If lying is going to be allowed from people here about the PROGRESSIVE, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, in which the lying by pieces of garbage like Zerosum and souyousay is going to be tolerate by the admins, where the lying can be proven quite easily, I'm done. I may be a jerk, but at least I am an honest jerk. Sorry to bump a real diary off the list, because that is BS, but it needs to be said the the admins have decided lying jerks deserve space here. Good luck and go Obama and Dem's as a whole. We're going to kick some serious butt this election, regardless of the trolls!!!

I'm very concerned with the attitude of many in the media and in the country to what occured in the aftermath of the Georgia conflict. Don't get me wrong, Russia was most likely in the wrong based on what the media has stated (again, though, didn't they spend half a year convincing us Saddam was about to nuke us on the mainland?). My problem is the fallout of "maverick" diplomacy and the repercussions of these actions. Obama initially came out and qualified his answers, measuring rhetoric against what facts he knew, doing what most grown ups would do when dealing with any situation. McCain on the other hand, literally flew off at the mouth, verbally challenging the Russian leadership without any type of background of the complete situation. I will admit the longer the situation escalated, initially, the more McCain ended up looking somewhat right, but do we really need a president who would take that diplomatic risk? Why isn't the MSM following up on this, and his comments in 2006 that may have indirectly led to the Georgian president overstepping his own abilities, counting on us to back him up? With most of our military and its resources tie up in 2 wars (1 we've already dropped the ball on), why is this acceptable behavior? Why is this being framed in his favor when anyone rationally viewing his reaction initially should be very concerned? I don't know about the rest of you, but this is the memo, more than this housegate, more than the draft(even though that can be worked in), more than almost anything else that the Obama campaign needs to hammer McCain over and over again on. Sorry for the hit and run run on paragraph, don't have much time to formulate this.

This diary may be shorter than some may like but it needs to be stated. Where is this country headed, and is it headed there in a handbasket? Listen, I'm actually a reformed McCain supporter, but how is this guy seriously doing any of the following: 1). Leading the question of which candidate will keep you safer? 2). Wooing Democrats and women's right's supporters and 3).Scoring 60% favorable ratings. Let's look step by step.

Question 1). We have a candidate who claims to want to keep our troops in Iraq, where even the most ardent supporters state we have most of our resources tied up. So what does a candidate for president do. First, he sings about bombing a sovereign nation for the world to see while running for the highest office in the land. So then less than 6 months later, he responds to a crisis halfway across the world in a matter of hours, as oppossed to waiting for the situation (of no harm to us) to crystalize before shooting his mouth off. This is the guy that is going to keep us safe? Really? Am I missing something? Bellicose is now a peace strategy?

Question 2). Do I really even need to go into what a guy who states he has a 30 year career of opposing women's rights has in store for us? I do, really, I really need to compare Barack and John's plans for women's rights. children's health care to up to 28% of Clinton supporters? I really need to state that for those poor to lower middle class whites in the midwest and south that another 4-8 years of Bush's economic policies is probably not the best idea, g Really, given the current state of affairs? Am I missing something else?

Question 3). A crotchety old man who can't talk issues so he keeps sending out ads comparing his opponent to heiresses and pop stars, who lies in every ad, and who states his opponent only speaks out due to political ambition (says the other dude running for president who as a POW never discusses his POW days, except in every sentence?)

Where is the intelligence in this country? Are people really this content? What am I missing? I even invite the Barack jeering section in here to tell me what's what, please, because I JUST DON'T GET IT!!!

Not really but reading his quotes today on Iraq had me thinking this is the only implication that can be rationally drawn. Now those of us in the netroots know he is full of it, and has pretty much adopted most of Obama's thoughts without actually acknowledging it when it comes to current Iraq issues. The below shows my point:

McCain later told The Associated Press that he believed the agreement being negotiated was not a timeline, as advocated by Obama.

"It will be notional and aspirational dates, but it will be based on conditions, I know that," McCain said. "They will be times that we hope they can be out by. They will be based on conditions on the ground, not according to hard deadlines."

Here's Obama's quote from a few months ago:

"My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I've said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold."

Now lately, we have heard Bush refer to dates as horizons (don't want to sure up timeline, right), we have seen the Iraqi Prime minister agree with Obama, then pull it back after a call from State. Now we see a deal in place, in principal, to have troop withdrawel aims of October, 2010, which is exactly 16-17 months after the next president takes his oath of office (sound familiar). Now McCain, in a backbend of epic proportions, refers to them as notional (really, do you really put in writing things that are notional?) and aspirational dates, knowing Obama has specificly stated repeatedly things will be done based on conditions on the ground.

