Colin Powell Gives Barack His Blessing.

"He is ready to be President on Day One."  Coming from Powell, that's extremely influential.

Revealing:  he's concerned that the Republican party has moved more to the right than he would like.

He's concerned about McCain's not-so-great grasp of economics, and he's concerned about the choice of Palin who, while "impressive," is "not ready to be President of the United States," and who embodies that rightward shift.

He credits Obama with "steadiness and intellectual curiosity, depth of knowledge . . . intellectual vigor."

He thinks the McCain campaign has become "too narrow." 

"All towns have values, not just small towns have values."

If Bill Ayers is a "washed-up terrorist, why are we still talking about him?"

"I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court."  With his soft voice, his judicious "concern," his unobtrusive but unassailable military credibility, Powell is the very incarnation of moderation. 

Obama is not a Muslim but that's not the right answer.  The right answer is, "What if he is?  Is there something wrong with being a Muslim-American?  That's not America." 

Brokaw says "Will people think this is one African-American voting for another?"

Powell says if that were the one thing on his mind, he could have made this choice a long time ago.  He doesn't deny that it would be "historic," though -- "something all Americans should be proud of, not just African Americans."

"I think we need a transformational figure."  In good part, he makes it clear, he means that generationally.  (What makes it hardest for me to vote for McCain is the feeling of refusing the future*.  Whatever my motives, I would, demographically, be just one of those "older white voters" putting the brakes on, not turning the wheel to another way ahead.  McCain now feels less like a real alternative than a refusal -- not just of liberalism, but of youth and of openness to the world.)

(But if you're young and conservative -- Simon -- Newt, who was on "This Week" this morning, is a good Moses for a chastening time in the wilderness.  Because Newt's about the future, in his own way.  And he has "intellectual vigor."  He's thinking about another way forward.  Could he make 2010 another 1994?)

*While what makes it hardest for me to vote for Obama is the feeling of being a willing dupe.

Comments

[Ally]

It's worth watching Powell's 7-minute endorsement speech on Meet the Press. He damaged his credibility carrying Bush's Iraq water, but he is eloquent and rational in his endorsement of Obama. It will be interesting to see how the GOP spins this.

[michael Reynolds]

Ally:

I think it's very clear that the former National Security Adviser to Ronald Reagan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Bush 1, and Secretary of State for Bush 2 is, and always has been, a member of Al Qaeda.

There's no other possible explanation for why he would fail to be moved to hair-pulling despair, as Simon was, by Obama's "grimly depressing sunset logo."

I just don't understand why Colin Powell hates America.

[RW Rogers]

You're right on all three points, Ally. As to the last, this cannot have been unexpected. As it is, Powell's actual influence among the party core has always been negligible but outsiders' perceptions are more important.

[wj]

Michael, if we are going to judge people by those that they associate with, we really have no choice. Since, as you say, Powell clearly hates America, we have no choice but to believe that Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II did also.

And since McCain loves Bush II, and supports him so strongly, clearly he must hate America as well. So to find a Presidential candidate who loves America, obviously we now have to look for a third party candidate for this election. Q.E.D.

Ah, guilt by association is such a tangle!

[Ally]

Michael,

My mistake. I thought Powell was Field Marshall Cinque of the Symbianese Liberation Army.

RW Rogers: It's nice finding points on which we agree.

[michael Reynolds]

WJ:

Fine words . . . from a traitor!

I like Colin Powell and Barack Obama and here you are, talking to me. What do you think that makes you? Are you now, or have you ever been a member of Al Qaeda?

[amba]

All this misses what to me is the main point: Powell is so astonishingly moderate. He's like a Rockefeller Republican, like Bush I. In today's terms he almost doesn't seem like a Republican at all.

[michael Reynolds]

Amba:

No, the point is not that Powell is a liberal Republican.

Every time McCain sits down to answer questions they'll hit him with Powell: Colin Powell thinks Sarah Palin's a twit; Colin Powell says he hears religious bigotry from high officials in the GOP; Colin Powell says Obama is ready and indeed readier than you; Colin Powell says you're a jerk for your negativity, your Bill Ayers obsessions, and so on.

