Let the real vetting begin.

I loved the part where Gibson was about to describe the Bush Doctrine, but let her instead go off on her own little tangent.

But of course this demonstrates his sexism and reverse racìsm and Godlessness and Obama is a lightweight and Ayers is a terrorist and sex education is BAD and TERRORISM and, as Lois Griffin would say:

9/11

QED.

Obama, that lightweight know-nothing, is toast.

These interviews will seriously damage McCain's chances. The more she speaks, the worse it gets. It's not because she won't know the answers; she'll probably do fine. But they solidify the reality of her candidacy. People who watch will have this revelation: She may be staring down Russia. She may be in a trade war with China. Really? Her?

It took months for people to consider Obama for real. He was considered a lightweight, a phony. Even now he struggles with it. But it's too short a time for people to feel comfortable with her. Her weakness actually makes Obama's knowledge seem more substantial. I think on Nov. 5 we'll look back at her pick as a big error by team McCain.

I have not seen the video yet -- I am supposedly working now.

The only problem with this is that the average voter probably doesn't remember what the Bush Doctrine is. So if she shows her cluelessness only about things that most voters are also clueless about, it won't matter very much in the election.

Did he ask her about her per diem? Given that she has spent more than half of her term as Governor living in her own house in Wasilla, and also claimed from the state a per diem allowance for meals and miscellaneous expenses for more than 300 of the days she was living in her house, I'd like to hear her explain how that isn't just ripping off the people for an extra $17k on top of her $125k salary just because she can get away with it. As an employee of the same state who has to follow actual travel rules that sometimes have left me paying my own way on meals while I worked on travel, it really pisses me off.

Russia has been provoking Georgia's leadership for many months. This was a Russian invasion that was planned a long time ago.

The Bush Doctrine hasn't been operative for years. cf NKor, Iran

Tep,  Russia's been provoking Georgia, but Georgia, in conspicuously escalating its use of the military option in trying to reunite Ossetia and Abkhazia under its control, and invading South Ossetia, clearly provoked a Russian response.  That response was overblown and outrageous, but Georgia did provoke it.  And whether or not the Bush Doctrine has been "operative" doesn't mean it isn't an important topic to discuss looking forward that might be helpful for the future VPOTUS to have a clue about.

Josh Marshall of TPM has the clip Eve Fairbanks refers to and he rightly describes it as "painful."  Eve Fairbanks nails it in suggesting Sarah Palin "sounded like someone who had simply never had to think about many of the things Gibson asked and had just crammed for a test."  It was clear she was struggling to answer the questions using only a limited variety of phrases because she didn't really understand what she was talking about. "Thanks, but no thanks" only takes you so far.

At least in this clip, Gibson seemed much better than the run up suggested he would be. If this was anything to go by there will be blood if Sarah Palin is put in front of a hostile interviewer.

talkingpointsmemo.com/.../215981.php

But but but...she said she was ready to be president. She really really did.

Today's interview was limited to foreign policy. Though she clearly did not know technically what the Bush Doctrine was(she probably would have better answered the content of the Monroe doctrine...11th grade history..lol), she winged it okay about stopping global terrorism after  she got her bearings. She was awkward on the Nato and all but saying we would go to war with Russia. That could have been handled more deftly by emphasizing that as a leader of the free world, you can take nothing off the table, but that it is important to keep open all diplomatic channels..blah blah blah.

Exactly, tep.  They had thousands of soldiers lined up in the Roki Tunnel, something which would have taken several weeks if not months to do.  Putin knew exactly what he was doing.  

And I'd say the Bush Doctrine worked in Norh Korea and Iran (and even places like Syria).  Why?  Because, when you knock off someone like Saddam Hussein in record time with relatively few casualties, everyone else takes notice that they could be the next victim of regime change.  To be sure, the ensuing occupation got screwed up, but everyone of our enemies (e.g., Hugo Chavez) took a long and hard notice of what we could do.  Thus, no matter how anyone wants to criticize and take issue with the regime change (as opposed to, again, the occupation) we achieved in Iraq, you can never place a price on the invaluable big stick we wield now.  

Eve Fairbanks nails it in suggesting Sarah Palin "sounded like someone who had simply never had to think about many of the things Gibson asked and had just crammed for a test."

So, if true, she's about on par with Obama.  Great.  

Tep, Georgia and Russia have been baiting each other for months, if not years. Saakashvili expelled Russian diplomats earlier this year, as you may recall.

And just because the Bush Doctrine's most evident use was five-plus years ago doesn't mean she shouldn't have an opinion on it. Stop making excuses for her.

Your description of Palin is on target.  She's never thought about these issues before.  She war reciting McCain policy.  There is no record that shows she had an opinion on any of this before three weeks ago  Charlies asked if she had any doubts about  her experience to be VP.  She said no.  She went on to elebarate with great empahasis how you can't blink in this world with so many dangers.  She didn't blink.  She accepted her duty.  THIS IS SCARY.  It is Bush redux absolutism andJohn McCain bomb, bomb.bomb. bomb Iran.

