You know what else is fair game? Your associations with known pedophiles. And with lots of blondes of a certain tender age.

Obama won't go there.

but I will.

Furthermore, if we're going there - what is with that wife? When is the last time her face moved? I haven't seen it move once in many years.

McCain is just like Hillary, just without the testicles.

Seems everyone likes Obama. Springsteen. Hamas. I'm still waiting for the election eve headline "OSAMA ENDORSES OBAMA".

I really do have to admire the unmitigated gall of Hari Sevugan (weird names those Obama folk have), who accuses McCain of making claims he knows not to be true, when Obama has already set the bar for shit-faced lying way higher than poor old John McCain could ever hope to reach. Lying is, after all, a young man's game.

If McCain's campaign keeps this stuff up, he will be crushed in the general election like an empty can of discount beer.

This follows his abandonment of a principled opposition to torture, by a man who ought to know what torture is.

This follows his embrace of Bush and Cheney after the sliming of he and his family by them during the last election, just to be able run for president. He sold his soul in both cases in exchange for ambition.

This follows his promise that this campaign would be different. Because he was different.

Well, he's not.

He's too old, and I believe now that he's unfit to serve on moral grounds.

He and the knuckle-draggers around him, think that they can win by painting Obama as a terrorist or a sympathizer with terrorists, or as a neophyte or as whatever other negative sterotype -- angry black man? someone who wants to enslave the white race? -- that their pinhead minds can come up with. He's none of these, and they know it. And because they know it and do it anyway, that makes McCain a liar and dishonors his father and grandfather's patriotic service, and his own.

Shame will be his legacy. He's turning into a joke.

And then the borderline psychos that are now flooding these boards with as agent provacateurs start showing up. Coincidence? Probably not. Some are mentally ill and feel they've been given a permission slip to let their little secret Gollum selves slip out to play. Some are probably paid agents of one of the other campaigns, simply sent to stir up trouble and divert us from bigger issues.

I just don't think the GOP's worst is all that bad any more. Oh, sure, they can be nasty, but what more can they do to us than they've already done? They've already ruined the country. Fuck 'em.

Send in the clowns. We have seen this act before.

McCain is turning into a giant disappointment and caricature of a man who sold his honor and now only attracts those who, likewise, have none.

It's really sad. I used to like him. But he's pissed it all away. For nothing.

I beg to differ, there is nothing uncivil about pointing out character, words, actions, and associations. These are very pertinent and legit topics of discussion as they go to the heart of defining the candidate. Uncivil is to whine and cry about inconvenient quesitons and lobbing accusations and insults of racism and all.

Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com

Obama's response should be:

"Well I could care less what Hamas thinks. My foreign policy is based on what is best for the American people, not based on what Hamas or Al Qaeda or any of these other groups think.

And I have to say, I hear Republicans saying things like "if we pull out of Iraq then Al Qaeda will be dancing in the streets". But we can't base our foreign policy on wether it makes some of our enemies happy or not. That's the type of emotion-based policy making that led to the disastrous war in Iraq in the first place. You know, in my 2002 speech I said that I was against going to war with Iraq because it was based on passion and not on reason. And history has shown that going to war in Iraq was one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in the nation's history.

So this is my pledge to the American people: I will rely on sound intelligence, sound analysis, and sound judgement to do what is in our country's best interests. And I will not let our nation's policies be swayed by the passions of the moment or by the ideological thinking that got us into trouble in Iraq in the first place."

Ayers is NOT a terrorist. He was pardoned of any wrongdoing by Bill Clinton, and he is a distinguished and well-respected Law professor at U of Chicago. What about Rev Hagee, who yet again this week said that God brought about Katrina to "punish New Orleans for a gay pride parade scheduled for the next day"?

Bring it on scumbag.

So we're supposed to pick our President on the basis of what Hamas thinks?

That doesn't sound like a very good plan to me.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. Based on McCain's logic Reagan should never have been president.

The I guess someone should question McCain about his support of Reagan, whether McCain believes Reagan was a racist and anti-Semite and whether or not McCain himself, by virtue of supporting Reagan, is a racist and anti-Semite.

Or maybe it's just that the Klan, Reagan and McCain are all close enough in their thinking that they can live with each other.

If he opened this can of shit he should be forced to eat it himself.