Powell didn't just endorse. He systematically undercut every aspect of McCain's campaign. He as much as called him erratic. Said he was a man of the past and Obama was a man of the future. Called his Veep candidate a raving incompetent loon. (I paraphrase.)

No, this is not a liberal-conservative thing. McCain has slipped his track. And Palin is a disaster. McCain supporters can try their best to deny it, but when the after-action books are written the conclusion will be very clear: McCain lost control of himself and his campaign, and Palin was poison.

[Ally]

Annie --

That was one of Powell's main points, I think. The party has lurched too far to the right to hold a spot for someone like him. Now that I'm an elder, a Rockefeller-Republican GOP might even hold some appeal for me. But the freak show the party has become? No way.

[karen]

Amba, i think he's not changed one whit-- & i know of at least one military man- served for 12 yrs- that doesn't think much of Powell at all.

I'm waiting for him to post on it. It was to be expected, after all.

[PatHMV]

Yes, yes, the GOP has lurched too far to the right. We suddenly, out of nowhere, want to defend America against threats before they become imminent (i.e., before they actually invade Kuwait), we want to NOT socialize health care, we want to protect the rights of unborn children. Heavens to Betsy, where did all that come from, suddenly? Surely it was never like that before! Why, back in the good old days of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party knew its place, didn't want to appoint conservative jurists, wanted to socialize medicine, and were just fine with abortion rights.

Please. Powell's stated reasons for endorsing Obama read like the standard litany of campaign talking points, not like the considered, independent judgment of an elder statesman. He's basically saying, hey, I'd like Republicans just fine, if they were just like the Democrats.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I think it's very clear that the former National Security Adviser to Ronald Reagan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Bush 1, and Secretary of State for Bush 2 is, and always has been, a member of Al Qaeda.

Michael, I think your courage in facing and coping with your disability is an example to us all.

[michael Reynolds]

Pat:

Bullshit. He said Palin is unqualified. Everyone knows that now.

He said McCain has been erratic. Ditto.

He said McCain has gone all negative. Yep.

He says he hears bigotry in the GOP. Huge surprise.

He told the truth. Now you may not like the truth, but spare yourself the further embarrassment of trying to dis Powell. It's not working, you're going to lose, you deserve to lose.

Stop defending the indefensible and be one of the people who turns your sad little party around.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Ally, I'm unclear why, if Powell's credibility was so damaged by his association with Bush and the Iraq War, you think that his endorsement of Obama is desirable.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Michael, I've yet to see you explain why you believe that a half-term Governor is unqualified to be Vice President, but that a half-term Senator is qualified to be President.

[Ally]

Karen --

Ah, so here we go. Time to trash Powell for making a reasoned and considered judgment with which you disagree. You say you know one military man who doesn't think much of Powell? That's hardly surprising and hardly a condemnation. Curtis LeMay probably wouldn't have liked him much either.

Pat,

You're welcome to the tattered remnants of your extremist party. The real GOP will be back in force in the not-too-distant future, I'm sure. It will have moved back toward the reasonable center, which may mean you won't like it as well as you apparently do now. I, for one, will be thrilled to witness the death throes of the current GOP, and its rebirth as something better -- even if in its new incarnation I still don't support it.

[Ally]

Charlie --

Yes, Powell's credibility was damaged by telling the UN that Iraq had purchased yellow cake from Niger, etc., etc. That doesn't take away from the eloquence of his endorsement. More significant, I think, is how this endorsement will affect those who did not view Powell's role in the Iraq debacle as a dent in his credibility. It must feel like a real gut-punch.

Contrast Powell today on MTP with McCain defending his Robocalls to Chris Wallace on Fox. I really thought McCain was going to lunge across the table and throttle Wallace. He has come almost totally unhinged.

[RW Rogers]

Ally, I'm not trying to pick a fight here but must say that, in all fairness, what you think about the GOP now or in the future is irrelevant as your comments here indicate that you are highly unlikely to ever vote for any GOP candidate unless that candidate is a mirror-image, or to the political left, of one supported by the Democratic Party. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it true.

