[Erin] Maybe Cindy should give Huck a call

Politics, in the end, is always about personalities. That is why people will cheerfully vote for people with whom they disagree with on every issue.

Huckabee should perhaps consider running for President of Mars.

Now that test is over: Here is today's lesson:

What Michelle said was: "Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am REALLY proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change." "I have seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues and it has made me proud." (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bQIjE6Diez0).

AnotherBeliever just very pointedly answered the question that will be asked this winter on Fox Sunday with Brit Hume and Chris Wallace and the ever Cheshire Kristol; How did Obama get enough traction to be a slandslide choice for President?

Lapels pin debates.
Preacher video loops.
Wife quotes.

Bad News: Only yesterday Rod said this is a 'dismal political year'.
Good News: Unlike the Iraq War, the end is in sight.

November 2008. Circle the date.

AnotherBeliever: Of course the news media isn't talking ISSUES. That simply isn't entertaianing. They'd have to come up with inteeligent questions, the candidates would have to come up with intelligent answers. All of which would take too long and in the meantime, the veiwing public will have switched over to, I don't know, "America's Got Talent" or one of the ones where all the gorgeous unrelated people are living together in some house, just like real life. That's why God invented the Internet. At least, there are small pockets of places where people can gather ideas. I can't really say "facts" I guess, unless we're talking statistics.

Erin: Welcome back to blogging. I enjoy your responses to Rod's blogs and really enjoyed your writting the last time you sat in for Rod.

Like you, Erin, I feel like I've been pushed to the wall with this last Republican offering and cannot vote for John McCain in good conscience. I cannot vote for Obama because of cultural disagreements (i.e. abortion,etc. all the usual suspects). I cannot vote for McCain because I feel he hasn't given much thought to any of the cultural issues.

I will vote Third Party this year. (God,keep me strong against the rantings of Limbaugh and O"Reilly et.al. over Supreme Court appointments.) I may not agree with everything the Third Party choices offer but since my vote in my state probably won't matter all that much, NY will vote for Obama, I am hoping to make some sort of statement. If enough people vote third party maybe it will wake up the Republican Party and get them to see we don't like where they are taking us. If we just stay home, both Parties will be happy to see that we have allowed those much more intelligent than us common folk to make all the important decisions for us. Just like the good little citizens we should be. I urge anyone disgusted with their party to vote third party, maybe rating statics will get to the politicians in a way that human needs could not.

Erin,

Best wishes to you as you manage the blog while Rod and family take a well deserved vacation.

Re: Cindy McCain's statement ... PLEASE TAKE a close look at what she ACTUALLY said to ABC News' Kate Snow:

(1) "I don't know why she (Mrs. Obama) said what she said. Everyone has their own experience. I don't know why she said what she said.

(2) "All I know is that I have always been proud of my country."

In part (1) above, Cindy declined to interpret what Michelle said. Unlike Mrs. Bush and Huckabee, Cindy chose not to speculate.

In part (2) above, Cindy told us that she has always been proud of her country.

Why attack Cindy McCain for this statement? It makes perfect sense for Cindy McCain to let Michelle Obama explain herself. Isn't Mrs. Obama capable of speaking for herself? -- and explaining herself? Why do Mrs. Bush and Governor Huckabee feel the need to explain for us what Michelle Obama actually said.

Perhaps the behavior of the First Lady and Huckabee toward Michelle are an example of the "soft bigotry of low expectatins."

who knew,
If values are really your thing, I'd vote 3rd party. I'm to the left and hyper-actively campaigned for Nader in 2000. To this day I have no regrets and here's why:

Like you say about NY, my state of Colorado consistently polled for Bush by a significant margin. Al Gore simply wasn't gonna get our electoral votes.

My argument to my fellow lefties was that if they liked the excesses of the Clintons and the corpratization of the Democratic Party then they could show their support with a vote for Gore.
But, if they wanted to push the Democrats in a more progressive direction; then they could help the Green Party, which nominated Nader, garner 5% of the popular vote to receive federal matching funds in the next election. The Green Party could act as a check on Republicrats like Joe Liberman.

I've never really understood how the Republicans were the party of values being that Reagan was divorced, never cared for church, loved hyper atheist author Ayn Rand, etc.

Even more now with Republican strategist calling their party a brand as if simply trying to market an agenda rather than act on principles.