McCain is becoming unhinged and delusional right before our eyes apparently, or he is banking on the fact that no one will call him out on these lies.

I had read a lot about the Paris/McCain smackdown but did not actually see the ad she put out until this morning. And I will reiterate that I feel responding was childish on the McCain campaign's part. But what got me more is the response.

"Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan," Bounds said.

Do they even realize how silly they look? Her entire talk was pretty much an exact replica of Obama's energy policy in shorthand form. Now I know talkin issues about this silliness is difficult, but I also know the MSM will never pick this tidbit up. It's amazing the hypocrisy of it all, do they need things spelled out to them so that even a blond heiress can understand it (is Cindy really running things behind the scenes?)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s ite_072908/content/01125110.guest.html

Rush said it, and since it's on the internet, it must be true. Now why would BHO do that? What is wrong with him. I hope no one here is really excited about him, because he is terrible. Of course I will still possibly give him my vote, but wow, what an awful human being, what kind of guy goes to work out instead of visiting our hero's. Obviously you can't dispute this diary, it's right here listed on the website, so obviously it's true. And forget telling me I'm wrong on where this tripe belongs, because just because this is a progressive site, doesn't mean I shouldn't be here to constantly tell you what a fake, phony, two faced loser I think your, I mean our candidate is. I mean really, and what is wrong with you people for supporting him here, it's obvious he's as bad as my link says he is.

There's my snark for the day, good bye, and good luck.

I haven't seen a diary like this in a bit, so I figured even if it has been done (or done better, which if it has been done is most likely the case), you can never get too much of pointing out the obvious to most. And this seems to be the one PUMA point they are pushing that is most important. McCain appointing Supreme's isn't just a minor issue, it is scary.

Aside from his insistence for years that he believes Roe is wrong and should be overturned, aside from his fillibuster of many Clinton nominees (including ones Lott and Hatch approved with fully qualified ABA ratings), some people need convincing. And let's not forget his freak out over given due process to detainees 6 years later with no charges. Or the pro business stance of his favorite judges, Alito and Thomas (since they are already there). Because McCain didn't join the gang of 14 solely on "bipartisanship" (which is why he attacks for Obama for not joining)or preserving his fillibuster on perfectly qualified nominees. No, he had 2 personal favorites he wanted confirmed and fast tracked. Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor.

William Pryor: "I'm probably the only one who wanted it 5-4. I wanted Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments like Justice Souter.". there's someone I'm sure Hillary would get a kick out of. Here's a guy who briefed against a violence against women act (U.S. vs. Morrison), I won't detail his abortion record to avoid arguments based on my translating them, but see if you like the briefs he filed in these 2, Amicus brief in Schielder and Operation Rescue vs NOW, Right to Life Inc., et. al. v. Federal Election Commission, he believed Texas sodomy (or you should be arrested if you are a gay male law) was right (Lawrence v. Texas), and many other decisions and briefs that make you wonder if those are beliefs we want to take a chance on being nominated for the court.

Judge Brown was rated not qualified by the CA bar upon her first nomination to the CA Supreme Court. She's one I will let you decide on, because her record is all over the map (meaning my portrayal of it should not blind the facts). But her pro business, anti government, anti individual streak should be duly noted. And the fact that there aren't many women's groups that could tolerate her to even be nominated shows us some things.

My question becomes, as you look at their records, do a). these judges look to be more supportive to our causes then Obama (even after his tact to the center many accuse him of) and b). with 2 possible openings, am I wrong to be scared of getting these voices joining Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts voting block? And a third, does McCain's joining a group of senators to ensure these jurists lifetime jobs as major judges show a propensity to seek even handed judicials and true bipartisanship or opportunism? Thanks you for reading.

My question is  

I'm confused by the current level of discourse regarding the fact whether McCain did or didn't cheat on his former wife. Now personally, I don't think it's that big a deal overall, I think it shows immaturity and a lack of decorum(as did Bills pants problems). But this fact does not rule one out from the presidency. My question is more along the lines of the parrellel movements, why was it OK to explore every aspect of Bill Clinton's extra curricular issues (especially a great amount on the taxpayer dime), but the meremention of McCain draws disapproving glances. I've heard the right state it's because Clinton lied under oath, but guess what, when McCain did this (if it can be proven, circumstantial evidence may warrant an investigation), it could be stated he broke his oath as a military officer, where infidelity is akin to a court martial offense, especially back then? Where are the media people digging through his closet, Bill was a magnet for every reporter every time he moved? Where is my "liberal" media? Or does it just not matter?