[michael Reynolds]

Charlie:
Because that's an absurd metric. Half term governor vs. half-term senator? It's an absurd approach. How about a one-term Congressman named Lincoln? Or his highly qualified predecessor who'd held half the jobs in government?

You're trying to resurrect the GOP's original talking points about Obama's lack of experience in order to justify Sarah Palin's lack of experience.

Interesting. Must be too deep for me to grasp.

Palin isn't disqualified on grounds of experience. She's disqualified on grounds that she is an ignoramus. She knows less about the world and the country than any average blog reader. She knows less than a bright high school kid.

She's so deeply ignorant it goes beyond "incurious" and reaches stupid. She had weeks to prepare for the Couric interview, with access to everyone from McCain himself to Kissinger. And she gave answers that would have been laughable coming from Miss Teen South Carolina.

She's a buffoon. She's a clown. She's an embarrassment. McCain's campaign knows it. It's why they kept her locked away. They let her out for a day and she managed to reveal her staggering unfitness to the world. The Chicago Trib endorsed its first ever Democrat in part because of Palin.

Summarizing: not "inexperienced," ignorant.

And I realize people on the right hate being embarrassed this way and feel the need to defend this bimbo, but the idea that she will become any sort of leader in a rebuilt GOP is sad and delusional. She's had her 15 minutes.

[Ally]

My disinclination to vote for a Republican may or may not be true in the future. It would depend entirely on the candidates put forward by both parties. It certainly has been true up to now in my life. In the issue area with which I'm most familiar, I agree about 60-70 percent with Republicans. Fortunately, reasonable Dems are starting to break away from the NEA stranglehold.

And I have to agree with my sister, Amba, that two strong parties and in many case a divided government is healthy. I am a little worried about a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the Pelosis and Reids of the world running wild. So I think it's in everyone's interest to have the Republicans come back to their senses. It's going to take the ass-whupping they're about to get for that process to begin in earnest.

[michael Reynolds]

I am a little worried about a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the Pelosis and Reids of the world running wild. So I think it's in everyone's interest to have the Republicans come back to their senses. It's going to take the ass-whupping they're about to get for that process to begin in earnest.

Ally:
I very much doubt the Dems will get to 60. It would take a complete meltdown.

As for rebuilding the GOP, yes. We need a genuine conservative party. We need grown-ups. We need people who actually want to spend less, not just talk about it. We need advocates for strong defense. We need a party that is skeptical of government. Someone has to have the brake pedal. Someone has to stand up for tradition.

That's not the GOP we have, but it is the GOP we need.

[amba]

Eloquence! -- and all is forgiven.

Eloquence! -- and all is believed.

My God, were we that starved -- for eight years -- for a little eloquence?

[Ally]

Amba --

You're right. Eloquence is overrated. I'm switching to Palin.

[Danny]

Speaking of ignoramuses, I'm watching Republican representative Michele Bachmann and I cannot believe my ears. Are there any intelligent conservatives that DON'T think this woman is one of the biggest idiots ever elected to public office? If so, they have lost 100 percent of any credibility as far as I'm concerned. And that has nothing to do with who is eloquent and who is not. Are we really going back to who is a good American and who is anti-American? With friends like Bachmann, McCain is in deep trouble. And Bachmann's views exactly mirror the robo calls that the McCain campaign is spreading. Truly despicable.

[RW Rogers]

Fortunately, reasonable Dems are starting to break away from the NEA stranglehold.

They aren't wandering too far off the reservation and their numbers will remain small, I think. I imagine most states are like California, where the teachers' union is the most powerful special interest group in the state.

I am a little worried about a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the Pelosis and Reids of the world running wild.

That appears to be highly likely under the circumstances (the large numbers of Republican seats up for election, the unpopular administration, the financial market implosion, the impending recession, and the presidential nominees) involved in this election.

I think it's in everyone's interest to have the Republicans come back to their senses.