To boot, Republicans have got folks like Texas oilman 'Claytie' Williams, who joked about rape and said women should lay back and enjoy the inevitable, making the rounds on behalf of McCain. 'Claytie' made these remarks over a decade ago, yet he's respected enough to actively advocate for McCain. Check out the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080614/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_fundraiser

Quite honestly, I'd still prefer Nader (I think he even knows he's not got a snowball's chance in hell, rather he's trying to push issues for which he has crusaded.) over Obama. But, I'll vote for Obama because I sincerely believe that his opposition to the Iraq war, pre-invasion, was more than just a speech.

McCain does deserve credit in my book for serving in Vietnam and having an adopted child. Folks who adopt are the majority of bona fide pro-lifers.

Perhaps your issue lies with his opposition to the constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Reaganite, you are usually very sharp, but that previous post was below your usual standard. Erin is right, you know. You folks are going to have to do better than piling on an articulate and attractive black woman. Cindy McCain's comment was similar to Hillary's precious nugget of a few weeks ago, wherein she stated that Obama was not a Moslem, as far as she knew. Cute. Clever. People I talk with are getting very, very tired of that sort of thing. We have some real concerns to discuss this election cycle, and it would be refreshing if the candidates and the media would shock us all and actually discuss them.

Scott Walker:

Who's piling on who here? I'm not piling on Mrs. Obama. All I'm saying is that she should be allowed to speak for herself. And explain herself.

It's folks like you who are piling on Cindy McCain ... for NOT choosing to re-interpret, rationalize and spin-away the statement that was made originally by Mrs. Obama.

You're right, we do "have some real concerns to discuss this election cycle." But if you believe that, why are some discussing -- and criticizing -- Cindy McCain's unwillingness to put words in Michelle Obama's mouth?

I like this blog because it never fails to tell the inner truths of either Rod or Erin. I do not always agree with either of you, but for the most part respect and admire your thorough opinions. But I am confused as to why you are card-carrying single issue voters. Now, single issue as I see it does not mean, I am not voting for Barack Obama because he is pro-choice. Rather, I am not voting for Obama because he is pro-choice and not religiously conservative.

You are failing to see the point of voting for a President, I think. Sure, this may seem presumptuous of me, but you intellectuals seem to nit-pick and complicate this process. This country is a [expletive deleted--EM] as Kunstler puts it, and no President is going to fully dissolve the problems into a wastebasket that can be neatly taken to the dump. No, he will be mired in the dump of 28 years of poor public policy (especially the last 8).

Now I believe we will continually move--at a fast rate--towards a more community-oriented and stay at home lifestyle. Who can galvanize community organizing better than a former community organizer? Obama knows how to pull the best out of everyone, similar to Gandhi, King, hell let's throw in Michael Jordan (he won championships with no-namers like Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc, and Bill Wennington). While policies decisions are still important, his thinking is steeped in intergenerational justice, equality, and reliance on the people. These beliefs will frame his policy decisions, and while nowhere near a perfect man (his stances on abortion, energy, and his next church choice need cemented), I am confident voting for him, knowing his limitations by realizing his good overrides his bad. I am not confident in McCain's ability to care for the tenets I referred to above. He is a capable leader, not an inspiring or caring one.

Lastly, I am appalled at you and Rod for considering the act of turning your back on the polls in lieu of what I can tell are not the pressing issues of our day. Your lack of patriotism is unbecoming and frankly contradictory to the views you present. I believe you and Rod think this is a dismal political season (clear that up next time you write about not voting); the majority of this country thinks otherwise.

Please clarify soon as to why you do not want to vote. This would clear up my confusion and frustration.

Karen Brown,

While you continue to "pile on" Cindy McCain, perhaps the rest of us can talk about other issues? OK?

Like the need to increase the domestic supply of energy. Or the need to keep the economy on track. Or the need to protect all life -- including the unborn. Or the need to keep our country safe from foreign attack.

Dan: "Obama knows how to pull the best out of everyone, similar to Gandhi, King, hell let's throw in Michael Jordan (he won championships with no-namers like Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc, and Bill Wennington). While policies decisions are still important, his thinking is steeped in intergenerational justice, equality, and reliance on the people."

Dan, why do you need a President to "pull the best out of everyone" ?

Can't you get yourself out of bed in the moring -- or are you going to be waiting for daily instructions from your Leader? Your comment is an example of what is entirely wrong with the messianic promise of this man's candidacy -- and it indicts the folly of his "followers" as much as it does the hubris of this modern-day Pied Piper.

This kind of thinking belongs more in a totalitarian dictatorship than it does in a representative democracy dependent on the capacity for self-governnance by each citizen.

