this country to fail so they can relish an “I told you so” moment. How petty.

I am sick and tired of the glossy eyed American people, so many of whom have bought in wholesale, like lemmings, into the ideals of wealth redistribution, and larger government who takes care of our every need. These same Americans who seemed to have forgotten the lesson of 9/11 and actually allowed themselves to be convinced that Bush, or any American president for that matter, was responsible for that tragic day, as opposed to our terrorist enemies who actually are responsible.

I can’t tell you how many have looked me in the eye and said Obama will end the war in Iraq. No, he will end our involvement in Iraq (at least for now), not quite the same thing. Others tell me with a straight face that perhaps we should be paying a lot more in taxes if that is what it takes to fix the problems of government. Since when were the American people so willing to part with their hard earned money to pay into ill conceived government programs? Since when did the concepts of capitalism seem so foreign, and socialistic ideals seem so appropriate? And why is this happening now, during of all times my prime earning years?

What really gets me annoyed is when Obama supporters refer to the man as “Barry” – he doesn’t even refer to himself as Barry. If you are an Obama supporter, and you don’t like the name Barack, perhaps you should deal with that issue yourself. Nothing drives me more crazy that these Obamabots who try to make Obama seem more palatable by calling the guy Barry. Sheesh!

Sure, we have problems. The economy is in a downward cycle. Gas prices are really high. We are fighting a relatively hot war in Iraq and our success there is anything but guaranteed. Afghanistan seems to be regressing. Healthcare is expensive. Almost all of the problems we do have, the ones I just mentioned, nearly all are the result of our Government and partisan politics. If we want to ensure that we have more of these problems, then we should elect the biggest government liberal there is. And Obama fits that description well.

The simple truth still remains about America (at least for the next few months): If you work hard, and you work smart, you will raise yourself up, you will earn money. No, you can’t work on an assembly line with no college degree for 30 years and expect to retire with a pension anymore. But we all knew that long ago, long before Bush and long before Obama. And unless we want to partake in the same quality of life of people in other countries that do have manufacturing jobs, it’s time for us as a people to show some good old American ingenuity and move on to greener pastures. Just like when horse cart makers lost their jobs when automobiles became the thing. Some businesses, some professions, don’t last. Things change. It’s not the government’s fault if you expected to be building tube TV’s for the rest of your life at 30 dollars an hour union wage – time for some career planning.

This election season has brought out the ugliest side of all of the candidates. And we’ve found that some are more ugly than others. I think Obama happens to be the ugliest candidate to come along in a long while. Unfortunately, it seems to me that it’s also brought out the ugly side of the media, and the populace in general. I will be voting for McCain in November, but my vote might not mean a whole lot.

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • Senator Obama’s Patriotism – What it means to this Navy Veteran. I hope you consider the following article: Senator Obama’s Patriotism – a Veteran’s Perspective.

  • I did. Apparently you consider patriotism to consist of putting your hand over your heart…

  • The Obnoxious American

    I agree that most displays of patriotism are just that, displays, not meaning a whole hell of a lot. But consider the fact that Obama has not served in the military of this country (nor have I for that matter), he made hay about not wearing a flag pin, his wife made the comment about only first being proud of the US only recently, and his pastor of 20 years said “G-d damn America” among other things.

    Obama has himself raised questions of his patriotism. Frankly I think he may have a point about the flag pin stuff. But take into account all of these other things I mentioned, and then consider that months later he has a speech on patriotism, standing in front of no less than 3 flags, and wearing a flag pin, I have to wonder which Obama gave that speech? Who is this guy? What does he really stand for? And much more importantly, can you believe ANYTHING this guy says? Judging by his mealy mouthed words in the patriotism speech, I’d have to say no. Judging by his campaign overall, I’d definitely say no.

    I don’t need someone to pay symbolic respect to the country and flag, but I expect someone who is running under the moniker of change and judgement to actually promote change and have judgement.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Is this what American politics has become or is this what American politics always has been?

    This idea of patriotism, this moronic geographical conceit in which it’s perfectly okay to be outright dogmatic just for having been born within a certain set of borders, is actually deciding the next Leader of the Free World in the minds of many Americans? And patriotism, to many Americans, comes down to the presence of a flag pin or the “too late” proclamations of Michelle Obama for love of her country. We already know that no other country in the world is infected with as much rabid patriotism, but the importance of the symbolic nature of it on elections is really getting silly.