What you or I may define as "coming back to their senses" probably are not the same things and wouldn't add up to electoral victory anyway. As you imply, outside of your area of expertise, up to now nothing the Republicans offered was enough to cause you to vote for one of them. The odds that they will ever offer you enough are pretty small.

It's going to take the ass-whupping they're about to get for that process to begin in earnest.

I think you're right, but unlike you, I don't believe that the result of that process will appeal to either of us.

[amba]

Ally -- in this case, the best defense is not a good offense.

Let's just hope deeds match words. Words are making everybody feel very good right now. That's probably important, but it has very little relationship to what lies ahead. Obama can talk, and he can think. When I listen to him, I feel good. I really like the guy. But at putting thought into action, he is very green. Greener than most people his age. You've got to admit that he has mostly cautiously refrained from much action, probably as a deliberate strategy for not letting anything stick to him that might prevent a lot of people from projecting a lot of different things onto him. (Jeremiah Wright almost stuck to him anyway.) This leaves us with very little but. . . hope. Now go ahead, if you can, and refute what I just said instead of sneering and smearing it.

[Ally]

Yes, he is green. I would dispute the assertion that he is greener than most people his age, but that's an unprovable point either way. The quality of his mind, and the brilliance of his campaign (like it or not, it has been stunningly effective from day one) leads me to believe he will be a competent executive.

I am more than willing to take the chance that he will be a better executive than McCain, who forever disqualified himself by the outrageous selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. See Michael's comment above for an excellent dissection of the differences between Palin and Obama's experience of lack thereof.

And it seems to me that I do not hold a monopoly on sneering and smearing in the comments section of this blog. I've had fun with it, but I'd be happy to stop.

[Spud]

Speaking of ignoramuses, I'm watching Republican representative Michele Bachmann and I cannot believe my ears.

They have no game left. How does one explain this, "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America"? WTF!!! How does someone like her actually get elected? I wonder what her criteria would be in deciding who is anti-America, someone who disagrees with George Bush? Pathetic!!!

[RW Rogers]

It is hard to believe that anyone who resorts to terms like "buffoon", "clown", "stupid", and "bimbo" has provided an "excellent dissection" of anything.

[RW Rogers]

Let's just hope deeds match words.

Yes, let's do.

Words are making everybody feel very good right now.

I'm not so sure about that. ;-)

That's probably important, but it has very little relationship to what lies ahead.

That's true, but isn't that almost always the case? GW Bush, for example, ran on a very different platform and emphasis than circumstances allowed once he was in office.

Obama can talk, and he can think. When I listen to him, I feel good. I really like the guy. But at putting thought into action, he is very green. Greener than most people his age.

If you meant greener than most politicians with national reputations his age, I agree. Perhaps you can take heart knowing about all of the long-time Washington D.C. insiders rumored to be on Obama's cabinet appointee short-list like John Kerry (State), Eric Holder (Attorney General), Tom Daschle (Chief of Staff), Jack Reed (Defense), Susan Rice (National Security Advisor or UN Ambassador), David Bonior (Labor), George Miller (Education), Howard Dean (HHS), Ed Markey (EPA), and RFK, Jr. (Interior). Or perhaps not.

You've got to admit that he has mostly cautiously refrained from much action, probably as a deliberate strategy for not letting anything stick to him that might prevent a lot of people from projecting a lot of different things onto him.

Most candidates, particularly front-runners, try to do that, don't you think? Whether they get away with it is another matter. There really doesn't seem to be any particular rhyme or reason to why sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

[PatHMV]

All the fine people on the left kept claiming they wanted a real debate about the issues. Now they resort to claiming that Sarah Palin is an ignorant idiot. They don't offer any evidence to support that assertion, they just keep repeating it, ad nauseum. Saying it often enough doesn't make it so.

[michael Reynolds]

Pat:

You're just sad now.

She claimed her foreign policy experience was that Alaska is close to Russia. I mean, seriously, you're a smart, reasonable person under normal circumstances. Partisanship has blinded you. If Obama had said anything half that stupid you'd be howling in outrage.

She couldn't name a newspaper she read -- after claiming she read lots of them.

The list goes on. Surely you know it as well as I do. Because unlike Caribou Barbie you do actually read.

