This is a pretty depressing move on McCain's part. The way he's defining patriotism -- putting country before party at some observable cost to oneself -- seems to assume that the national interest is always self-evident in particular cases, never a matter of honest disagreement. It also assumes that pursuing the national interest when it doesn't happen to involve any visible cost to your own career doesn't count as TRULY loving your country.

Since when is choosing to earn a pittance as a community organizer NOT an example of sacrificing one's own interests for a cause "larger than oneself"?

well, didn't we think from day one patriotism would be where McCain would attack Obama? Are you saying you think these tactics are going to work, or are you just expressing worry? I trust your instincts, which is why I ask.

I'd like to defend McCain on this one, particularly his "non-answer" in the link.  Here's McCain's response:

"I think that Senator Obama is a great American success story. I think his family is. I think he's someone who is admired and respected throughout this country and the world. I think our differences are how we intend to move forward in conducting the affairs of this country. We have very different views and very different positions, and I look forward to ventilating those.

"But I think all Americans are proud of Senator Obama and what he's been able to accomplish, he and his entire family have been able to accomplish, in this nation, and I think it's living proof of some of the greatness of America."

Yes, it would have been nice if McCain offered a more direct answer, but that hardly looks like a veiled way for McCain to question Obama's patriotism.  He called Obama's story an American success story and Obama himself someone that all Americans are proud of.  That's not a great way to play up the supposed innuendo in the "American President Americans have been waiting for" slogan.  In fact, McCain's response closely parallels the remarks that Obama himself has made in which he's said that he knows how great America is because he's lived the American dream.

Does his new essay, together with his previous comments, imply that Obama is not patriotic? Maybe, but only if you consider a very different sense of the word "patriotism" than the way it is normally used in political discourse.  As it's been used in the media recently, the question "Is Obama patriotic?" most closely means "Does Obama love America?" (it's a rough translation.  I think there's also a connotation  of loyalty).  McCain hasn't questioned Obama on that count.  McCain's definition is different, requiring not just love of one's country, but self-sacrifice as well.  Maybe he doesn't think Obama meets that definition, but if you think about it, relatively few people do.  McCain's offering his view as someone who has put his country ahead of even his own physical well-being, and I think he's entitle to be selective about the things he calls patriotism, even if my own definition would be different.

The linguistic situation is reminiscent of a relationship in which one person thinks that saying "I love you" is a huge deal and should only be used in a really serious relationship, while the other person uses the phrase more casually.  Reporter asks McCain if he thinks Obama is patriotic (Do you love me?) McCain gives an oblique answer (I really like you).  McCain defines his use of the term in the restricted, self-sacrifice sense (When you say you love someone, it means...), and Chait takes him to be referring to the broader, politically relevant sense (So you don't love me?).

I'd add to my previous comment that I think that McCain is wrong in his assessment of Obama as always putting himself first, or at least overly selective by limiting it to Obama's time on the national stage.  As hemlock points out, eschewing a lucrative career as a lawyer in favor of becoming a community organizer is hardly an example of putting your self-interest first.  Nevertheless, my main point still stands, which is that McCain didn't mean what Chait thinks he meant.

Heh, I'm glad you can wish a Happy Independence Day after knowing that our future president might be John McCain. Jon, you're allowed to say anything you want these days in politics, as long as it's implicit and you have plausible deniability. McCain's definition is clearly taylored to fit his message on Obama, but it's not one that you'd dismiss out of hand in the abstract. He can just say, "who says putting country first isn't patriotic?" Just leave everything to the subconscious in the voting booth.

If McCain's definition of patriotism always includes a self-sacrifice component, maybe Obama should point out how eager McCain is to let young Americans continue to be patriotic in Iraq. It is possible that he values self-sacrifice so much that he will even be willing to provide a new patriotic opportunity in Iran. Or is that his plan to provide a transcendental challenge for young Americans?

Wait, maybe the self-sacrifice that McCain believes in has more to do with sacrificing principles, like what he did for his buddy Keating. Or when he was considering joining the Democratic party because the Repubs were mean to him in the elections (thank God for Jeffords leaving the GOP , thereby keeping McCain out of   the Democrat's side of the aisle. Or like when he proclaimed Bagdad to be as completely safe while having a squad of Marines and a flak jacket for protection.