We don't need a President to be our National Coach. That's akin to the Fuehrerprinzip made notorious by the Nazis or the "Great Father" approach of Josef Stalin.

"While you continue to "pile on" Cindy McCain, perhaps the rest of us can talk about other issues? OK?"

First, one person can't 'pile on' anyone. (Is that the latest attempted catch phrase, like 'stuck on stupid', or 'gaffe machine', or 'throw under the bus'? I don't think it'll catch on any better than the others.)

Especially someone who doesn't know or care that I exist, isn't likely to even be reading this discussion. I'm doing the exact same thing YOU are doing. Talking about the subject of the thread, which happens to be comments made by Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, and yes, Cindy McCain. If one is being 'piled on', they all are. If discussion is 'piling on'.

You were doing the same thing, until I noted the clear intent of the statement, which is pretty easy to see once a subject switch is made. 'All I know is', is used as a point of disagreement with the any statement made previously. If all Cindy McCain knows is that she has always been proud of her country, the point is that this is in contrast with Michelle Obama's knowledge, or statement.

Just like if I were to say is, "I can't interpret Reaganite's statement, but all I know is, I think hypocrisy is a bad thing."

Can't possibly be insulted by that, right? I mean, I SAID I wasn't going to judge or interpret what you said. That second statement, therefore, can't possibly be connected to any of your statements, right?

"Like the need to increase the domestic supply of energy. Or the need to keep the economy on track. Or the need to protect all life -- including the unborn. Or the need to keep our country safe from foreign attack."

Yep, it'd be really nice if they'd start talking about those things, wouldn't it? Instead of worrying what political wives were saying, what church they attend, their middle names, how their school applications were filled out, or what religious rules of membership are for religions they don't practice.

Of course, none of the above also happens to be the subject of the post we're supposed to be discussing, is it?

Reaganite: "Dan, why do you need a President to "pull the best out of everyone" ?"

Dan can speak for himself, but you're stealing an awful lot of bases by going directly from "pulling the best out of everyone" to "totalitarian dictator." I manage a staff as part of my business, and the ability to pull the best out of everyone is certainly an asset, as it is for anyone in a leadership position.

If only President Bush had been better able to pull the best out of the staff of the Executive Branch the past eight years.

Bless,
Doug

>What are you afraid of?

We're certainly not afraid of the GOP noise machine that's for sure.

If Cindy McCain wants to have a discussion about character in comparison to Michelle Obama, by all means bring it on.

Let's discuss how you stole from the people you were supposedly serving and became an addict. Let's see how your picture postcard family values shtick holds up against scrutiny of a husband who dumps his cancer stricken, dowdy old model for you.

I am sure there are a lot of wife #1's in this country who understand exactly how that feels.

Richard Bottoms,

Complain all you want about "swiftboating" or "Willie Horton" but these were about the individuals running for President ... NOT about their spouses.

Go ahead and talk all you want about Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain. No one will listen ... because they're not on the ballot in November.

Reaganite,

I have been accused of being a follower, and implying that Obama is a Messianic gift to our country. Neither are responsible assumptions and frankly, I think you missed the point.

In fact, I detest the follower mentality, and believe that pulling the best out of people turns them into leaders. I am knowledgeable in this area (if not young) in being the captain of a basketball state tournament team (hence the MJ example) that went from 6-17 to 17-8 the year I started varsity. In addition, and more importantly, I spearheaded a movement to start a community garden on my college campus(something Rod would be proud of), which was successful, and I am currently the administrator for that project.

Furthermore, I affirm Steve's sentiments that dictators pull not the best (or virtuous qualities) but the worst (or fear) out of people. Brainwashing tends to occur in these dictatorships, and I'll once again state, that I am not dizzy with idealism over some of Obama's policy stances or firmly held philosophies. He is a man of obvious weaknesses (as we've seen in the Wright controversy and his bowling skills

These weaknesses, however does not negate my faith in his ability, to not extract fear and follower mentalities from his voters, but to energize them over the prospect of working together separately and in unison to revive our country's patriotism and trust in one another.

Now, I'm done explaining. I have responsibilities and instructions to delegate to my team as an administrator of the project I helped start. You can have the last word Reaganite, and Erin, I am not offended by your omission and am glad you will be addressing the topic of voting soon. Thanks to those of you who spoke on my behalf.

