Why on earth would they try to deny what is so obviously -- I wouldn't say fake, because I don't think the producers thought they would fool anyone -- two people NOT in the same room?

I'm supporting Franken, but this is a fine ad, as these things go.

Posted at June 20, 2008 11:44 AM in response to Did GOP Senator Fake An Ad Showing Him Cozy With Wife?

...and so is their base, which is what they count on. How many people will hear, for example, that domestic oil drilling will do NOTHING to reduce the price of gas at the pump? And yet, the repubs still push that as a selling point.

Posted at June 19, 2008 11:41 AM in response to McCain Team Falsely Charges That Obama Opposes Capital Punishment For Bin Laden

my favorite line so far:

My approach is guided by a simple premise: I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to deal with terrorists; Senator McCain does not.

Posted at June 19, 2008 11:03 AM in response to Obama: You Wanna Talk About 9/11? Well, Let's Talk About 9/11!

I wish we HAD gone with a law-enforcement approach. It's much easier to make a distinction between violent extremists (criminals) and people with legitimate political grievances. And making that distinction makes all the difference when trying to resolve conflicts in the world. Much much easier to address those grievances without the barriers of societal and physical destruction violence from both sides creates.

Add to that the fact that we wouldn't have all the time and resources wasted on solving the detainee/habeas clusterfuck, or war-profiteering, or PTSD, or our loss of prestige, etc.

Posted at June 17, 2008 2:47 PM in response to Obama Campaign Rolls Out Richard Clarke To Hit Back At McCain's "Sept. 10th Mindset" Attack

Why was it when we first starting filling Camp X-Ray with detainees, Rumsfeld was allowed to call them "the worst of the worst" without ever having to explain HOW THE FUCK HE KNEW THAT to be true.

Posted at June 12, 2008 11:57 AM in response to Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gitmo Detainees

you mean Bush went AWOL, right?

Posted at June 11, 2008 5:27 PM in response to Lieberman: McCain's "Not Too Important" Comment Doesn't Matter Because He Served In Vietnam

OK, so he wants American troops in Iraq, ideally without them being in harm's way.

Well, I think we'd all like that. But how exactly does think this kind of situation will exist? Is this one of his fairytale scenarios from his "Utopia 2013" speech?

If our troops are not in harm's way, then they're not out in the streets of Iraq, they're just dug in in bases, "force protection", etc. What does that accomplish?

What does honor have to do with anything? Whose honor is he defending? Does John McCain really believe that if the troops will suffer dishonor if they are pulled out before Iraq is better (for lack of a more concrete goal)?

Will he be the one to stand up and call their service dishonorable, if that should happen?

Posted at June 11, 2008 3:08 PM in response to McCain Campaign: Dems Took "Not Too Important" Quote Out Of Context

Perhaps his point is true in respect to our domestic politics, but he shows he doesn't take into account any broader perception of our actions. Once again, it's myopic tactics w/o strategy.

Strategy requires understanding, and understanding requires a degree of empathy (calculated, academic empathy, if you're averse to the squishy, emotional variety). McCain displays none of that. It seems to be Obama's starting point.

Again, who's naive?

Posted at June 11, 2008 11:10 AM in response to McCain: Bringing Troops Home From Iraq "Not Too Important"

His clumsiness speaks for itself.

In substance, though, it should be pointed out that we are WELCOME in Korea, Japan, and Germany. (Maybe not so much in Japan).

At the very least, we're not occupiers of those countries.

Posted at June 11, 2008 9:29 AM in response to McCain: Bringing Troops Home From Iraq "Not Too Important"

Bush tried to spin the Libya capitulation as a direct result of our invasion of Iraq, without mentioning talks beforehand. Their story was that Gadaffi was the first of many to fall only because of our display of force.

They used Libya to support the use of force, when it should have highlighted strong diplomatic effort.

Posted at May 21, 2008 9:19 AM in response to Billy Glad & Bush Trapped In Prevailing Morality: A Critique of the Pre-Conditions Prequirement