Dead on, rozenson.

Even knowing how much of a crass opportunist he is - yes, starting way back when he dumped wife #1 and hooked up with rich wife #2 - I'm a little surprised that McCain is sinking to such sleazy depths. I guess I didn't think he'd resort to cheap patriotism smears. From here on out, though, I won't be surprised when he sinks lower - which he inevitably will.

And by McCain's own (implied by Chait) definition, *he* is not a patriot, himself, because he's done absolutely NOTHING but put his party's interests first for the last five years. Sure, that's meant some shifting on McCain's part, but he's put the GOP's interests so far out in front of the nation's that he's a hollow shell of his (alleged) 2000 "Maverick" self.

AlanSP, when you're asked a DIRECT question and you answer everything BUT the direct question, as McCain did when asked about Obama's patriotism, you should be held to the fire for it. McCain wouldn't answer the question directly and its clear where he's going with this.

Its reminiscent of "do you think Senator Obama is a Muslim?". And responding with "not as far as I KNOW", and "he SAYS he's not and I'll take him at his word". This is scurrilous crap, as is McCain's non-answer and journalists and others should press them on these kinds of responses. As they should press Obama when he won't answer a question, although I haven't seen him give a non-answer that casts these kinds of personal aspersions. Jeez, he even went out of his way to defend McCain against Clark when Clark really didn't say anything wrong (whether he put Clark up to the whole thing in the first place is a separate, and legit, question). I admit to having blinders for the guy, so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something. But that doesn't let McCain off the hook here. At all.

rozenson.

"Jon, you're allowed to say anything you want these days in politics, as long as it's implicit and you have plausible deniability."

This trick worked against Clinton in primaries.. Obama campaign  and Obama supporters made Clintons racists. It's not going to work against McCain.

One more time with feeling and the last time I swim in this slime: I know this is a tough concept for Clinton supporters, I went through it myself for years.  

Once we become adults, we are entirely responsible for our behavior and the results of it.  This applies to the Clinton's as well, as they are adults.  

Lee Atwater would have blushed in envy at a candidate bragging that hard working white people won't vote for their black opponent, as well he should - it sounds verbatim like George Wallace, circa 1955.  

Your take is that millions of Americans are morons and simply wait for some politician to tell to them what to think, as if peole can't see what is right in front of their faces and decide on their own. I know many Clinton supporters who know damn good and well those comments were racist.  Do you wait for candidates to tell you what to think?  If not, stop accusing everyone you don't agree with of doing so, it destroys any credibility you might hope to have.

You are still apparently still in major denial about the Clinton's desperately sinking into race baiting sludge and worse - living in the past.  Time to get over it.

McCain's argument is a Napoleonic argument. He doesn't feel the need to follow his party or anyone else when he feels he is right. Message to Sen. McCain: Obama isn't "following" the will of his party, he's following the will of the people. In a democracy, the voters pick who they want to lead, and expect them to listen to them. Authoritarians like Bush, Cheney, and McCain sneer at the low approval ratings, mock the polls, and ignore their parties if it gets in their way.

The core problem of the GOP is the overwhelmingly hold on the party by the demagogues on Talk Radio. These unelected wingnuts love the John Wayne leadership of guys like Cheney. An interesting icon, John Wayne (e.g., Reagan) - a loner, quick to anger, stubborn and willful. McCain's idea of patriotism is fine for the movies, useless in the real world.

Too bad there won't be a debate today, on the 4th of July, about what we expect of our leaders. We're celebrating democracy, we rejected dynastic leadership, we deserve a more robust discussion of democracy from the candidates on what it means to be an American.

Paul Fussell quotes Eugene Sledge, a Marine who saw the worst of it on Peleliu and Okinawa: "As I looked at the stains on the coral, I recalled some of the eloquent phrases of politicians and newsmen about how 'gallant' it is for a man to 'shed his blood for his country,' and 'to give his life's blood as a sacrifice,' and so on. The words seemed so ridiculous. Only the flies benefited."

I've not had an heroic moment in my life but I'm most humbled by the true hero who distances himself from his acts and refuses to use the experience to pass judgment on others.