Palis was the perky gall who always gives it a college try.  And, hey, why not vote for her because she tries.  She had zero command of any issues.

Lord, desmondclee, I hope that you are never put in charge of anything that resembles strategy.  Iraq took out one big stick that we had, and that was the world's belief that when we do something we plan it and get it right, and have a plan B if the first one goes wrong.  The Bush Doctrine was like a lot of Bush stuff -- it talks tough, says bring it on, but somehow there's always a missing component:  thinking, for example.  Or learning from experience.

What the world has watched is a considerable slice of our land forces tied up in one country for coming on six years and fighting a war in which the much-invoked "victory" became increasingly difficult to recognize.  What the world has watched is a much smaller slice tied up in another country for almost seven years in which the party that we defeated and destroyed (Taliban) is now returning in strength and in danger of infiltrating the capital.

Somehow, I don't think that the Russians are quaking in their boots right now.

desmondclee writes, "...you can never place a price on the invaluable big stick we wield now."

Yes, and that big stick disappears the moment Obama is elected.  

The pinball game goes back to go, Obama has to put more quarters in.  And then wait for a crisis in which he will be tested in a game of chicken to see what he'll do.  If he is forced to take aggressive action in that situation, blood will be spilled.

If McCai is elected, fewer people will be tempted to test him.  And that makes better prospects for peace under a President McCain.

desmond: you can't complain, in one thread, that Obama has 300 f/p advisors, demonstrating that he can't make decisions - a complaint that is spurious, but any way - and then suggest here that Obama's f/p is like Palin's cramming for a test.  You and tep have formed your own echo-chamber.

If Obama were running against her, he'd have my vote, fer shur.

Except that, you know...

"If McCai is elected, fewer people will be tempted to test him.  And that makes better prospects for peace under a President McCain."

That's about the stupidest thing I have ever read, on this or any other thread.  

desmondclee, proving words can have no meaning, writes:

-- So, if true, she's about on par with Obama.  Great.

ironyroad,

Lord?  LOL.  Well, I've been called worse.  ;)

I understand what you've said, but it doesn't address my point.  I echo what ChanRobt stated, and if you think about it, it's absolutely true.  Remember, we kicked Saddam, the leader of the world's fifth biggest army, out of power in record time.  If you don't think that matters any, keep cueing up that Kumbaya CD.  

Whew! She backed off that God statement quicker than a racehorse and as clumsily as a drunk fumbling for his car keys. If this is the best she can do answering questions, then she's going to be toast during the VP debate. She was as bad as Obama was with Bill O'Reilly!

icarusr,

I think you missed my point, which was that if someone's accusing Palin of being light on foreign policy, you've got the same problem with Obama.  Nothing too complicated there.

And how is the statement made by ChanRobt stupid?  Are you kidding?  However we may be viewed from a political perspective, our ability to rule from strength -- something that McCain will do far better than the wuss Obama -- is about as obvious as the day as long.  

ndmackenzie,

Say what?  Can't help it if Obama is lush on FP.  

Ah, yes, a big stick, that as the Bush administriation itself this week seemed to acknowledged isn't big enough for Afghanistan and Iraq both. You can argue about which front in the War on Terror deserves more resources and troops, but you can't pretend that there are enough resources and troops to go around.

Thanks to the Bush Doctrine (which anyone who was reading a newspaper in 2003 or 2004 should have known about) the nations of the world now knows that we for the foreseeable future American lacks the wealth, the forces, and the will to invade another country preemptively. No wonder Russia, China, and Iran are flexing their muscles.

Walk loudly, carry a small stick: McCain/Palin 2008.

Five boy scouts with fair to middling rocket launchers could have taken out Saddam Hussein.  I am sorry, but the first Gulf War showed what an absolute joke the vaunted Iraqi military might actually was, and thus it shouldn't have been hard to knock off that cartoon freak (one of our own making).  This is not a sign of profound strength.  Yes, it worked.  Good for us.  But to draw the wrong conclusions about that little day in the sun (especially regarding actual powers, not blowhards like  Chavez - although has everybody seen that Russia is now sending bombers to his lovely little hole in the wall?), is to miss a rather few too many important points.

The issue was never whether the US could crush the country, the issue was whether we knew how to restore the damn place.  Clearly Bush had no idea, and neither does McCain.  

Palin continues to be irrelevant.  Of course she doesn't know.  Her view is far too parochial. Mayhap a good many citizens of Alaska do know about the rest of the country and the rest of the world, but clearly she does not, certainly not in any meaningful way that she can express.

