Damn, it's great to have a candidate who understands that the thing that makes Democrats "look weak" isn't failing to be warlike enough, it's failing to stand up and fight for what you believe in.

We're going up against a party that suffered the greatest national-security failure of our lifetime and tried to duck responsibility for it, and then plunged into possibly the greatest foreign-policy disaster in our country's history, and are still trying to argue that they're the ones who should be trusted on national security!

And....BOOM.

Off topic:
I always say that Sebelius, Webb, Biden, and Hagel could be Obama's VP.

But what if the VP is Gov. Bill Richards.
- - Think about this for a moment, Obama has already named Patti Solis Doyle as the chief of staff for the VP.
- - this would be a very smart tactical move that I think will put Obama over the top with Hispanic support, its at 68% against McCain right now, it'll probably jump to 90%.

that many national Dems were still struggling to persuade themselves that they could win an argument against the GOP on national security.

Oh yeah. Remember that excellent advice about not talking about Iraq??

Good grief. Thank goodness for Ned Lamont, and his primary victory. While he didn't win in November, his primary victory against you-know-who sure gave the Democrats a needed shot of backbone...

BAM!! Gooooobama!!!

It's kind of ironic that McCain accuses Obama of Sepember 10 mindset ... because his mindset is stuck in 1974!

Great post Greg. I love the way Obama just slams back everytime the GOP tries to back him into the old tried and true Demo corners. I noticed the first time Obama did this right after he started focussing on the GE while the primary was going on. He never did this with Senator Clinton when she attacked him I was so whoooeee surprised! And they called him a whuss.

Why do these people lie to me? First they said I had the wrong password, then they said I couldn't submit because I had already submitted too many times and now I have done the damnable doofuss looking double post uggeeeeehhhh.

I think we could also have a "give 'em hell" factor going in this election. Voters who don't even like Democrats or minorities might just be mad enough to vote against Repubicans out of spite. I see no benfit to any Democrat cozying up to the status quo. This is not a year to be Republican-lite.

Obama's campaign is--quite literally--all talk. We'll see whether that's good enough.

He brings nothing to the table in terms of national security. If Bush wants to throw McCain a bone, he'll engineer a little overseas dust-up in late summer. (Does anyone think he's above such tactics?)

Just saying, guys. I have no use for Obama, and I don't think he can win. You true believers can figure it out.

Doesn't this September 10 mentality stuff just seem . . . TIRED? Will it really work with anyone outside the 28% dead-enders choir? Oh, I get it. That's who it's supposed to work with.

Democratic Presidents forced Germany into unconditional surrender twice, and the Japanese Empire also to surrender unconditionally. What is the war record of Republican Presidents. Take a look.

Korea: Republican President Eisenhower settled for a stalemate that has kept our troops pinned down there for the past fifty years.

Vietnam: Republican President Ford fled from the roof tops in a complete "Cut And Run".

Beirut: Republican President Reagan got hundreds of marines blown to smithereens, and then "Cut and Ran" all the way to Grenada, where he staged a wag the dog distraction from his complete surrender to the terrorists in Beirut. Don't hold your breath until there is a huge demand for a war monument to celebrate the Republicans great victory in Grenada, the toy poodle that Reagan claimed had roared.

Republican President Reagan traded arms for hostages with the Iranian Ayatollahs, and lied to the American People about having done so.

I know; some of you are going to mention Blackhawk down. Take a look at who actually send in the Troops to Somalia. Bush One, and he did so after he had already lost his bid for a second term.

Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush, had his ambassador, April Glasby, tell Saddam Hussein that America had no vital interest in Kuwait, as Iraq had it's forces massed for invasion on the Kuwait border. She is on video actually giving Saddam the green light to attack Kuwait. What else does saying "america has no vital interests" mean.

Then, after Margret Thatcher had to give Bush a spinal transplant and tell him "George this is not the time for you to go all wobbly over Iraq's aggression", he did something about it. Of course he then talked the Shiites into rebelling, promising them their liberation, and instead stood by and allowed Saddam to slaughter those that he had urged to rebel. He then left Saddam in power to continue to persecute and slaughter his own people.

Well, you know the final chapter with Republican President George W. Bush, who took a bad situation in Iraq, and made it a hundred times worse, and managed to allow a ragtag bunch of religious fanatics to make the world's greatest military power look powerless and impotent. Of course Bush also did what Iran hoped he would do, and actually created the conditions that let Iran emerge as the strongest power in the region.

Any one who thinks, with the long history of Republican Presidents getting our nation's military humiliated, that the Republicans are actually strong on National Defense has to be a complete Moron.