FDR was never forthcoming about how his paralysis shaped the rest of his life. And yes, the culture attached more shame than bravery to survivors of polio. But maybe that's my point. We shouldn't need to know what motivates a person let alone question if our source of purpose is more valid because our suffering or courage can me more easily defined. No, the courageous do not judge.

Maybe my lax life and pampered existence doesn't qualify me to speak on the subject and that's why I'm comforted by the patriots who defer to humility.  Or it could be, again as Fussell put it, I didn't have the luxury to ponder: "The worst thing about war was the sitting around and wondering what you were doing morally."

The next worst thing might be those who reached a conclusion, decided they were superior and used that as a standard upon which they would judge others.

Wandreycer1 said,

www.nytimes.com/.../04krugman.html

Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didn’t scream. Hillary Clinton didn’t say she was staying in the race because Barack Obama might be assassinated. And Wesley Clark didn’t impugn John McCain’s military service.

I'm glad that Obama will have to taste his own medicine.

I think that IDing bucking the party line as patriotic is another effort to not hold it against McCain that he is a Republican.   Unfortunately for McCain and the GOP, Obama is not their father's (or in McCain's case, brother's) Dem presidential candidate.   One obvious response here is that if bucking the party line and ignoring your own personal ambition is so important to patriotism then why did McCain stop doing those things to get the GOP nomination.   Changing his mind on the tax cuts is one obvious example.   Furthermore, of course, nobody is going to believe that McCain is not ambitious.  In fact, some might argue that bucking the party line was just an attempt to promote his own ambition.   Same on campaign finance, if it is so important to him, then why does he want to appoint S C justices like Roberts and Alito who think that McCain's signature legislative act is unconstitutional.   Could it be code for I will overturn Roe v Wade?  Surely not.  That would be ambitious and unpatriotic.

Michael: that was a nice post.  I've lost a couple of cousins and friends to war and revolutionary fervour, and have seen flied feed on fresh blood and brains on the sidewalk after a political assassination.  Those kinds of heroics - on the part of the assassins and the dead - leave me cold.  That an election should be fought on someone's patriotism is just sick; and that the election-time patriotism should be defined by McCain is just plain pathetic (and I agree with fougasseu that this is what he is aiming for).  If he gets away with it - and Rozenson is right, he might - it would be a travesty of democracy.  Perhaps Wandrey is right and we are more elightened; or perhaps Obama is skilled enough as a politician to deflect this one as well.

This is why I am not entirely certain that Wesley Clark's comments were so out of bound or politically inopportune.

Happy Independence Day to you all from up here in royalist and loyalist Canada!

Great posts people, Alan I agree with you that that is what McCain thinks he is doing, he has too high an opinion of himself to consciously go the slimeball route. I would have a follow up question to him: does he believe that George Bush has put the Republican party before the interests of the Nation? Or to twist fougasseus words around, is it not possible that George Bush believes that what is best for the nation is upheld in the ideals of the Republican party? And if that is true can it not be the same with Obama?

McCain acts like he transcends party but he is now the nominee of the Republican party, as such he has to define to the American people what the party represents, I don't think he can have it both ways, he can't disrespect the organization he now leads without alienating many of its members.

Michael - for your beautiful and eloquent quote on this July 4th, I thank you.  I'm always have a sense of discomfort that goes along with my hawkish tendencies - which is not enough in the way of humility, but at least it is there.  No flies will feast on me in my uniform.  I do always remember that.  My privledge ensures that my sometimes romantic notions of it all remain just that.  Lucky me.  Lucky Bush and Cheney.

gregstnr: "In fact, some might argue that bucking the party line was just an attempt to promote his own ambition."  

I think about that too, McCain's obvious ambition.  I always see his dogged insistence on maintaining a pristine pro-life record as transparent. No true Western Republican of his generation would ever be constitutionally inclined to interfere with someone's personal business that way (his fabulous 90 year old mother calls her own son a fool over this. Barbara Bush fits in here too).  

But it sure is a quick and dirty way to quiet that crowd.  Johnnie Mac is a political beast of the first order and that's OK, so what.  He's also a hero and his father's son tempermentally.