If that's what McCain calls an endorsement, then what does he call the support statements he's gotten from known hate-pushers Hagee and Parsley?

And people said Hillary was negative.......

Hamas probably doesn't want McCain or Clinton. Given Hamas' tries to Iran and Iran's heavy Shitte make up . . .

The son of Laden and Al Qeda would both love and crave McCain of the 'Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran' and Clinton of the o-blithering Iran fame (Although McCain's rapidly deteriating mind keeps juxtapositioning Sunni and Shia so they may love Her Royale Crownship a bit more).

Obama's prmary reltionship to Muslims is through his childhood exposure to their more rational day-in days-out culture. It is my guess that fanatics from both ends of the Muslim spectrum have issue to the potential reasonable reactions that Obama is more likely to put forth.

Hmmm......

If it's OK now to lie and link Obama to terrorists, simply because his name sounds somewhat like that of binLaden, then it is OK to lie about McCain's captivity in Hanoi during the Vietnam conflict and say that he WILLINGLY sold out the USA when he wrote his 'confession' and was filmed reading it.

Right? If they're gonna sling the mud, it's time to mud-wrestle.

And, after all these years, what's to say it might not possible be true? Sorta like the Weather Underground guy--How could Obama have approved or disapproved of their actions, as he was only a kid at the time?

I'm getting disgusted to the point of fighting back......

Obama need to hit back by saying Have you no decency? He needs to show him how dishonest this man is. I mean it will get ugly but we cannot get discouraged.

If you continue voting for Republicans like McCain, you are voting for more war, less jobs, and more lies.

Your choice. You want that...go ahead and vote for McCain, ya dipshits.

Association...As long as McCaine has been in Congress...I assure you he has associated with more Terrorists...than Obama can ever dream of!

I'm beginning to think that McCain and Clinton are working together. He wins in 2008 and she gets it in 2012. She can't go as negative in North Carolina so McCain takes over. I also think the GOP is financing her campaign now. I'm worried about operation chaos in N. Carolina. I think Hillary is counting on the Republicans to help her there so she can claim "the biggest upset in decades." And it will all be bogus, but the media will jump on it.

Don't think 2004. Think 1988 here. Remember Willie Horton? Remember flag burning amendment? Remember Dukakis riding around in a tank?

Hi there everyone,
First time commenter here. I am an Aussie who is fascinated by the political proccess in your country. It has all the good bits of a soap opera, and by all accounts, the bad bits as well....phony acting, poor scripts, overpaid actors etc. I have been following the show for almost a year now, and I am reasonably informed about things. I am just wondering why Obama hasn't started attacking McCain now. Surely he is the presumptive candidate now, at least in the sense that its not polite to kick a person in the behind while you push them out the door (Hillary). Short of holding a gun to the super dooper delegate's heads and threatening to pull the figurative trigger, Billary has no chance of becoming the nominee without subverting the will of the voters. Obama strikes me as a decent guy, and I dont mind that he hasn't been marinated in the grease that keeps Washington going, I consider that to be a good thing. I hear the argument all the time that he hasn't got the experience to run and win and be the prez, but all I can answer to that is a maniacal wordless finger point at the current buffoon holding vourt in the White House and wonder...'isn't that what you get when you put a politician in the job?' The very fact that I haven't seen much muck raking of McCain....is that a sign that the dems are waiting for the general to start slinging, or has everything that could have been thrown at him (and that stuck like you know what) been slung by Bush last time McCain tried to get the nom from GB junior? I know when I watch a fight on Tv, I expect a trading of blows, from one fighter to another instead of what I am seeing now. Obama standing in the ring, holding up a two finger piece sign and smiling, getting cracked from the front by McCain, and then garotted by Hillary in his corner. Isn't she just doing to him what the conservatives are going to do in the general? Love the website too by the way. Keeps me busy for hours. Would love to chat with anyone who wants to chat about the election.

After reading Daniel Leavy's post here on TPM on the Syria-Israel peace negotiations being derailed by the Bush WH backing Obama makes some sense! After all the whole world is waiting for the present administration to leave office and perhaps the leaders of Hamas see the best possibility for peace in the middle east is Obama. The longer Hillery runs the more she looks like more of the same old same old, besides McCain looks more out of touch with reality the more he opens his pie hole!
To tell the truth I'm not impressed with anyone running.