Obama will give McOld some serious a$$ whooping! This is only mid June and how many times has McBush been on "check mate"? Everyday is like a good game of chess and I loooove Chess!

I saw the McCain 3.am reference too and thought to myself, how will he wake up at 3am when he's downed an Ambien?
If you have ever taken Ambien, you know it knocks you out in less than 10 mins.. ohh, and it causes sleep walking and short memory loss. That is the guy that hopes to answer that 3am call....

I love it that he keeps tying the 9-11 terrorism back the Repugs getting us stuck in Iraq. Keep us on that message.

Don't you see it yet, peeps?

Hillary used all the ammo.

McGoo gave her the key to the powder stash and his blessing, hoping that she'd emerge the victor so that the GOP could trot out their new list of under-reported Clinton lawsuits and scandals and demolish us in November.

Unfortunately for McGoo, it didn't work. As Robert Novak himself has warned the GOP, there ain't no dirt to dig up on this Obama fellow, and any dirt that there was has already been flung.

McGoo got nothin'.

Obama will not be able to distract from his lack of experience and lack of a cohesive anti-terror plan. His entire policy is reactive rather than proactive.

For his part McCain can simply say that he is not Bush. Period. Trying to pin Bush's failures on him is the same as pinning Bill Clinton's failures on Obama. It is a complete disconnect.

And if he is going to indict McCain based on Bush's war then he is also indicting the vast majority of the Democrats too.

Dumb and Dumber. I'm just not sure which is which.

Another point:

While Obama has the moral authority to argue against the war in Iraq, unlike Senator Clinton or anyone else connected to Bill Clinton administration he also has unquestionable voice when he blames the G.O.P for not capturing Bin laden.

Feeling openly proud to be a Democrat, again.

This is the reason why I (and many other early Obamites) wanted Obama to be the nominee -- he has the strongest hand to turn it back on them and say that they got it wrong on the actual fight on terrorism.

I *do* wish he would sharpen the language a lot more and come right out and say "these people who got it so wrong for so long should not be lecturing me on how to fight terrorism", and, "if we do not uphold the constitution, then what is it that we are fighting for?" -- he used all these words, but in that infuriatingly obtuse Dem way, sigh...

This is what the Repubs do when they have nothing to say.
Excellent response by Barack.

Although I admire Hagel for standing up to the kooks in his party, but I don't want him as VP.

It makes my heart flutter to hear these timely counterattacks coming from a Dem.

He [Obama] brings nothing to the table in terms of national security.

There's truth in what you say, though I wouldn't go as far as saying nothing.  I think, though, that a lot of people will come around to looking at it this way....

With BigO, they're looking at someone who talks sense.  He gives the impression that he'll be able to figure out anything he has to deal with and act responsibly.

With McSame, they're seeing someone who has been trying to figure this out for a long time and has shown he can't.  He's been flip-flopping all over the place and blathering a lot of nonsense.

A lot of people are going to choose a likely winner over a sure loser.

In response to why the Dems always get the "weak on national defense" card, as far as I can tell, it stems from Truman "losing China" to Communism. Historically, that is where the accusations started and it has been an uphill climb since. And our leftist forefathers basically fell for it- which explains Truman in Korea and Kennedy and LBJ in Vietnam- thank God Kennedy was able to rein in the military over Cuba though.

While I'm no fan of the GOP, the blame for 9/11 is at least a shared responsibility. Had Bill not been so distracted receiving hummers in the White House, his administration probably would have been a little more proactive against terrorism. It's not like the 9/11 plan was hatched a few months prior to its execution.

Okay, I like that it is better than Kerry, and there is welcome confidence. Still this sounds defensive to me:

"I don't shy away from it."

I ain't no pro, nohow, but I would like him to be saying things more like:

"They have a lot to answer for as to these failures, and the American people know it. Voters have a real opportunity to hold the architects and supporters of these disastrous policies accountable."

By the way, what is the problem in the summer and fall of 2008 with reminding the public that Condoleeza Rice got a warning of 9/11 in the August intel reporting and ignored it. Somehow that has always seemed impolitic to mention, in some twisted way. Or that the Clinton people told them that terrorism was their top priority and they just chuckled and pursued their crackpot missile defense and porn issues. Or that George Tenet told them in June and July 2001 that the board was blinking red and they were in for real danger, and that Condie and company blithely let that go by, even when it was reinforced by the August intel report? Not to mention the countless terrorisim studies that showed that the WTC was a prime target/the prime target. Is this ugly sequence still somehow gauche to bring up?