All of these discussions on patrotism have simply become comic at this point.  I loved Obama's speech on patriotism, but don't you wish he'd come up with Johnnie Mac's temper once on this?

"JESUS CHRIST, DO YOU THINK I'M GETTING A NEW ONE RIPPED EVERY DAY BECAUSE I HATE MY COUNTRY?  GODAMMNIT, GIVE IT A REST!"

I'm 90% with fougasseu and may totally agree if I could tweak the line, "The core problem of the GOP is the overwhelmingly hold on the party by the demagogues on Talk Radio." I don't believe there is much evidence the GOP has resisted demagogues in that industry and if fact seek them out. The only hold they have on the party is the great pay and short hours (plus bowing and scraping from the regulars) available when a Republican fails in their full time job and needs a buck. They may be blackmailing Rove but I'm guessing Faux isn't gripping him any tighter than he wishes.

If the right wishes to get suckered into a deal which prohibits critical thought? If they wish to limit their audience to the same or smaller minority that put them out of a job? The script that impresses that narrow minded group does escape to the rest of the world so what appears bright to the self-righteous looks foolish in twenty-four hours when other outlets air it.

Only they can decide if it's a good idea for everyone to see Rush or Oh'Really is their biggest fan. All the nut-jobs share the same audience that is a tiny segment of all consumers. Most people are onto it and we're laughing at, not with.

So, I agree that a deal with the demagogues is counter productive. But they haven't been kidnapped the GOP so the hold isn't there. They can get work somewhere else. Jeeze, NBC lets ol' Pat make a fool of himself and Bennett is right all over.  The rest of the media is still open minded.

by McCain's definition, most Americans are not patriotic.

Thank for recognizing that I only wished to honor the hero or patriot who we never hear from. The first waves that stormed a beach didn't chose death so those who followed had a better chance. There was no lack of courage in the enemy with the most evil intent but their armies and navies were conscripted and those kids weren't thinking about building a resume.

I was only seven when I visited Arlington. But even at that young age I'd consumed too much that glorified war and in the silence of those grounds the crosses provided a perspective I could not shake.

But the silence of our heroes had the same power three decades late & I was unprepared for the Vietnam War Memorial. How could anyone read a note left on the ground and not realize they were not just names. One scrap of paper was from the daughter of a soldier who survived. She never met her dad's best friend but wanted to let him know he wasn't forgotten.

I don't have the right to lecture any patriot but I hope that those who do feel the need to judge should pause.

Do we really wish to compete with those who have made the greatest sacrifice? It is an argument we can win, but only because they can't respond.

How ironic that Jesse Helms died today, the 4th of July no less.  

But of course Jesse Helms is not really dead.  He lives on every time some scum Repug goes straight to the smear, portraying his opponents as something less than American.  

"In April 2006, his family announced that he had been moved into a convalescent center after being diagnosed with vascular dementia ..."

How sad that his dementia was diagnosed only after 50 years of disservice to the country.

icarusr wrote, "How sad that his dementia was diagnosed only after 50 years of disservice to the country."

I didn't know they were taking applications for Carlin's job. He's grinning in his urn.

Putting country first I guess that means HE IS NOT A PATRIOT. When has he put this country first. He wont even come up with actual solutions to help the middle class. He wants to ship job overseas and give tax breaks to those comppanies and he have the nerve to talk about love of country. OMG the Republican HYPOCRISY and the corporate BOUGHT and SOLD media turning a BLIND EYE is one of the many tragedies facing this country.

McCain needs to be careful what he says less than 1% of the American people serve in the military action 95% are middle class and feeling the squeeze and he doesnt work on weekends he has missed over 60% of votes in the Senate and he is travelling ot countries like Colombia to talk free trade a country that has one of the worse human rights violation when it comes to organize labor. He went there to talk about drugs when in Afghanistan the Poppy Growing is funding terrorist organization.

What an Old Fool he should be a home instead running for President. I'm sick of this running for President is NOT something you do after you've lived your life. It should be something you do at your PEAK its the most important job in the world. Yet people like McCain who are C student old and forgetful are running in the later years of their live when they should be RETIRING and we are suppose to think they are qualified because they serve in the military.