And who agrees with me on Palin? George Will, David Brooks, Matthew Dowd, David Frum, the Chicago Tribune, Christopher Hitchens, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and now Colin Powell.

Between them they've called her everything from unqualified to a "fatal cancer on the GOP." Open your eyes.

"All the fine people on the left?" Are you just being a good friend to young Simon who was pushing this absurd choice of a Veep candidate?

Simon and you both touted her like she was the Warrior Princess of Wasilla who would slay all opponents and drive panicked Democrats to their destruction. I told you then it wasn't going to happen. I told you she was going to be a drag on the ticket. Little did I know she would actually, singlehandedly, bury not only John McCain but the hard right wing of the GOP too.

She was a gift to us, Pat. Thanks. We all needed a good laugh.

[michael Reynolds]

Just saw this:

"What that just did in one sound bite — and I assume that sound bite will end up in an ad — is it eliminated the experience factor," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, in an appearance on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "How are you going to say the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the former national security adviser, former secretary of state was taken in?"

Yeah, how are you going to say that? Pat? Simon? Charlie? Anyone?

[jason]

It is hard to believe that anyone who resorts to terms like "buffoon", "clown", "stupid", and "bimbo" has provided an "excellent dissection" of anything.

I thought the same thing, Randy, when I read previous responses consisting of nothing more than "LOL"... Perhaps we differ in our views of substance.

Inexperienced. Unproven. As Annie said:

But at putting thought into action, he is very green.

Isn't that what change is about? Is anyone here ready to stand up and say the experience of those in charge these past ten years represents the will of progress that so many Americans desire? Look what your quest for experience has wrought...

I for one am ready for change. Change from this dreadful disaster created by the GOP. Change toward something other than those who have been in charge. Change to a way of thinking that doesn't involve lies that take us to war. Change from historic deficits spent by the party of thrift. Change toward American values, like freedom of speech and liberty and protection from unlawful eavesdropping and spying. Change intended to carry us from a totalitarian regime spun from mayhem to a thoughtful governance based on reason and thought. Change, period.

I would gleefully welcome Lincoln with his inexperience or Washington with his lack of international skill. If Obama is the promise of that change--and he is, now that I've decided--then I gladly welcome his green history as opposed to the vicious and terrible approach of those responsible for our current debacle of existence.

Eloquence! -- and all is forgiven.

Eloquence! -- and all is believed.

My God, were we that starved -- for eight years -- for a little eloquence?

I believe the term you were looking for is 'civility,' not 'eloquence,' and yes, we were quite starved for it. Both campaigns have offered eloquence. Only one has offered civility (albeit limited in general, it's been more than his opponent could offer despite promises to the contrary).

I've been called terrible things these past weeks simply for questioning the GOP. I've been laughed at for espousing serious views considered in depth. I've been labeled with terms few if any of you would ever accept (even if you're with "the party" responsible). I've had it.

Let us be serious and thoughtful. Let us be considerate. Let us also be wise. To say some parts of America are less America than others is to be divisive. To claim being Muslim is not American is to be devisive. To dishonestly call someone a terrorist is to be divisive. To call anyone who thinks differently a "commie faggot" is to be divisive. To be a racist, even if underhandedly, is divisive.

Let's see which side people choose...

[amba]

Ally -- I was just trying to get a straight answer out of you.

It strikes me that Obama represents reflection without enough action, and Palin, action without enough reflection.

[Donna B.]

We got a campaign brochure last week sent by my husband's union urging its members to vote for Obama.

That's not surprising. We got them when Kerry was the Dem nominee too.

What surprised me was the theme of this one -- it's all about race. It's urging members to not consider race a factor. That is so incredibly insulting to union members, I think.

Whoever created and approved the ad has decided that union members are racist, and need to hear that it shouldn't matter... THIS time, in this race.

And it's from a plumber's union.

I am furious, insulted, disgusted, and, finally, dispirited.

It is a reminder that it's racism within the Democrat party that is of concern. At least I wouldn't think the Democrats are sure that Republicans would be voting for Obama if he weren't black.