    Obnox., if you’re going to raise hell about not having military service, surely you must be downright peeved at the current administration’s lack of hands-on experience – unless of course you count the Texas Air National Guard – with combat. As far as I’m concerned, having an extensive military history should be irrelevant when it comes to United States politics and global politics. We’re trying to move away from the warmongering days of our ignorant historical fathers, not further into them. We need someone gifted with diplomacy, conversation, and peace-making. I’m not suggesting that Obama is that person, by the way.

    What irks me most about American politics is this innate desire for consistency at all costs. It is the American Way, seemingly, to hold to one position for the rest of your damned life and never change it. Once a Republican, always a Republican. So if Barack Obama gives a speech about patriotism on one day and prances around in front of some flags and, on another day, doesn’t….OH MY GOD WHO IS THIS MAN?

    Come on. Consistency is important, but so is adaptability and compromise. Learning new information, changing ideas, learning about new aspects of life, etc. are all a part of human growth. To deny that process in the President of the United States is sheer idiocy. Bush must think the same thing about the War in Iraq today, tomorrow, and yesterday because if he doesn’t…he’s a “flip-flopper.” This is the type of moronic and dogmatic approach that is undermining any actual progress in the world and in America.

    Add to that the idea that Obama and the “liberals” – please, you guys don’t know what liberals are! – are going to set up some sort of socialist agenda under the Guiding Light of the Democratic Party and it’s no wonder things are such a mess down there.

    It’s time to grow up.

  • Ruvy

    So, OB, you are finally as sick of your elections as I am. But I’ll be voting for Barry Obama, and you should at least understand why.

  • Mooja

    “I am sick and tired of the glossy eyed American people, so many of whom have bought in wholesale, like lemmings, into the ideals of wealth redistribution, and larger government who takes care of our every need.”

    You and me both. I am seeing the same thing and what you express in this passage is what has me concerned the most.

    Regardless of who we elect for the next 4-8 years, their time will be up. This shifting of ideals towards increased socialism is looking like an unstoppable train. In my opinion this is right up there as one of the biggest dangers to our country.

    “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” – Thomas Jefferson

  • I’m sick of tired of being sick and tired.

  • Is anyone not sick and tired of this election campaign that has been going on since 1534 and is still not over?

  • Obnoxious,

    I agree, but there ain’t much we can do about it. I can’t offer prescription medications, but the next best thing (or, perhaps, an even better thing) is to pull out a CD remastering of most any of the D’Oyly Carte Opera Company Gilbert & Sullivan musicals and listen. I am now listening, for the millionth time, to Pirates of Penzance; it doesn’t much matter which, just listen. It is the best therapy up with which I have been able to come, to paraphrase Winston Churchill.

    The decisions of our friends across the sea to allow the D’Oyly Carte to die was clearly foretold by our Founding Fathers and was the main reason — or at least should have been — for the American Revolution.


  • Clavos

    “…and I’m never, never, sick at seeeaa…”

  • Clav,

    It is, of course barely possible that I am wrong, but I seem to recall that the quoted verse is from H.S.M Pinafore. Doesn’t matter. It’s all great and one is at least as good as any other. My all time favorite, however, is The Gondoliers


  • Jordan Richardson

    This shifting of ideals towards increased socialism is looking like an unstoppable train.

    Does mindless repetition of this concept make it true?

  • Re Gilbert & Sullivan,

    Seriously, though, a persistent thread running through all of them is a perhaps archaic but inescapable sense of honor and duty, sadly rare today.


  • I’m not sick of the presidential campaign. It’s the first time I’ve found anything of interest in one for years.

    You claim that Obama is a wafler. Of course, McCain is a fucking rock. He can’t even remember what he says. (ie: Does he know anything about economics, or not? Stay tuned.)

    What about Obama’s turning down public financing? Personally, I really don’t give a rat’s ass. Actually, it was a very sensible and pragmatic decision. That Obama had more money in his war chests than he could get through public financing made the decision a no brainer. Who in their right mind would opt for less funding?

    What did Wesley Clark actually say?

    “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president”

    Where in that statement does anyone see a questioning of McCain’s patriotism? It was perhaps an unfortunate and off hand comment, but it was not a reflection on McCain’s patriotism nor his status as a war hero.

    It says what it says. Answer the question. Does getting shot down and being a POW qualify anyone for the presidency? I think not.