Well thanks but no thanks OLD MAN. I guess that makes me an Ageist.

Carol

Carol,

I'm wondering why the corporate BOUGHT and SOLD media  supported Obama?

What's your primary source of news? How did you find out that McCain wants to ship job overseas?

I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy July 4th.

You're right Carol, you pretty much have that ageism thing down perfect.  Next, you can start in on the young people who support Obama - buncha hormonal dolts, no?  

I had cause to be in the same room with Jesse Helms with some frequency in 1994, and the man looked like a corpse. And I mean that literally. Most of the dead people I've seen have looked healthier than Helms did 14 years ago. Several recent zombie movies have featured hordes of the undead who more closely resemble a living person than Helms; it was actually creepy to be around him. Strom Thurmond was obviously not there, mentally, but his body didn't look or smell post-death like Helms, who ironically seemed perfectly in control of his faculties somewhere inside the shell of advanced decomposition that was his earthly flesh.

Anyway, I look forward to next week's op-eds, when the conservative echo-chamber embraces McCain's formulation that loyal Republicans are by definition unpatriotic. By McCain's standard, Fred Barnes ranks up there with Benedict Arnold in terms of patriotism.

It seems I'm in the minority on this one.  A couple responses:

-ramboorider, I think that the lack of a direct response makes more sense if you consider that what the reporter meant by patriotism is different from McCain's notion of the concept.  This is different from the Muslim question, because being a Muslim is a much more clear-cut concept than being patriotic (it's unlikely that Senator Clinton had some idiosyncratic notion of what it means to be a Muslim).  Let's say that McCain thinks Obama is patriotic in the broad, loves-his-country sense, but not patriotic in the restricted, self-sacrificing sense in which McCain uses the word.  How should he respond to the reporter?

Option 1: Say that Obama is patriotic.  Problem: McCain doesn't think this is true according to his notion of patriotism.

Option 2: Say that Obama is not patriotic.  Problem: would be interpreted as "Obama doesn't love his country," even though that's not what he meant.

Option 3: Say that Obama is not patriotic, but very few people are, and explain that this is because patriotism in McCain's view implies self-sacrifice.  Problem: truthful, but overly nuanced for a response to that type of question (politics isn't particularly conducive to nuance), would probably still be interpreted like Option 2, with the added disadvantage of headlines like "McCain Says Most Americans Not Patriotic."

Option 4: Give an indirect answer like the one he actually gave, avoiding the use of the ambiguous term.  Problem: see above thread.

Again, if you look at his answer, it does not appear to be crafted to leave room for doubt, and it echoes Obama's own comments on the subject.  That's just not what a non-denial denial would look like.  Moreover, this is imputing a level of skill with word choice and subtlety to McCain that he really hasn't shown so far.  Also, remember that he smacked down Billy Cunningham at a rally where Cunningham had been riling up the crowd by constantly referring to "Barack HUSSEIN Obama."  I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt on this, at least for the moment.  If stuff like this becomes a recurring theme, that would be another story.

-Woody and Carol, take a step back for a moment.  Aside from the fact that McCain *has* broken with his party on at least one major issue recently (the environment), there's the more obvious example by which he meets his own definition: as a POW, he refused to give his captors what they wanted, even though it meant that he would endure torture because of it.  I seriously doubt that he was thinking "man, this will sure make a good story when I'm running for office some day."

McCain may be trying to cast Obama's patriotism in a negative light.  But it comes across more as a rehashing of the 'experience' argument, which didn't work the first time with Hillary.  More: horribledictu.com

GSpinks: back at ya!

Michael, nice posts. This saloon always benefits from a shot of humility, and you bought the house a round. Humility and valor are siblings, in my view.

Dad was born today, nearly a century ago. Been gone half that time. Served, without valor, in WWII. But did his job. Met a gal in Japan he nearly left Mom for. Had he followed through, you would not be reading this, because I would not exist. War always represents humanity's failure of one kind or another, and not just for the losers.

I admire Barack Obama and I admire John McCain. Obama is boxing McCain out of the center, under the hoop, forcing McCain to take low-percentage, off-balance jumpers from the perimeter. But McCain can still foul: "Hack-Barack." We'll see how Obama does from the line.