It behooves Cindy McCain to be particularly forgiving of any possible verbal gaffes from others, since she was so forgiving of John himself. I refer to the incident where he said to her, in front of reporters and staff, "Well, at least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop--you ****" [expletive deleted out of regard for Erin's sensibilities, but it starts with a c and is widely considered to be one of the most derogatory epithets you can apply to a woman]. If she excuses that kind of abuse from husband to wife, she should have no trouble with milder forms of rational criticism expressed in less intimate relationships.

McCain sweetened his speech at a Republican fundraiser with this genial quip:
Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno.

So I think the McCains need to go easy on chiding others for insufficiently respectful discourse.

We're not playing that game this time, and Obama's paraphrase from the Untouchables was right on the money.

That the GOP will be a smoking political crater after November 4th is not in doubt. The only question is how deep the crater will be.

The evangelicals are finally realizing that they have been played for suckers for 25 years.

Republican voters watching their belongings get stacked on the curb outside their foreclosed on house know who made out and who didn't.

Abortion, abortion, abortion vs. lead filled Chinese toys, tainted tomatoes, poisoned lettuce, $5 gasoline, collapsed mines.

Hot tempered, former horndog married to ex-drug addict, thieving wife lecturing family values to Barack or Michelle Obama.

I'll take that match up any day.

Richard Bottoms:

You describe one of the Presidential nominees as "hot-tempered former horndog married to ex-drug addict, thieving wife."

Your last name describes you well, as in "bottom" of a sewer. How on earth are we ever going to get past the "politics of personal destructing" with that kind of filth spewing from your modem? Grow up!

Maybe about the same time we get rid of the 'apostate Black Liberationist stealth muslim with the atheist wife' characterizations that came out LONG before McCain has ever so much as been personally addressed?

Either McCain, and his supporters is going to have to learn how to take it, or stop dishing it out.

In order to make a call to take the 'high ground', it behooves one to have done that themselves. One who keeps repeating the Swiftboat myths (and the fact that even Republicans use the term 'swiftboating' to refer to the spreading of lies to smear a political candidate makes it pretty clear that they were well aware of the accuracy of the charges), and basically said they were going to start digging for dirt, and that spouses were fair game, well, can't start complaining now.

Mel- What I am afraid of is that marketing will trump issues. The swifboating was a crock, financed by a rich Republican. There were conflicting facts about the details of what Kerry did or did not do. The knowable truth was that he served on a swiftboat and was in harm's way. There was so much conflict of interest on the part of the swiftboaters that they should not have been given any real credence. Willie Horton is a classic case of the picture, and the name (remember Atwater(?) saying it was important to call him Willie and not Wiiliam) carrying the message. Both of these candidates have strengths and weaknesses. I do not want it decided on some hokey non-issue.

Reaganite- As a practical matter it is somewhat difficult to name great historical leaders who do not have military ties. On Obama vs McCain during time of war it is a difficult call. McCain has allied himself closely with the neocons, who are really engaged in a long war and want to annex, errr, invade Iran and then Syria and then...... Obama has connected with more of the realist types and has involved people like Sewall from Harvard who helped write the new Army FM with Petraeus. Bomb, bomb Iran vs negotiate. Stay forever vs get out. Ultimately things may change on the ground enough that whomever is elected will have to alter their plans. Who is more likely to be able to understand the political nuances well enough to make good decisions? Who will place the appearance of "winning" above the good of the country? Who is more likely to oppose torture, realizing how it aids the terrorists and makes it harder for us to get good intel?

There is a real debate that needs to occur. The answers are not clear. We need to hear the candidates positions, not what some wife wrote in her term paper or what kind of drugs the other wife was stealing. BTW, there was an excellent paper in Foreign Affairs (most recent one) on When to leave Iraq.

Steve

>How does all this filth you're spewing about one of the candidate's wife >contribute to a real discussion of the issues?

The truth is filth?

Cindy McCain is an addict and will be in recovery the rest of her life, at least that's how NA views it.

She stole from her charity. I didn't make it it up:

Oct. 18, 1999 | PHOENIX -- GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on "Dateline") and Diane Sawyer (on "Good Morning America") the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.

Salon.com Addiction Article from 1999

And BTW, it's us liberals who believe in treatment on demand as many times as you needed in order to get clean (Robert Downey Jr. ring a bell?).

We're the ones who think the hundreds of black men in prison for similar crimes should have a chance to wipe the slate clean and become part of society again, just like rich society matrons with connections.

It's liberals who think the drug war has made criminals of people seeking relief from pain (Rush, you listening?).

So, don't get in a huff with me about the actions of Cindy McCain. I believe personal responsibility is the conservative mantra.