    The spin put on Clark’s comments are so cynical and disrespectful of the intelligence of the electorate that it is idiotic and shameful.

    Obama is certainly moving toward the center, just as McCain has and continues to do. Who are the people both campaigns are courting? Moderates and independents.

    I am not altogether happy regarding Obama’s embracing of the two recent supreme court decisions, but I see the political expediency of it. If anyone believes that McCain or any other serious candidate for practically any office do not bend to the expedient, then you understand nothing of hard rock politics.

    I don’t think Obama is the second coming or any such bullshit. I do believe that he will move this country away from the warmongering profiteering of Bush and his bunch of whom McCain is proving to be no more than a clone.


  • The Obnoxious American


    You’ll note that I didn’t claim that Obama is a waffler, I merely pointed out his actual waffling in various situations and on various issues. Had you read past the first page, you would have seen that raise issues about John McCain too.

    As far as financing, yes, it was pragmatic and sensible. It’s all good – except for the fact that Obama had an agreement with McCain that he broke. It’s just one more example of a candidate who claims to be different acting in the worst tradition of Washington politics.

    And inevitably, it makes the critical among us wonder ever more what this guy really stands for. One thing we know for sure, at this late stage of the election, and with the election leaning his way, we really don’t know very much about what Obama stands for, except for the shifting and triangulating positions he seems to favor week from week and his supposedly inspiring speeches where he basically complains alot and then says he is required for things to change.

    And Obama triangulates more than any politician in recent memory. Certainly more than Hillary ever did.

    You say he is moving to the center? I say, he is acting like he is moving to the center. Another question mark about who this guy is and what he stands for. He was rated as the most liberal member of the Senate by a non-partisan rankings group.

    As far as what Clark did, how can you even try to defend or excuse this behavior? Are you even in the real world? The rest of us here in America, including supposedly Obama himself, felt that comment was out of line. Are you suggesting that Obama was misrepresenting his feelings about that? Perhaps. Another questions mark.

    By your own words, Obama’s embrace of the two recent SC decisions was out of political expediency. New kind of politics? Just another question mark.

  • Well…as an outsider I must say I’m genuinely looking forward to watching the Republicans have a collective spastic colan attack when Obama wins in November…in addition the sound of veins popping in Fox news anchors foreheads will make a nice drum section accompaniment to shrill soprano screeching from the GOP.

    This should be fun.

  • Again, as regards Clark’s comment: Answer the question: How in the hell does anyone, even you, take what he said as questioning McCain’s patriotism? Diagram the sentence for me. Explain exactly where the evil deed takes place – The subject? The predicate? The modifiers? I’m at a loss to see it.

    You didn’t use the word wafler, but that’s just nit picking. It was the tenor of a great portion of your diatribe against Obama.

    “You say he is moving to the center? I say, he is acting like he is moving to the center.

    And you know this how?

    As to the so called “broken agreement” with McCain, I hope Johnny gets over it. I know its hard. McCain is certainly welcome to do the same. All he has to do is find some Rep fat cats to cough up big time – something that doesn’t seem to be happening so far. Old GW didn’t seem to have that problem. All the rich righties were tripping over themselves to throw money at George. Hmmm. Maybe they have lived to regret that particular indescretion given the cluster fuck that the current administration has planted on us.

    “…late stage of the election” ??? We haven’t even gotten to the conventions yet. The real campaign hasn’t even started. All we’ve had so far is McCain and his roadies whining about every breath Obama takes because they know it represents an ill wind for their prospects in November. I guess they hope that people will come out and support the underdog like a 16th seed in the NCAAs.


  • zingzing

    clark’s statement was 100% correct. it wasn’t disrespectful at all. as a member of obama’s team, maybe he shouldn’t have said it. that’s the kind of shit the media jumps all over, and a more experienced politician would have been more wary. obama, like most sane americans, can probably see the truth in what clark had to say… that said, he’s also smart enough to let his underlings do the mudslinging, then publicly back off of it.

    i haven’t been particularly pleased with obama lately. he’s shown himself to be just another politician. still, that’s the game, and you gotta play in order to win the trophy.

    that said, i’m tired of this election as well. although it has been better since hillary quit. damn, that was rough. come, november.

