Where were you August of 2005?
trying to make a baby or not
Not unless that woman had the gestational period of an elephant.
Diamond is that you?
it's all fun and games and frolic time in Hawaii
some people in Georgia, did not get the memo
some people in Georgia, did not get the memo
Buying a mini-mansion with other people's money.[/QUOTE]
whatever.
that bitch only got one mini-mansion. McCain got [i]eleven[/i]! he like the Michael Phelps of expensive property!
John McCain ponders advantage of promising one-term presidency
Tom Baldwin in Washington
John McCain is considering making a pledge that he would serve only one term in the White House when he accepts the Republican nomination at his party’s convention next month.
A promise not to seek reelection after four years would be unprecedented in modern presidential politics and the idea is understood to be opposed by many senior figures in his campaign who fear that it would reduce his leverage with Congress and create chaos in the Republican Party.
Mr McCain, who has a habit of ignoring advice and bucking conventional wisdom, is attracted by its potential to transform a race that has already showed signs of tightening in recent weeks.
His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is presenting himself as a figure of generational change who can unite America by reaching out to independent and even Republican voters.
Related Links
Perhaps even more importantly it could help Mr McCain — who has his own strong appeal to independent voters — to distance himself farther from the partisan political divisions that have made Washington a byword for inaction and self-serving interests in recent years.
A one-term President would be able to devote all his time to tackling problems — including an ailing economy and two unfinished wars — rather than planning a reelection campaign. Supporters of Hillary Clinton, about a fifth of whom are already backing Mr McCain, could vote for him knowing that their candidate might run again in 2012.
It saddens me.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice.
Why be sad?
Why be naive?
A very poor speech.
This young man is not ready to be President.
Tear down these walls
Another supporter of tearing down walls.
Get some sleep, deep. . .
Allies Ask Obama to Make ‘Hope’ More Specific
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: August 16, 2008
As Senator Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts despite weeks of cross-country and overseas campaigning.
These Democrats — 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders — say Mr. Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship or national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters.
Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders — while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations — say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change — given that change, they note, is not an issue.
“I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message — even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,” said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. “It’s fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.”
Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”
You know I have told you more than once
I don't dislike Obama
I even like him
I think had Hillary run in 2004 she would have been rejected for not having enough experience, though a very capable person
this 2008 run should have been about learning the ropes, even an old grissly like McCain is a more successful candidate because of his 2000 run.
The problem with Obama is that there is no there,
there
You have even written things like "I think Obama is this or that"
Obama has even in the last few days said something like "I'm new, I'm young, people don't know what I stand for"
and now even his supporters are saying this:
I DO feel that the argument is not unassailable though and we've already gone through the arguments about experience vs. judgement. Would our country have been better off if Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld had been president instead of Bush--after all they had the experience he lacked?
Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.
Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.
“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.
Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”
I would submit that Iraq may very well have been handled much differently than we have seen. He certainly has not been supportive of the plan since we invaded. He has been critical of it.
I agree with McCain that Iraq was a priority. I agree that Bagdhad had to be dealt with as it was the driving reason we had troops stationed in the region. All of that needed to change somehow. While you are taking a snapshot of him, with quotes to make your case Anitram, it is absolutely unfair to imply that this man supported the actions and steps this administration took at the time.
And yes, on a military boat, surrounded by military people.....I would have been pumped up at his words. Might I suggest that troops as an audience would have influenced the manner in which he was addressing them?
I agree with McCain that Iraq was a priority.
“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.
You see, I don't.
And I think Irvine gets right to the point here - I could never in good conscience vote for him on this alone (nevermind his anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay abortion and other social views which I find antiquated and offensive).
So no, I am in agreement with him on this issue. I just think it wrong to pin the way it was handled on him, when all along, he was a leading critic of this administration and the war.
I am not sure what you mean by international law, and I do not want to debate UN resolutions, but there have been NONE to my knowledge that indicate the US did anything illegal in reguards to Iraq, in particular because the UN Security Council did authorize the occupation of Iraq, albeit, after the fact (retroactively).
So no, I am in agreement with him on this issue. I just think it wrong to pin the way it was handled on him, when all along, he was a leading critic of this administration and the war.
I didn't say anything about international law so I'm not really sure what you're referring to here?