>Saying something is true doesn't excuse the use of it.

Freedom = Slavery

Ignorance = Freedom

Peace = War

Got it.

>You quote an AP story that is almost 10 years old, for crying out loud!

Statute of limitations for stories about your life is how long, ten years? Twenty?

>Your attitude is heartless.

My attitude is addiction is something you can overcome with help from society and family. What's yours? hell, I take Vicodin myself and mange to stay within my doctor's prescribed dose but I can see where in can and is a problem for others.

So where's all this filth you keep talking about?

Obama may be talking about an age of unity, but then I'm not Obama. I prefer to talk about an age of kicking every GOP office holder in the country out on his or her keister. But that's just me.

Anyway my attitude is Cindy McCain has got nothing at all to say about Michelle Obama's character.

>Thank you for creeping out of the shadows and showing the true face of >modern American liberalism.

Ohh scary.

We believe in treatment on demand.

Ohhhh spooky.

We know that addiction is hard to shake and even a rich woman with all the advantages can't manage to stay clean, how in the world do poor people and this in prison manage.

Ohhh. Bitter.

How dare liberals decide they are not going to take slander, especially from people who can't manage to stay married, faithful, sober, or true to their own principles.

Here, I'll repeat the horrible true things I said:

Cindy McCain is an addict. She will always be in recovery.

Cindy McCain stole from her charitable group.

John McCain left his wife despite her cancer and devotion to him for another woman.

Family values rules.

(Actually I am joking here since quite a few people on the GOP side seem not to believe what they preach when it comes to preserving the family: Gingrich, Limbaugh, Reagan and your choice of Closet Case)

Paula,

I'm an Obama /supporter/. I said nothing negative about McCain's wife. Only reminding them of the 'filth' they were spewing about Michele Obama, claiming that they were intending to dig up more, all the while talking about how McCain's wife (whose activities I did NOT mention) should be left alone.

If one is going to engage in that sort of behavior, then one can not complain about receiving the same.

Karen Brown:

Right now your candidate is rising in the polls and rolling in the dough. You and the others who support Obama are looking for revenge on what you perceive as past slights. The prospect of victory makes you giddy and ready to set aside principles. You savagely attack his opponents's wife. Even your candidate today went back on a promise he made to the American public to support public financing.

All this only serves to reveal to Paula and others "on the fence" the TRUE face of liberalism. And lose votes for Obama. Keep up the great work :-)

>And lose votes for Obama.

As if. We're going to decimate the GOP in just a few short months and it's all the doing of your anointed one "GW".

>You savagely attack his opponents's wife.

I savagely research what's been published and quote it. No made up video tapes or whisper campaigns, just news from the Associated Press.

Whole posts demonizing the candidates and demonizing each other. Huckabee is an outstanding, naturally gifted politician. I think he sensed that there is discontent with the usual kind of smear politics prevalent in our elections. I think and hope that there are a lot of people in this election who are finally willing to confront issues we need to talk about.

It is infinitely easier, and fits much more neatly into sound bites, to concentrate on smear attacks. People really love their daily righteous anger fix. The radio blowhards make millions off this kind of stuff. Here's hoping we talk about real isues someday.

Steve

The rather disheartening fact is, when such things GO unaddressed, the assumption is made that it is because they can't defend themselves from the charge, because it is true.

Until the voters show resistance to that sort of tactic, when we no longer have interviewed voters claiming they can't vote for a candidate because they 'heard' he was a Muslim, and his wife is an atheist.

Heck, until even him BEING a Muslim (in and of itself), or his wife's religious affiliation or lack thereof, when TRUE is no longer important, this sort of thing is going to happen.

In other words, until we all move to some Happy Funshine Land. Because I am not holding my breath that its going to happen any time soon.

Dukakis' tank ride, and Mrs. Obama's newfound pride comment were telling moments. Excluding all of the extreme political reactions, there are still legitimate problems with their behavior that deserves criticism.

*chuckle*

You do mean the 26 year Senator who has voted more than 80 percent with his own party, and more than 90 percent with the President.

He's basically a rank and file Republican. Both candidates have sponsored and co-sponsored legislation with the other party. Obama, in his single term, already has two co-sponsored bills with Republicans.

Apparently, both of them can 'reach across the aisle', both are equally 'partisan', both have fairly party line voting records with the ability to cross the line when they feel it necessary.

I think McCain's synchronous voting with the President is more interesting than his record of voting with his party. He's voted with Bush more often than other Congressional Republicans.