And enough with trying to equate Palin and Obama.  It is wrong.  Simply and utterly wrong.  You have to purposely ignore what Obama has actually accomplished to get to that point.  Simply as an example: You do remember that Dick Lugar and Barack Obama puttered around in Russia, poking their noses around the issue of loose nukes?  Then came back and got the Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative signed into law in early 2007?  Does that not carry weight?  Or is Lugar now somehow deluded?  The issue somehow unimportant?

Oh, that is right.  Doesn't fit the narrative that you want to peddle, and so out it goes.  Why bother with the facts when your version of the truth just feels that much better.  Who gives a damn about loose nukes in Russia, right?  I am sure that is exactly the same as Palin's foolish babbling with Gibson about a country that she knows nothing about.  Honestly.

Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, people label preventive war "pre-emptive."

Also thanks to the Bush Doctrine, America carries very little credibility when it tries to address real security threats. Once you cry wolf,  the world (and the country) doesn't forgive you. Taking out Iran's biggest counterweight in the region also probably wasn't a smart move.

Nippers,

Does your map of the world contain places like Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela?  

Yeah, I thought so.  

By the way, the stick Palin would be carrying, however small you want to think it is, is bigger than the nothing that Barry's carrying.  

Nippers, China can sure as hell flex their muscles being that Bush & Co. have borrowed billions from  them to pay for the deficit-contributing tax cuts. They're holding a big fat IOU on us, and all they have to do is call in that marker and our ecomomy will drop quicker than a 39-cent pair of socks.

Always a favorite of mine . . . for all the Barry Kool-Aid drinkers . . .

Biden was asked by moderator George Stephanopoulos during one Democratic primary debate about his criticism of Obama as being unprepared to become the chief executive, adding that the Oval Office is not a place for on-the-job training.

"I think I stand by that statement," said Biden, who was standing right next to Obama at that moment.

kevincollins . . . and of course, Obama is the top-of-the-ticket . . . she's not . . .

kevincollins . . . and of course, Obama is the top-of-the-ticket . . . she's not . . .

Crock - Georgia provoked a Russian response by attempting to put down a secessionist movement within its borders?  Just because Russia has cynically declared itself the protector of downtrodden South Osetians and Abkazians (Russia isn't quite so concerned with the right of ethnic self-determination in Chetchnya) doesn't mean they have any legitimate business there.  Georgia did nothing to provoke Russia; Russia used internal Georgian troubles as an excuse to invade.

"If McCain is elected, fewer people will be tempted to test him.  And that makes better prospects for peace under a President McCain."

See, it's stupid thinking like that which got us in this mess in the first place. This isn't all about some test of will (what does Yglesias call it, the Green Lantern theory?). It's not like McCain is "stronger" (whatever that really means) than Obama and therefore the US won't get challenged.

The main thing Iraq taught the rest of the world is that we are just dumb enough to put all our military eggs in one basket, and that we're easily distracted by bright shiny objects. As long as we're tied down in Iraq, pretty much anyone will test us whenever they want.

Crock - Georgia provoked a Russian response by attempting to put down a secessionist movement within its borders?  Just because Russia has cynically declared itself the protector of downtrodden South Osetians and Abkazians (Russia isn't quite so concerned with the right of ethnic self-determination in Chetchnya) doesn't mean they have any legitimate business there.  Georgia did nothing to provoke Russia; Russia used internal Georgian troubles as an excuse to invade.

kgrant,

Do you want Splenda or some real sugar with your Kool Aid?  Aside from Biden's assessment of Barry's worthless foreign policy/national security resume (and you can add Senators, Dodd and Clinton to that for good measure), give me a break on this loose nuke business.  Who honestly thinks that that adds anything to his bankrupt judgment and decisionmaking that he's displayed with things like the surge and Georgia?  

Ummm, Matt, you're conflating two very different concepts:  regime change and occupation.  With Iraq (and Afghanistan), we showed we can take someone out quickly and effectively.  The problem was with the occupation, and for that you can thank Rumsfeld and Cheney.  If we had simply listened to people like Colin Powell, we wouldn't have had all the problems we've had in the past few years.  But the concept of "putting all our eggs in one basket" is something that refers to occupation, and not the more overarching and significant concept of ousting our enemies from power.  

This is a site where I hope I can be a bit elitist, I think in a good sense.  With that preface, I can confidently say that anyone who thinks that Palin holds a candle to Obama in her intelligence, fluency or thoughtfulness on foreign policy is simply not facing the facts.  Such a person has ideological blinders on.  

I am left of center, not a radical.  But I can be honest when I see an amateur floundering around to make points I generally agree with and a brilliant person whom I strongly disagree with.

Palin is the amateur floundering around.

And let's face it, in our professional lives -- I am a lawyer -- we interview people in the hope that someone coming from a third tier school like Palin's can outperform people with better educations like Obama's.  And every once in a while someone comes in and is so impressive you don't care about the school.  If we are honest with ourselves that happens less often than we'd hope but it happens.  