  • The Obnoxious American

    I say Obama’s “acting” the part of a centrist because of the words that have come out of his mouth in the last year, plus what slim legislative history he has. Are you trying to suggest that words don’t matter? It’s not me ascribing the views to Obama, it’s just his views. At least it was until a couple of weeks ago.

    And now, Obama’s changed position on Iraq. No more out in 16 months, now he’s going to be listening to the commanders on the ground. Sounds familiar. Politics of change or is Obama just another Bush clone.

    It’s not that I don’t agree with Obama’s new found wisdom on Iraq. He’s right, we should listen to the commanders on the ground. We should try and leave Iraq a better place if at all possible. But once again, another question mark. Who is this guy and what does he stand for? And if he’s just now discovering his political identity, why should I trust him to run the country? And more importantly how can he possibly claim that experience isn’t as important as judgement, and then show that he doesn’t have much of either?

    And I won’t even respond to the nonsense about what Wesley said. It was disrespectful.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Obnox., are we reading the same article? Obama didn’t change any position on Iraq, he’s clarifying it and fleshing it out further. That’s actually what people do in most circumstances…

    If Obama didn’t continue to refine his policies with new information, as the article says, I’d be more concerned. The last thing America needs is some stubborn jackass that “stays the course” regardless of what comes to light.

    Obama isn’t making any change in direction with his policy or with his stance on the war and he certainly didn’t “reverse the position” as the McCrack camp says. The only change is in whether the departure from the conflict with be 16 months of 24 months.

  • The problem with Clark’s statement is not that it’s unpatriotic, it’s that it minimizes McCain’s record and tries to write him off as nothing but a fighter pilot who is therefore unqualified for the job of president, which is just a ridiculous misrepresentation of McCain’s career in the military.

    Putting aside his time as a pilot and as a POW which speak to nothing but his bravery and resilience, how about the remaining 15 years of his career in the Airforce, which included administrative experience commanding a squadron and working as the Navy’s liaison to the US Senate. Then there’s the 2 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate. To try to suggest that he’s somehow underqualified for the presidency is ridiculous. He’s better qualified than many who have served in the office, including Jimmy Carter and John f. Kennedy and George W. Bush and Bill Clinton just for a start.

    So Clark, as usual, was spouting off like a fool. Read Clark’s book if you want to see what a shallow buffoon he is.


  • It’s politics. We have long seen how underlings from every camp are sent out to plant seeds. Sometimes they germinate and thrive, other times they just lay dormant in the dust.

    Are these kind of things planned or choreographed? Who orders these things done? Are we to assume the candidates direct these efforts?

    No doubt some are. Many are likely just people spouting off much to the chagrin or delight of the respective campaigns.

    Carl Rove was a master at that kind of bullshit. We’ll see and hear much more of it as the election draws nearer – from both sides. Bank on it.

    It could be said that Obama shouldn’t worry about his opponents’ mud slinging. He should worry more about his supporters’ overzealous brain farts.

    All this righteous yammering about Clark and Rev. Wright, and public campaign financing hasn’t a damn thing to do with the issues that face this country and its presidential candidates. The whimpering, pissing and moaning coming from the McCain camp about every real or imagined slight from the Obama side has the effect of deflecting voters from anything substantive in this campaign. McCain’s trying to come across like a hurt child. I wanna see John get hot and blow a fuse or two, maybe whack a campaign intern upside the head or something. I know he’s fully capable of such.

    As I stated above, this campaign hasn’t even had the wheels attached yet. It’s not rolling at all, but rather screaching along getting no where while the press tries to keep the conversation going when there’s really nothing to say.

    And, I’ll say it again: Whether it was in bad taste or not, Clark’s statement is true. It served to diminish nothing other than the notion that by virture of McCain having been a pilot and a POW, a war hero even, somehow serves to qualify the man for the presidency. I don’t remember anybody seriously considering Audie Murphy for any political office.

    McCain will have his own set of sycophantic underlings out planting their own seeds as we go along. Again, you can bank on it.

    If you don’t believe that, I urge any of you to read “How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative” by Allen Raymond. It might make you a bit queasy, but its well worth the Imodium.


  • Ref # 14 by Baritone, which is a pointed observation; in that…

    “What did Wesley Clark actually say”?

    What did Wesley Clark actually do? Is my question.

    Any Clinton garbage ought to clear out of the picture if Obama is “expected” to win. That includes Obama’s select from the Clinton tribe.