"OK, maybe McCain votss with the Republicans a lot ... but what about McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman? All those bills he cosponsored with solid liberals."

Many of which didn't pass, and many of which he wasn't present for, for the final vote. More than one he has actually switched positions on, at least one he doesn't seem to recall now that he sponsored, and on the McCain-Feingold? He's not following the provisions of.

Obama has, in a much shorter career, co-sponsored several bills with Republicans too, including Coburn and Luger.

"I don't like the way Obama went back on his word -- his pledge -- to go with the public financing for the fall campaign. He's the first candidate in the 32+ years that the law has been in effect to not participate. Public financing is part of "Liberalism 101." If he can't abide by something as fundamental as that, how can we trust him?"

Well, you could listen to what he said about it. His pledge was to participate, if the other candidate would too. In February, McCain said he would NOT be participating. He didn't decide to opt into federal funds until after Obama made his announcement.

And he's noted that the system is broken, and it is too easy to 'game the Federal funds system'. A fact that McCain himself has, well, actually written bills (though he managed to be absent when they were voted on) to address.

"It now turns out -- which I discovered tonight -- is that Senator Obama has been lying about not taking lobbyists' money or financial contributions from special interests. It is an outright lie. An outright lie.

Sorry, Karen, but I don't like the way Obama has been playing with our heads."

And that all has been addressed in previous posts. Even the articles cited made the exact same point I did. That the money came from prior to when he announced that he was not going to accept money (most of it came from his senatorial campaign). And he's not only changed, but he's also called for the DNC to comply as well.

I wouldn't be letting politicians into my head if I want to avoid having them play with it. You realize they are humans, they are all subject to voter expectations and behaviors, and you decide what is important to you, issue wise, and vote accordingly.

If that leads to Nader for you, all well and good. It doesn't for me, and doesn't seem to lead to McCain for much of anyone.

For myself, that's really not even the major issue of the campaign. I'm far more concerned with such issues as Iraq, the environment, taxes, social services funding. Given what I do for a living (work in a shelter), and my family (more than one nephew actually IN Iraq), I have my priorities.

AnotherBeliever:

Thanks for your service to the country. My cousin and my first boss were both Vietnam vets. There's always some stress -- higher in some vets; lower in others. McCain came home from Vietnam 35 years ago. He adjusted quite well. As did the other vets serving in politics, including Kerry and Cleland.

I admire McCain's capacity for outrage. The way our resources and tax dollars are routinely wasted by idiots gets me raging. Along with the way our politics is corrupted by lobbyists, including those who are financing Obama's campaign. McCain doesn't get along with the K Street lobbyists and they don't particularly care for him ... and that's just fine with me.

You don't have to be a vet to enraged about politics or economics. I got enraged just last night trying to get my car filled with gas at a nearby service station ... and thinking about why we're so dependent on foreign oil when we have all these untapped petroleum resources in our own country and have refused to build a single nuclear power plant in 30+ years.

If he'd just divorced his first wife in a semi-decent manner, I could have put it down to the unfortunate results of separation and post-war reaction.

Exactly. There are a lot of jokes about, basically, half the prominent Republicans being on their second or third wives, but I don't really care about amicable divorces without children involved. I'd even understand them with children involved.

It's that so many of these divorces were due to infidelity on the part of the husband.

And I'd grant McCain even more leeway than most. I'd actually understand if he was an emotional wreck after his POW experience, and possibly even if he had an affair. But not the near-instant remarriage to a younger richer women. That reads less 'emotional wreck' and more something else.

Those 'insinuations', though I haven't been the one making them, are part of the public record and based on statements by McCain, himself.

He ADMITS having cheated on his first wife. He ADMITS that he did so with his second wife before the divorce.

He married his second wife one month after he divorced his first wife.)

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm

By the way, I never claimed to 'run' a homeless shelter. Only to work for one. Not even on the board. Just a monitor and live in caretaker.

And aren't you the one who claimed that people had the right to dig into the records of people 'associated' with campaigns, and specifically mentioned wives? And repeated the old Swiftboat and Kerry in a tank (which isn't so much inaccurate as simply trivial.. there's nothing wrong with Kerry being in a tank, it just looked goofy.)

You can't say that, repeat your own list of allegations, then complain if anyone mentions anything about the candidate you support.

You have to, as the cliche goes, be the change you want to see.

Don't want to see the insults, the allegations, the diversions into areas that have nothing to do with the issues, then don't do that yourself. Or promote others doing it, just because they do it to a candidate you do NOT like.