Sarah Palin was like the interviewee whom you hoped would disprove the stereotypes about education from top schools and education from third-rate schools but she came off as third-rate.  

One or two of her answers were even worse than that.  The "Bush Doctrine" answer -- the part where she said something like "it's a beautiful thing we can change our government" -- was beauty pagent shallow.  Sorry.  Start calling me a sexist in 5, 4, 3. 2 ....

And for more on the Barry Kool Aid Parade, something on his judgment on picking the best possible candidate as his running mate . . .

"She's easily qualified to be vice-president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate."

Yes, that's "Change We Can Believe In."  Change like in Eagleton change, maybe.  

There's a difference from an immediate secessionist movement and one that had been enjoying near total autonomy for over a decade.  If  Serbia invaded Kosovo right now,  after nearly a decade post its autonomy in 1999, and the US and NATO hist back,  Serbia would have provoked that as well.  Russia has very much cynically declared itself the protector of them,  and Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not greatly trust them.  However,  they trust Georgia next to nil.  Georgia struck hard in an attempt to present a fait acompli vis a vis Georgian control of South Ossetia to Russia and gamble that they wouldn't respond aggressively.   Moreover,  through the flawed CIS peacekeeping plan following the wars that resulted in South Ossetia and Abkhazia being granted that autonomy, Russian troops were deployed as Peacekeepers in those two regions.  As such,  Ryan Burke,  Georgia very much provoked Russia's immediate response.  Am I endorsing that response?  Hardly.  But saying otherwise ignores the facts.

One of the strongest aspects of the Obama/Biden ticket is that both men are experts in constitutional law.

In my opinion, the greatest long-term threat to everyday Americans is not that posed by Islamic fanatics or by global warming or by our weak economies; it's by the erosion of individual liberties and constitutional protections, checks and balances, an erosion that's been going on for decades but that has accelerated under the current regime.

Gitmo is an exercise in the coalescence of executive authority, nothing more. It is not meant as an exercise in justice. SCOTUS appointments have nothing to do with abortion or affirmative action and everything to do with aggregating power in the Executive Branch. We now have an Office of the Vice President that has removed itself from Congressional oversight by fiat. We worry about the missiles in North Korea when a far greater worry is the ability of corporations like Google and Yahoo to collect and distribute information about us; meanwhile, legislative attempts to curtail such practices in any number of industries are routinely beaten back by lobbyists and their Congressional chattel. The most powerful arms of the media are now virtual press agents for the federal government. In my opinion, our government has not come down harder on the eavesdropping and other excesses of the People's Republic of China because in fact our government envies and would like nothing better than to emulate the People's Republic of China.

So, in Obama and Biden we have two candidates whose expertise in this area is arguably the greatest of any such duo in electoral history. Senator Biden, as has been reported here and elsewhere, is perhaps the biggest champion of the "little guy" in the Senate; Obama's policy statements certainly seem to indicate a willingness to protect our freedoms in this vein as well.

And yet here we are, discussing McCain and Palin as if they are somehow in the same constitutional ballpark. Palin has provided plenty of evidence of her heavy-handedness when abetted by power. Does anyone really think that she, not Joe Biden, would do a better job protecting our liberties?

In terms of the degree of the sober, humble, intelligent freedom-loving nature of its lead actors, this election isn't even close. Every day, McCain and Palin are more and more of a joke, and a threat, IMHO.

Eve, good summary of Palin's ABC appearance. The entire Sarah Palin saga has been thoroughly surreal

Desmondclee, you are misquotingg Biden and using a bad example anyways.

First, Biden said in the quote that he did not think Obama had yet "shown" he was prepared.  There has obviously been a lot of time since then.  Obama has undergone the equivalent of 50 of those Charlie Gibson interviews and has shown he has thought through the issues whether you agree or disagree with the substance.

Second, it's a bad example because Biden was a direct competitor of Obama then and hardly a neutral analyst.

"With Iraq (and Afghanistan), we showed we can take someone out quickly and effectively. "

No, we didn't. That's exactly the point. We've now proven that regime change=occupation; in both places we didn't get the first without also doing the second. [And because we didn't fully occupy, as it were,  Afghanistan, we're having some difficulty on the whole regime change front as well.]

But my main point was that to the extent that McCain doesn't want to pull out of Iraq, we're tied down there  and thus we'll be challenged every bit as much as if Obama is president (maybe more, to the extent that he wants to leave quicker.) You're kidding only yourself if you think otherwise.

williamyard,

Are you kidding me that you think that Con Law experience is some litmus test for competence as Commander-in-Chief?  Huh?!  I know Con Law pretty well too -- if you'd like, we can engage in a discussion about the ambit of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause -- but that hardly makes me qualified at all for the position as leader of the free world.  