    The retired USMC General that the Obama campaign was floating (the name escapes me) seemed a much better choice, rather than Clark, if you really have to have a General/Admiral onboard for toe-to-toe showmanship with McCain.

    McCain was a (1) Annapolis Grad, (2) Fighter Jock, (3) Showed courage during the Forestall conflagration, (4) POW. Clark’s statement is an attempt to downplay McCain’s testicular fortitude. Which compared to the average person, rates pretty high. But all it really proves is commitment; McCain can commit, he has a proven record.

    I’m not sure where Clark is coming from; perhaps he thinks that generalship is some amazing, wondrous thing. I’ve seen plenty of high-ranking dinosaurs out there, who have lots of staff to hump the gear and generate the 2-minute briefs, so the Generals can “keep up” with current events. There are other Generals who can actually absorb and are hands on during difficult situations…. I don’t have a good feeling as far as Clark is concerned regarding the hands on stalwartness of his (Clark’s) abilities. Therefore… I discount pretty much what he has to say. Powell lost the bubble when heading the JCS. Schwartskopf was much more hands on, and effective. Put Schwartskopf and Clark’s effectiveness to the measure and they both come up lacking, so does Franks. Face it; generalship today is a CEO type of leader, unlike generalships of the past.

    What’s my point? Shut up General (burp) Clark; measuring the inner resolve of McCain against yourself(?) in order to downplay McCain is not an effective tool in the war you are attempting to wage on the stump.

    Am I defending McCain; not really. But even less so than Clarke, who shines just as dull as Franks and Powell. I guess in “today’s modern and complex society” (Arlo Guthrie), becoming a general might be timing and an organizational concept issue, rather than a leadership.

    As in a lot of cases, most grunts probably respect the rank rather than the person. But the troops really respect guts and that “Can Do” or have “been there, done that” track record. As for McCain when looking over the field of McCain bashers, few would measure up to the gut check.

    As for the Obama slight regarding the hand over the heart. You will notice in the pictures taken during one particular moment, that Obama was at stage left, and the other candidates were standing behind him. Perhaps he didn’t have anyone to queue off of….. geeze.

  • Clavos

    Dave keeps bringing up (and all you Dems keep ignoring) the principal flaw in Clark’s remarks, and it’s an important one:

    McCain commanded the largest squadron in the Navy, a leadership (i.e. management) position, and did it well.

    According to the St. Petersburg Times (one of the nation’s most liberal newspapers):

    Clark’s larger point is correct: McCain has accomplished a lot in his career, but has little executive experience. But Clark, who ran for president in 2004, was incorrect to say McCain “hasn’t held executive responsibility.” McCain not only held an executive post over a large training unit, but earned positive reviews. When McCain departed, the unit was given its first Meritorious Unit Citation.

    McCain has executive experience, plus he has years of experience in the legislature.

    How much relevant experience does Obama have again?

    It was stupid of the Obama camp to attack McCain with the very issue on which Obama himself is most vulnerable: lack of experience.

    Clark’s “point” is a strawman.

  • Lee Richards

    McCain has a number of qualifications for the job;the problem is, he’s had ’em too long.

    But because of his public temper outbursts, what seems like some confusion at times, and his “maverick” attitude, the McCain of today is as unproven an executive leader as Obama is.

  • Lee,

    I agree that McCain is a tad long in the tooth, and that is why I think his choice of running mate is of critical importance.

    As to his temper outbursts, Harry “Give ’em Hell” Truman had those as well and was a pretty good President despite (or because) of them. There are some things which deserve temper outbursts, and occasionally they are refreshing.

    McCain’s “maverick” characteristics might also be a good, rather than a bad, thing. Mavericks sometimes produce change we can really believe in, rather than more of the same old offal.



  • Condor

    During McCain’s last run for the ticket, I was a bit unnerved by his “outbursts.” He aired his temper and was in error for showing it off.

    But I recken Clark (the strawman) would just pass it off as an indication of the unsuitability of a POW in office.

    Lack of experience? How long has McCain been in the Senate? More than the vastly experienced Hillary? Or, perhaps more than the un-experienced Obama? This argument definately shows a complete lack thought (i.e. Clark).

    I guess you realize that I’m not a big fan of Clark. But I have insider reasons, from a variety of personal work experiences and general comments by some very learned people I have been working around for 10 or 15 years now… who have direct personal experience Clark and his agendas.

  • I am sick and tired of people on the right complaining about things that they were silent about when the shoe was on the other foot.