My statement to McCain instead of talking about Hamas, I would like to know why he refused to support the troops. The Media should be ashame to allow McCain to change the subjectt, it has not even been mention that McCain voted against the last bill that would have provided more funds for our troops and their families instead they chose to talk about Hamas, a group that has more to do with Israel than America--what is going on here

Cut and Past the Video below from Fort Braggs:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1111

What I find most offensive here is the last sentence in the first paragraph of Eric's post: "..an indication that McCain intends to honor his promise of a 'civil' campaign more in the breach than in the observance."

Eric, a while back John McCain promised to run a civil campaign, and Obama responded with the same promise. And as you should know, Obama was the first to break this "civility treaty" by blatantly lying about McCain's "100 years" comment. That Obama lied is an established fact, supported by impartial fact checkers, and even pro-Obama columnists such as Frank Rich, as well as simple English grammar and sentence construction. McCain obviously felt that Obama was not a man of his word. As he said in his Feb. 2006 letter to Obama during the lobby reform work in the senate: "I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again."

So much for Obama's promise of a "civil campaign", huh? And still, even now as McCain is raising this issue of the Hamas endorsement, he is stating simple facts, i.e. that Hamas wants Obama to win. McCain isn't lying about it. Furthermore, he isn't "tying" or "linking" Obama to Hamas, he is simply asking why Hamas would want Obama to win. It is not entirely unlike asking why the Nazi Germans might have wanted a particular candidate to win a U.S. election.

There's some interesting news out this weekend.

Josef Goebbels has been found, alive, in a remote Argentine village. Interviewed by a local TV news station, Goebbels said that he had been following the American election and that he supported John McCain. Asked why, he said:

"Vell, its just that the Republicans haf been able to engineer a more perfect blend of corporate und government power than we ever could. These endless wars of conquest are ideal for consolidating more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer, and in feeding the industrialists and corporate interests who depend on war profits so much.

"I am in awe of zee whole operation. Ve tried to do something pretty similar, but Hitler was just a little too greedy and impatient, you know? If he'd been willing to go a little slower with the whole 'conquest of the world' thing, we'd have been able to take over much more easily, especially if we'd used the modern advertising and propaganda methods you have now.

"Ach, ja. McCain is the right man."

McCain's campaign, when asked whether they had sought Goebbels' endorsement, said that they had not.

"Don't you want to ask me about Obama and Hamas?" the spokesman stammered, grasping the reporter's lapels?

If the voters allow themselves to be fooled by this kind of sleazy GOP scaremongering and slander, then they will get exactly the president they deserve.

Once again.

McCain and Bin Laden have the same vision for America:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/john-mccain-gra.html

Can John McCain have it both ways -- respectable and cheesy at once!

If McCain thinks that associating Obama with terrorists is fair game, then maybe it's OK to associate McCain with the Communists of North Vietnam.

I mean, maybe McCain decided to not finish his tour of duty and return to the good old USA and instead, he chose to hang out with his commie buddies in a Hilton Hotel in Hanoi.

Oh. I guess that's just as stupid as what McCain is saying.

Isn't spreading a scary misconception like "Obama's buddys are terrorists" terrorism anyway?
Terrorizing people into being too scared to vote Obama?
So who's a terrorist/terrorising now?
Man now thats ironic.

Hitler liked dogs. McCain owns two dogs. Therefore, McCain is an anti-Semite!

Ahmad Yousef, the chief political advisor to the leader of Hamas, said: "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Too bad Hamas doesn't have any superdelegates, isn't it?

John McCain observed: "I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States...I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’ worst nightmare."

McCain said it's clear who Hamas wants to win. He didn't say Obama is tied to Hamas, or linked to Hamas, or associated with Hamas. It's the Obamabots that are using those words. Apparently they never learned how to go out and research information for themselves, which seems to greatly belie their reputation of being "well-educated".

Obama didn't ask for Hamas to approve of him. John McCain is pretty silly about this. How will he defend himself if next week we find out that Osam Bin Laden prefers McCain. It gives way too much power to anybody who wants to influence American elections. A candidate can chose who they ask to endorse them (i.e. when McCain asked for approval from Hagee the great hater of gays and Catholics and all things different than him), but they can't control all words of everyone in the world and it's ridiculous to suppose that they can or should.