If you want to talk about a joke, try taking a gander at how Barry addressed things like the surge and Georgia.  If you're objective about it, it should terrify you and every other citizen that this gump actually has a shot at the Whtie House.

And what's this about Biden being for the little guy?  What about things like his big part in the Credit Card Reform Bill, which was assailed by most groups protecting the little guy and which also has been linked as a major factor to the housing crisis.

LDuncan,

I'm not sure what to say to your statement.  Biden's statement was clear, and he wasn't the only person saying that.  Biden's statement was made less than a year ago, and Barry's only experience since then was some purported executive experience in running a campaign.  

Thank you, Mr. Yard....

Desmondclee, I think you are missing my point.  Obama is concededly not experienced in handling a foreign policy crisis or in foreign policy generally.  But there are three degrees of competence:  No experience in foreign policy AND no time spent thinking about it carefully.  No experience, but a lot of time spent thinking about it carefully.  And both experience and thoughtfulness.  I could add another:  experience but somehow no serious thinking about what you are doing.  But that's a category of one:  George W Bush.  So let's stick with three.

All I am saying is that Obama is in that second category.  Palin showed she's in the first.  I'll stipulate Biden is in the third.

Matt, your discussion is internally inconsistent and proves my point.  As for Afghanistan, we effected regime change but didn't make provisions (such as allowing for an effective occupation) to keep things for getting out of control.  With Iraq, we botched an occupation we could have easily done correctly.  

The rub here is that if we want to simply get rid of someone we can.  That's my point.  For instance, if wanted to simply get rid of Kim Jong Il, we could probably do that (though there'd  be some other considerations at play there (e.g., China)).  Whether we'd occupy it or do anything else is beside the point.  

This is vitally important since, from the perspective of enemy leaders, those leaders won't give two darns about what we'll do after they're gone.  The fact that they'll be gone is incentive enough to take notice of what we may be demanding of them.  

And what's this about McCain not wanting to pull out?  Come on, man.  He wants to do so, but do so responsibly and not like the quit-and-run, irresponsible pull out Obama has been proposing for forever.

That's right!  Who cares about loose nukes!  What an abject joke.  Why would any thinking person care about locking down nukes in Russia?  Especially in light of the dramatic, crushing importance of the SURGE!!!!

Honestly.   My guess is that you are not very old if you can so casually dismiss nuclear weapons as somehow unimportant in this grand world of ours.  Do you not agree with Lugar and Nunn that these are rather dangerous pieces of flotsam and jetsam to have still floating about?  Do you not think it a good thing that they attempted to deal with this issue?  Do you not see the merit of Obama being involved in the process of dealing with this issue?  Do you really believe that the god-damned surge is more important than nuclear weapons?  

Why not address the substance instead of the political gamesmanship of the primaries?  Is it that difficult?

Something else for the Kool Aid drinkers . . . Politico describes her as "holding her own" and gives the day to McCain . . .

dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm

LDuncan, I generally agree with the tripartite construct you set forth.  I would say that Obama is in between the first and second categories, given some of his incredibly, jaw-dropping statements on foreign policy he's issued in the past.  

And given, as you said, that he's not handled a foreign policy crisis, that's a huge strike against him.  

Ummmm, kgrant, I was referring to the legislation that Obama is putting so much stock in as support for his foreign policy experience.  Let's cut straight to the chase here:  I've got at least three expert witnesses who've given some glowing reviews of Obama's purported readiness as Commander-in-Chief:

Chris Dodd

Hilary Clinton

Joe Biden

Care to repeat what they had to say?  So, please, don't give me this garbage about loose nukes business.  Yes, loose nukes are a big deal in the foreign policy arena, but what Barry did about them isn't.

Thanks for playing.  

desmond: "Barry Kool Aid Parade"?

Basically, with these four words, you have shown yourself an unserious, ideological, analytically unsound bully.  People here are trying to reason with you, and you come up with McCain-Bush-like frat-boy antics.  Not to mention that this "Kool-Aid" shit is so completely passé as to make bell-bottom the cutting edge of fashion.

As for substance, "that he's not handled a foreign policy crisis, that's a huge strike against him."  Tell me, exactly which "foreign policy crisis" has McCain managed?  No, being shot down and being tortured are not "foreign policy" crises, and singing "bom bomb bomb Iran" does not qualify for crisis management.  What kind of EXECUTIVE CRISIS MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE does McCain have?  Exactly none.  So please, give everyone a break on this stupid theme.

As to why Channy's argument was stupid - and why Palin's "invade Russia" statement is dangerous nonsense - frankly, "you and what army"?  The mismanagement of Iraq and Afghanistan has been such a monumental blow to US prestige and power that basically no amount of saber rattling in DC is going to shake Putin.  And it is a lot easier and plan for a bombastic emotional and deranged old coot like McCain than it is for a reflective thoughtful individual who listens and who makes a decision on the basis not of his gonad but his grey matter.