  • zingzing

    dave: “Putting aside his time as a pilot and as a POW which speak to nothing but his bravery and resilience, how about the remaining 15 years of his career in the Airforce, which included administrative experience commanding a squadron and working as the Navy’s liaison to the US Senate. Then there’s the 2 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate. To try to suggest that he’s somehow underqualified for the presidency is ridiculous.”

    true. he may have the washington and airforce credentials, but that’s not what was said. all that was said is that being a fighter pilot and pow does not qualify one to be president. and that’s true. maybe all that other stuff does qualify him. being southern would probably mean more.

    i haven’t read clark’s comments in full. but the soundbite, taken by itself, seems like a trap set for mccain to stumble into. what can he retort with? “yes, being shot down and eating rat feces does qualify me to lead a nation?” that doesn’t really work.

  • If memory serves Truman’s temper was not generally of the demeaning quality. He got angry when things were not going as he planned, if people apparently failed at their appointed tasks.

    McCain has a tendancy to snap at people around him, including his wife in a manner which is belittling and just generally mean spirited and nasty. That type of condescension does not do well in fostering a loyal, endearing following. It could ultimately bite the good senator in the butt.


  • Baratone,

    Paul Hume can, therefore, rest in peace.


  • bliffle

    McCain was just a jet jockey, and then a POW, until he was given a creampuff job after the war.

    McCain has been in Congress for 26 years. What has he accomplished for his state or for his nation in that time?

  • Lee Richards


    Truman was a good 10 years younger than McCain when he became president…and, he wasn’t(and never would have been) elected to a first term on his own, because of personality flaws, political judgements, and his style of leadership.

    This election is already a crapshoot;judging McCain’s suitability by whoever runs with him, makes it a lottery.

    My original point wasn’t about temper or mavericks. It was that McCain’s past accomplishments and experience don’t tell us if he’s up to leading the nation today. (And, no, Obama’s record doesn’t give us any guarantees about him either.)

    Bart Starr and Joe Namtath won the Super Bowl–in their day–but probably couldn’t even successfully coach a SB quarterback today.

  • Lee,

    Yeah, I agree that McCain is probably too old. Not wanting to repeat myself, (but doing so anyway) I began comment #26 with the observation that “I agree that McCain is a tad long in the tooth, and that is why I think his choice of running mate is of critical importance.” “Long in the tooth” is horse-talk for old. As to whether Truman’s personal characteristics would have kept him from winning election on his own, I don’t know. He was a pretty popular guy back then, and knew a bit about military affairs, as a combat artillery battery commander during WWI, as a National Guard bird colonel who was persuaded to stay in the Senate rather than return to active duty during WWII, and as Chairman of the Truman Committee, which ferreted out quite a lot of waste in military spending. FDR, due to his severe ill health, needed someone who could take over should he die in office, and Truman was the choice. I think he was the best choice.

    I don’t know whether Senator McCain’s choice of a running mate will turn the election into a lottery, for the simple reason that I don’t know who that choice will be. It will be a very substantial factor in for (or against) whom I decide to vote.


  • bliffle


    Hahaha! That’s what you rightwing swiftboaters get for emphasizing trivia like flag pins and whatever. You’ve successfully distracted everyone from Real Issues. So if the result distresses you, well…eat your own dog doodoo.

  • The Obnoxious American


    Way to read the article.


    Obama was the “out in 16 months candidate” – one of the points he challenged Hillary on was her commitment to pulling out the troops and now that he’s in a general election race, he will “listen to the commanders on the ground.” He told Charlie Gibson that he would pull troops out in 16 months. Now he will listen to the commanders on the ground.

    Like I said, I agree with Obama’s change of heart on Iraq, but to cast it as a mere refinement is hogwash. How is he now different from McCain? If both are going to be listening to the commanders on the ground, then what’s the difference? And does this mean that Obama agrees that John McCain’s surge strategy worked (even though Obama would never admit it)?

  • The Obnoxious American

    The war over words started Thursday when Obama told reporters questioning his stance on Iraq that he will “continue to refine” his policies as warranted.

    Obama denied any suggestion that he was shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it “pure speculation” and adding that his “position has not changed.”

    National reporters and Republicans pounced on his comments. The Republican National Committee put out an e-mail statement saying that Obama was backing away from his position on withdrawal.

    from CNN