[Meade]

"He is ready to be President on Day One."

Baloney!

Powell could have said the same thing about McCain, Palin, or Biden and it would still be baloney. None of them is ready for that job. They all would require weeks, months and years of on-the-job training.

The questions should be these: Of all the flawed candidates, which one has shown the least poor judgement and least lack of character in his job history? Which one is least dishonest about his past mistakes? And finally, which one will do least to socialize our economy and, instead, encourage Americans to create wealth, spread that wealth themselves without government intervention, and to take responsibility for their own lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness?

Answer those questions honestly and I think you'll endorse the opinion I endorse:

amba's.

[Ally]

McCain's judgment was shown to be fatally flawed by his vice presidential selection. He is not fit to be president based on that alone. Obama has never shown that degree of poor judgment.

[Callimachus]

What Powell said to the U.N. did not involve Niger. That information comes from other quarters (and in fact Saddam WAS trying to get nuclear material from Niger). Powell's speech was on Iraq's failure to disarm. It is printed here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Since he is in the news again, and this is part of the story, it's interesting to revisit it. Because the narrative that has gotten engraved in a lot of people's heads since then is pretty far removed from what was going on at the time.

Powell said, "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction."

This is the sort of statement that meny people nowadays red-flag as "the Bush lie." In fact, it was what just about everyone on the inside believed back then, including the leading Democrats who opposed going to war with Saddam.

Shifting from the record to my memory now, the remarkable thing about the U.N. presentation was that, if that was the great evidence the White House had, it was pretty thin stuff. It seemed so at the time, too. Powell made the U.S. administration's public case -- that was his job. And it was a weak case. That wasn't his fault. The information came from CIA and other spook sources. The CIA isn't under State -- it isn't under anyone, unless someone is strong enough at the top to take it in hand, which is why it's such a poison. Why any smirch should attach to Powell for any of this is beyond me.

People talk about the Republican party dissolving and reforming. As though that "base" is just going to disappear, or get traded to another team. Some people apparently wish those people would go back to not voting. Well, you should have thought of that before your ancestors let the limited-franchise republic become a freewheeling democracy.

They won't go away. They have as much right to a vote as you do. They have no heart for McCain: He's not like them. Palin is, in ways that matter to them, visceral identifications. All the nasty aimed at her, all the alignment of media and entertainment stars to cut her down for who she is, not for being wrong for the job -- as if people can't judge the goods for themselves -- is going to notch another scar in the body politic.

There's a moment here, for Obama. After the Hillary fight, and with the current hacking at Palin, and with his own victory almost assured, he could do a larger version of what McCain did in telling his most rabid partisans to get real.

Obama tends not to take those opportunities. It's one of the things I don't like about him. It doesn't agree with the rhetoric, but it's an unsaid, or undone thing, so the incongruity doesn't leap out at you. But a bit of chill wafts through that gap.

But then I don't watch TV, so WTF do I know?

[RW Rogers]

Obama tends not to take those opportunities. It's one of the things I don't like about him. It doesn't agree with the rhetoric, but it's an unsaid, or undone thing, so the incongruity doesn't leap out at you. But a bit of chill wafts through that gap.

I agree, but I think I said so before ;-)

[Meade]

Palin is just as capable as Obama is of learning the job and probably more so than Biden. Obama's associations with Rezko, Ayers, Wright, and others demonstrate poor judgement far beyond McCain's choice of Palin.

Bottom line: Obama - more socialism. McCain - more free enterprise.

[amba]

Obama tends not to take those opportunities. It's one of the things I don't like about him. It doesn't agree with the rhetoric, but it's an unsaid, or undone thing, so the incongruity doesn't leap out at you. But a bit of chill wafts through that gap.

It's a lack of courage, or perhaps an excess of pragmatism. It's one of the ways that McCain's heat and impulsiveness actually appeal to me.

[wj]

It is no doubt true that anybody elected President (at least for the last half century or so, maybe longer) has to get up to speed after they take office. It's just too unlike any other position they might have held previously. Even if they have just been VP, there is still a learning curve awaiting them.