Palin "held her own" only to people who are blinded by her bangs; she is objectively ignorant and not terribly well-schooled in the world.

desmondclee,

Let me get out my map here. So colorful! So many little words! So much ocean! Let's see. Iran. Where was that again? Africa? East Asia? Up Bush's cornhole? Ah! There it is! Boy, it's pretty big! Why do you think they call it Iran, anyhoo?

Now what were those other two you asked me to find? Syria, right, Syria, Syria, Syria. Okay, got it. And then Venezuela. Check. That was a fun game, desmondclee. The geography game. Now your turn:

Does your  map have places called Siam, Kokovoko, and Lilliput? Look hard. Don't stop looking till you find them.

Oh, and geo-buddy to geo-buddy, here's a tip: no one makes that kool-aid joke anymore. Why? Because it was lame to begin with, and it's really, really lame now. (No offense to lame people intended.)

Let me ask this question - Do you think their responses had anything to do with the fact they were running against him at the time they made the remarks?

I don't dispute that they said them.  They did.  It is a matter of the public record.  

But I do want you to least entertain the notion that perhaps they were somewhat hyperbolic in their statements so that they could score political points during debates or primary contests.  This places their comments in a different category all together, one that requires taking them with a grain of salt.  Or shall we go through the ghastly process of digging up every comment from the 2000 and 2008 campaigns that were uttered against McCain and give them the same import that you have claimed about Dodd, Clinton, and Biden.

As for the Lugar-Obama act.  You are right.  It is not as groundbreaking Lugar-Nunn.  That is not the point, the point is  that it is a significant piece of legislation that was not particularly sexy, but was very much necessary.  It is a solid piece of work, and to simply piss on it because you don't like Obama seems small.  From the Lugar press release:

"The Lugar-Obama initiative would energize the U.S. program against unsecured, lightweight anti-aircraft missiles and other conventional weapons. There may be as many as 750,000 man-portable air defense systems in arsenals worldwide, and the State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. In addition, loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and provide the means for attacks on peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize war-torn societies. In Iraq, unsecured stockpiles of artillery shells and ammunition have been reconfigured into improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have become an effective weapon for insurgents."

To produce Lugar-Obama you have to, at the very least, recognize that Obama has done a good bit of homework on serious issues that have real world implications.  If you cannot even acknowledge that, then I guess to you issues simply don't matter, only your construction of a caricature.  If that is the case, why bother entering into dialog with anyone? For you are not trying to prove your case, you are simply trying to bludgeon your audience.  Where is the good in that?  How does that help at all?

icarsur,

Jeez, sir, sorry I didn't fit into your stogie-filled, elitist gaggle of wannabe intellectuals club.  Too bad you missed how McCain filled the bill more than competently on things like the surge and Georgia.  (I'll even give credit to Biden on his take on Georgia.)  No, McCain didn't reply with platitudes like "Give Peace A Chance."  

Try looking past the jocularity of the postings here, and focus on a bit of substance and objectivity.  It might do you some good.

kgrant,

I'd pass those on as hyperbolic if they were made by one candidate and/or made infrequently.  That, however, wasn't the case, especially with Hillary.  And you're right, you can't change them, mainly because they're true.  This is borne out not only by the flimsy record he has, but by what he's said and done on other issues that have arisen.  And that is absolutely terrifying.  

And yes, he did team up with Lugar, but that wasn't some groundbreaking piece of legislation like, say, INF or SALT.  

As for my dialogue, try looking at what others say before you level that criticism against me.  I'm just playing along, though your comments are noted and well-taken.

Hey Nippers, people still make the Kool Aid joke all the time.  And good to see you're looking at the rest of the globe you've got.  

One more things icarusr . . .

"Palin "held her own" only to people who are blinded by her bangs; she is objectively ignorant and not terribly well-schooled in the world."

I guess Politico.com is "blinded by her bangs" since they're the ones that came up with that conclusion.  Good to know that we've got you to bang on them.  As for your latter statement, you can add Obama to that equation as well.  

kgrant,

Exactly. Listen to McCain talking about Bush in 2000, or Bush talking about McCain. Listen to Bush, Sr., talking about Reagan's voodoo economics. In primaries, candidates are trying to exploit their opponents' real and perceived weaknesses in order to win the nomination. That's how it works.

Now, if you can find similar comments from esteemed Democrats who had no particular stake in the primary battle--Al Gore, say, or Bill Bradley--their opinion should be given far more weight.

Al Gore kept mum until the primary was over. Bradley endorsed Obama. But please, desmondclee, let's hear *your* examples, just no quotes from anyone who at the time they said mean things about him was trying to defeat Obama in a race for the nomination.

You are right, desmondclee. Some people do.

Oakland Raider fans are the biggest Kool Aid drinkers.  But I'm sure you knew that.