Patriotism wears too many faces to count. Soldiers and sailors, of course. Also the single mothers marching their first-graders to school through the Tenderloin at 7 a.m. Also the nun distributing clean socks to veterans living under a bridge. Also the guy sitting alone at his kitchen table on the night of April 14, while his wife and kids are in bed, who realizes he could very easily cheat on his taxes, but decides not to. Also the school teacher who sees something in the poor young man with the good grades who can't afford a binder, so she buys him one out of her own salary.

Looking down the road, it seems to me that we are going to need a great deal of patriotism--little patriotism, big patriotism, and every size in between. If we get only the big patriotism--the G.I.s falling on grenades to save their buddies--we will fail. If we get only the small patriotism--the healthy bus rider giving up her seat to the man with the cane--we will fail. War is not the only possible failure salivating at the prospect of us pushing past each other in a mad rush to the lifeboats.

A republican will always wrap themselves in the flag. Then go on to paint his opponent as unpatriotic.

It has worked in the past. This time is very different,this election won't be about whose more like "Captain America". It is the economy stupid,it is the war stupid,it is Osama stupid,etc..

Novembers election will be but the first draft of the final chapters of Sen. Mc Cains biography, and I for one can't wait to not buy it.

The voters know this John Mc Cain is not the John McCain who ran in 2000.Hell,  this weeks John McCain isn't the same as last weeks John Mc Ccain.

This will be Obama's time and by extension Americas.

Obama's the patriot. He's running via the American political system, running via the party system, clearly a Democrat running proudly as a Democrat.

The real Republican candidates all lost in the primary as McCain somehow managed to use the party's weird and complicated assets to his advantage. He's only a Republican when it suits him.

He's not a patriot, he's another authoritarian like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., who would be comfortable operating in all kinds of authoritarian environments.

There should be three groupings: Republicans, Democrats, and demagogues hoping to become dictators.

The first two can produce American patriots. The last has nothing to do with American democracy.

The 4th is always a good time to visit with Whitman, who writes in his preface to "Leaves of Grass" that what makes America special is the shared expectation of the citizenry that "the President's taking off his hat to them not they to hiim -"

In his last inaugural speech I waited for George Bush to take off his hat.

Time for a Change.

fseidle said:

"Obama's the patriot. .... McCain is not a patriot"

Just to understand your definition of patriotism,  are Jeremiah Wright,   Rev. Michael Pfleger and  William Ayers patriots?

Wow! Jacobtl has become so bitter over Clinton not winning the nomination that he's just given up all semblance of intellectual honest in deference to wallowing in bitter vitriolic. Petulant little child throwing his quaint little tempertamtrums; why don't you do us all a favor and go hold your breath until Obama gives in and concedes the nomination?

jacobtl's definition of "patriot" appears to be someone who only hangs out with "patriots"  -- as defined by him, presumably.  Incidentally, I'd say Wright with his USMC record passes muster there, Pfleger I know nothing about, and certainly Ayers isn't a patriot in the narrow definition of the term, as he probably regards nations/nationalism as highly problematic.  That's just speculative on my part, however.

Wow, GSpinks,

According to Obama cultists saying that American hero, McCain is not a patriot, is not  bitter vitriolic.

Mentioning  friends and associates of  Obama is  bitter vitriolic.  It's not my fault that Obama has such friends. It's his fault.

fseidle said,

"The voters know this John Mc Cain is not the John McCain who ran in 2000"

The voters know this Obama  is not the Obama  who ran an hour ago.

His Iraqi "views" are so complicated that he can't explain them without "clarifying" them every hour.

Yeah, simple, unchanging views are best -- complications and uncertainties are just another liberal conspiracy.