That said, I do not understand how Meade comes to the conclusion that Palin and Obama are equally capable of learning on the job. It may be true, but the available evidence suggests that Palin is not not that inclined to put effort into learning stuff. In the age of the Internet, it just isn't that hard to learn a great deal about the rest of the world, or about how the economy works. Not enough to be considered an expert, but stall a vast amount more than Palin shows any signs of knowing.

Learning is a skill. McCain, Obama, and Bidan have all demonstrated long since that they have that skill. Palin simply has not.

[RW Rogers]

You think so, WJ? It seems to me that Biden's long career provides ample evidence that he is, at best, an exceptionally slow learner. McCain's record is different in that regard, but not necessarily better.

[michael Reynolds]

It is hard to believe that anyone who resorts to terms like "buffoon", "clown", "stupid", and "bimbo" has provided an "excellent dissection" of anything.

Randy:
I also say "fuck" sometimes. Sometimes I say "booger." You really want to lecture me on what words I choose? Everyone else in the room who's earned seven figures from putting words on paper raise your hand.

Basic rule of good writing: say what you mean. I say "stupid" because I believe the woman to be stupid. If I thought she was smart I'd say "smart." You want euphemisms go talk to a politician.

[michael Reynolds]

Obama tends not to take those opportunities. It's one of the things I don't like about him. It doesn't agree with the rhetoric, but it's an unsaid, or undone thing, so the incongruity doesn't leap out at you. But a bit of chill wafts through that gap.

Obama is cool, pragmatic and a bit ruthless. As I've said from day one. Personally, I find that reassuring. Remember the knock used to be that he was "Obambi." He was supposed to be a naif, a reed, a wispy little thing. (This was before he became a vicious rampaging ideologue, which came just after he was typical Chicago machine pol. I think. It's hard to track all the right's boogeymen.)

So Obama missed an opportunity to crap on the wingnuts who shoveled 150 million into his campaign last month. Not exactly a profile in courage, I suppose.

But not quite as awful as crawling to Jerry Falwell with your tail between your legs, confessing your sin of truth-telling, and licking the good reverend's boots for an endorsement.

[Spud]

Obama's associations with Rezko, Ayers, Wright, and others demonstrate poor judgement far beyond McCain's choice of Palin.

Meade, what about McCain's judgment asscociating with his "good buddy" G. Gordon Liddy, who served four and a half years in prison in connection with his role in the Watergate break-in? This is the same guy who acknowledged to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary", and plotted to murder journalist Jack Anderson and Howard Hunt. He also instructed his radio audience on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents. But that's ok with you?

Bottom line: Obama - more socialism. McCain - more free enterprise.

John McCain on Fox News Sunday said that Barack Obama as a socialist because of his tax policy, but when McCain was reminded that he voted for the government bail out of Wall St. to bail out bad mortgages using government funds, he said, "oh well, I'm just trying to help." If that is not hypocrisy, what is?

[Meade]

Spud, As you compare and contrast Ayers with Liddy, note two things: 1. Liddy went to prison for his crimes and paid his debt and 2. McCain, to my knowledge, has never tried to hide the full nature of his relationship with Liddy by, for instance, claiming he was just some guy from his neighborhood. Why do you think Obama would do that regarding Ayers?

As for socialism vs free enterprise: Yes, McCain is a hypocrite. So our choice is between an honest hypocrite and lying messiah.

[RW Rogers]

Michael, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I was responding to something Ally said, not lecturing you about the words you choose to use. What you write is your business. What I think about it is mine.

[michael Reynolds]

Randy:

Bullshit. (Another word I enjoy.) The point of your statement was quite clearly to suggest that a writer who uses a particular set of words in explaining a position is incapable of analysis.

It was a deliberate insult. It was also faulty logic. If my goal was to impress people with my Roget's polysyllables I'd do that. My goal was to communicate clearly.

That's not to say that the choices a writer makes don't reveal something of his intellectual capacities. But concluding that, because a writer chose "stupid" rather than "incurious," said writer must himself be "incurious," is stupid.