Nippers, I'm not going to fish out what other folks said about him.  I know that the adversarial system is good for bringing out the truth.  And that's what happened.  

In addition, after Biden was out, he was asked about what he said during that debate.  He still stuck by the statement but added that there had been seven months or so that had passed since made that statement.  Since making that statement, Biden explained, Obama obtained enough foreign policy experience to qualify him for Commander-in-Chief slot.

Yeeeea-ahhhh, Joe.  

"If you're objective about it, it should terrify you and every other citizen that this gump actually has a shot at the Whtie House."

This sentence doesn't hold--if one is truly *objective* about it, one has no preference for who takes the White House.  

dylan,

Say what?  I do have a preference for who goes to the White House:  someone who's the best qualified to be there.  Sorry, but when someone like Obama is floating ideas like sending the Georgia-Russia conflict to UN Security Council where Russia has a veto vote over that Council's actions, that terrifies me.  And it should terrify you.  That's kind of like referring problems you're having with John Gotti to Mama Gotti.  Hello?

desmondclee,

Biden could not have said that he was *lying* in his original statement; he *had* to say that he'd changed his mind, which may or may not have been closer to the truth, but certainly I would argue that the last seven months have tested Obama's leadership, executive skills, and knowledge of foreign policy in ways that neither you, nor I, nor Sarah Palin can imagine. Tell me someone else is more qualified than Obama, fine. But Biden's primary quote does not a meaningful indictment make.

And that, geo-buddy, is my last reply to you for the night. You may have the last word if you like it. I'm going to enjoy a nice tall glass of kool-aid (actually used to drink that stuff in the seventies, all sugar and dyes, quite nasty, really, worse even than Hawaiian Punch and Sunny-D, probably give me cancer by sixty), and then it's nighty-night, faire-do-do for me.

Sweet dreams, good ladies.

desmondclee, last word's yours if you want it.

Dylan,

Further to my last point, an allusion to football.  Raiders fans (shoudn't) have any dog in the competition between Darren McFadden and Justin Fargas.  Just let the best man start at tailback, and forget the nonsense of favoring D-Mac because was the top pick of the draft.  

How's that?

Nippers,

With all due respect, that's really weak.  You'd argue that the last seven months have tested Obama's leadership?  Really?  Okay, like what?  I'd love to hear it.

The reality is that Obama's been honing and fine-tuning his campaign skills.  In order to elevate yourself to foreign policy wonk, you've got to do what McCain's been doing for years, e.g., traveling to exotic places like Waziristan and hob-nobbing with the locals there about what it would take to hunt down Osama Bin Laden.

Suffice it to say that Obama hasn't come close to doing that.  

Man, you sound like a Raiders fan.  

Okay, desmondclee. I was going to go to sleep. But that Raiders comment was the last straw. I, my friend, sold sodee-pop and peanuts for Harry M. Stevens Food Services Inc. at Candlestick Park during the mid-1980s when the Joe Montana-Jerry Rice-Dwight Clark 49ers won, like, a kazillion super bowls.

Call me a kool-aid drinker. Call me an arugula-eater. But I ain't no stinkin' Raiders fan.

Soda! Get yer soda here! Ice cold Coke! Seeeeven-Up!

Peanuts! Hot! Roasted! Peeeeeeanuts here!

(Oh, and the question wasn't whether McCain has done more "hobnobbing" in "exotic places" than Obama; the question was whether what Biden said during the primary should be taken at face value as an indictment of Obama's candidacy. I'll grant you your off-topic point: McCain has done more hobnobbing in exotic places in his seventy-two years of non-executive experience than Obama has.)

Jesus, it's 2 a.m. What the hell am I doing up at this ungodly hour?

For real this time, good night, sweet ladies.

icarusr writes re my post:  "That's about the stupidest thing I have ever read, on this or any other thread."

Why, thank you, ick.  The competition gets pretty stiff here.  But, if you think I've nailed it, I'm pretty flattered.

Nippers,

LOL.  For the reasons discussed above, Biden's comment can be used here since, among other things, it's not just what he said, but how he put it, and the fact that others said it as well.  This was especially true with Hillary, and her statement that "both John McCain and I bring a lifetime of experience to the White House, whereas Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

Oh yeah, "your" Raiders looked pretty good this past Monday.  

"Sorry, but when someone like Obama is floating ideas like sending the Georgia-Russia conflict to UN Security Council where Russia has a veto vote over that Council's actions, that terrifies me.  And it should terrify you"

Except that McCain said the exact same thing: www.johnmccain.com/.../Read.aspx

"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion."

I guess you should be terrified either way.

desmond writes:

"Ummm, Matt, you're conflating two very different concepts:  regime change and occupation.  With Iraq (and Afghanistan), we showed we can take someone out quickly and effectively.  The problem was with the occupation, and for that you can thank Rumsfeld and Cheney.  If we had simply listened to people like Colin Powell, we wouldn't have had all the problems we've had in the past few years.  But the concept of "putting all our eggs in one basket" is something that refers to occupation, and not the more overarching and significant concept of ousting our enemies from power."