Just to bring into focus some ideas expressed above: Mr. Chait writes, “the first line is a reference to the lie that Obama does not put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. But put that aside, and focus on how McCain defines patriotism.” To put aside this point is to miss the subtext of McCain's definition. Consider that even as McCain is defining patriotism as transcending self- and party-interest, his very definition is based on exactly those things. To begin by reviving the fallacy that Obama is unpatriotic is to negate the very purpose of his essay – to demonstrate that he, McCain, is patriotic – because it turns his essay into a campaign tool. Moreover, he goes on to virtually excuse the “self-interest, combativeness, duplicity, and triviality” that defines our politics by claiming they have always been here and our system corrects for them. As an historian of the Founding period, I would say that the Framers of the Constitution did their best to establish a system that would minimize the influence of these failings, but they also counted on social institutions such as education and moral sense to curb man’s baser nature. With those crumbling or defunct, they would be appalled at what our government and society have become, especially in the last seven years.  I don’t claim to know what is in McCain’s heart. I want to believe that he is, deep down, a patriot; but he has not demonstrated that here. What he has shown is that his best expression of patriotism is only a partisan response to a truly disinterested statement made by his opponent a few days before.

ironyroad,

Yes, Obama has changing views, he changes them evry hour.  

iowahawk.typepad.com/.../a-clarification.html

Let me be crystal clear: if elected president, my first act will be to call for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. I have always been consistent and forthright in this position, and I want to reassure my supporters that my recent statement backtracking from it was just some bullshit my staff came up with to tack to the center for the general election. To win this election, it will be critical to appeal to the dwindling but stubborn group of idiots who cling to fantasies of American "victory" in this tragic disaster. It's an unfortunate part of the complicated game of presidential politics, but let's face it: I can't stop this war if I'm not in the White House. However, you should know by now that whatever I may say from now until November, once elected I will immediately pull the rug from these gullible pro-war rubes.

Or will I? As is obvious to all but the most deluded HuffPo retard, the surge in Iraq has produced dramatic improvements in security throughout Iraq, and the roots of a stable pro-American democracy. We have the terrorists on the run, and it would obviously be crazy for us to pull our troops from the region just as we are on the verge of victory. And it is equally obvious that everything I said in the previous paragraph was designed to placate the naive hipster moonbats I brilliantly exploited to destroy the Clintons. (You're welcome.) Now that the nomination is in the bag, I am finally free to stake out my genuine pro-victory Iraq position, and have a good laugh while the dKos morons screech like a bunch of apoplectic howler monkeys. Let's face it: at the rate I'm heading right on national security, I'll be raining nukes on Tehran by February.  

See what I mean? That previous paragraph should be a signal to all of you in the progressive community just how committed I am to an immediate troop withdrawal. If that's the kind of shameless bellicose jingoism it takes to temporarily fool the neocons and extra-chromosome Jebus tards, I will do it. Just as I was willing to wear the stupid flag lapel pin to satisfy their lust for empty "patriotic" symbolism. But deep in your heart you know my real goal: to end this war, and atone to the world for the 28 nightmare years of Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush fascism. Imagine the looks on the multinational plutocrats' faces when I sign the bill that nationalizes their stupid oil industry!

And that there is exactly the kind of transparent commie crap that left wing lunatics eat up. It's unfortunate that I had to participate in it during the primary season, but just look at all of the comsymps and pinkos I've thrown under the bus in the last 6 weeks - Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Samantha Power, Jim Johnson, the list goes on. And you know what? I enjoyed it. Ask yourself this: when was the last time John McCain stabbed a lefty asshole in the back? Then ask yourself: who's the real conservative in this race?

In conclusion, this should make it clear to the broad moderate middle mainstream of independent American  voters that I am willing to reach out to both sides of the contentious war debate, and forge a new national consensus based on unity. Together, we can build a new era of hope, and bring an end to politics of cynicism.

And your point is . . . ?

"And your point is . . . ?"

Jacob stopped having a point when Obama got the nomination; now, he is having a little tempertantrum and trying to piss on everyone's parade until he gets his way.

jacob, you can't use parodies as evidence of your point.  Yes, I know Hillary tried doing that with SNL; it was a lousy argument back then, too.

As to the issue of changing positions, read Nate's post blogs.tnr.com/.../flip-flops-as-american-as-apple-pie.aspx

Voters think that both McCain and Obama have changed positions *and they don't care*

Irony's point was that changing positions is not inherently a bad thing.  The guy in the White House right now has driven the country into the ground in part because of his stubbornness and refusal to change positions on anything, no matter what the real-world results of his policies were.  We would be in far better shape than we currently are if Bush had done some more flip-flopping during his time in office.