By the time we invaded Iraq, did anyone seriously doubt our ability to oust our enemies from power?  Afghanistan had already proven it, if Grenada, Panama, and Kosovo somehow hadn't.  This is like saying that dropping the bomb on Nagasaki proved that we could do it.

And no, the rest of the world isn't shaking in fear  (Putin is more aggressive than ever, and Iran and North Korea don't seem to be scared either). They know that, right now, we are otherwise engaged, and that in the future, we'll think twice before getting into another situation like Iraq.

Desmond: "Jeez, sir, sorry I didn't fit into your stogie-filled, elitist gaggle of wannabe intellectuals club."

Oh, dear God, give it a fucking rest man.  You're a litigation lawyer.  Even if your practice is in personal injury in peoria - especially if you practice in a small town - you're just as part of the "elite" as anyone here.  If not more so.  This sort of name calling ("stogie-filled"?  When was the last time a "wannabe intellectual" smoked a cigar?  Aren't you mixing populist metaphors?  Bankers and Republicans smoke "stogies", intellectuals drop acid or smoke pipes - or eat arugula.  Get with the programme.), aside from jejune, is stupid because whatever point you have to make gets lost in the "blizzard of words" you are spreading around.  

You call people here Kool-Aid Drinkers?  Then can we call you a Fascist Republican Brownshirt War-monger Islamophobe Hypocrite and call it even?  Now, what is the fucking point you're trying to make?

"Too bad you missed how McCain filled the bill more than competently on things like the surge and Georgia."

On Georgia, he rattled a rusty sabre.  If you read anything other than the Washington Times and watch the news on any source other than Fox, you would know that US prestige - in its true, power-oriented Morgenthauan sense - is at its lowest level.  On Mr. Bush's watch, Iran is edging closer to being a nuclear power; it has actually tested long-range missile capable of hitting Israel from Iranian mainland; they have replaced a reformist pro-Western intellectual with a Holocaust denying good; Iran's oil income has gone from $8 billion a year to $140 billion a year; etc.  No amount of screaming "We are Georgians" will save Georgia, and suggesting that the US - with its over-stretched army - could actually engage Russia IN A FUCKING LAND WAR - as McCain's strategic brain trust just announce - is "Princess Bride" comedy material.  So, please, spare us the histrionics on Georgia.

On the Surge, there is no "success" within the parameters of the "surge" itself.  It was obvious, from that first unlamted idiotic statement by McCain-Bush DefSec - "you go into war with the army you got", a Strategy 101 idiocy of unparalleled proportions, a lesson that Crassus already learned 2000 years ago as the Parthians were pourting molten gold into his throat - that more troops on the ground meant fewer killings.  But the "surge" was meant to be just that - a surge forward for a full withdrawal, and not a permanent troop increase, which it has become.  So the surge, as a surge, has not been successful, even if as a troop increase it has had some temporary reduction in violence.

Next Republican speaking point, please.

Desmond, as for "filling the bill", here is McCain on Palin, in Portland, Maine: “She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.”

There are two options here: either McCain knows this to be a total fucking lie, in which case he is taking 300 million Americans for morons and does not deserve to be President.  OR he believes it, in which case he IS a moron and does not deserve to be President.

"Fill the bill"?  Yeah, totally, on senility and dementia.

Sorry about the multiple posts, but ... as to holding up well, this is what she said about Iran:

"I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nucular weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes. We have got to make sure these weapons of mass destruction, that nucular weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran."

My fourteen year old cousin has better analytical and rhetorical skills than this.  Anyone - anyone who compares this with Obama is living in a parallel universe.

If only the candidates debated like the posters here-in detail. How sad that they don't.

Even allowing for some leeway on the Bush Doctrine, many saw in Palin’s overall performance proof of a foreign-policy novice quickly forced to cram for her first big test.

ick, you're confusing me these days. Just what do you mean when you scream, "A FUCKING LAND WAR"?

Is this some kind of ribald party game, like naked paintball? Capture the flag, swinger-style?

I think ick means that the fact of around half (being conservative) of our available land forces at the moment being locked up either in Iraq and Afghanistan, within a year of being deployed there, or within a year of returning from there.

As the draft is not politically feasible at the moment, the available U.S. ground forces for worldwide deployment are limited to say the least.

Thus any implication that support for Georgia includes anything of that nature is highly inadvisable for about eight different reasons.

I gotta say -- Charlie Gibson did an exceptional job interviewing Mrs. Palin.

I heard the McCain camp said that it was "biased," which is stupid -- it was just some hard questioning here and there, on issues that VPs should know in and out.