If John McCain at the head of the Republican Party wasn't enough to depress party conservatives, Hillary Clinton dethroned as the Queen of the Democrats before she had her maximum impact on Arbitron ratings and direct-mail intakes certainly did so. Barack Obama's wins this weekend were impressive. He swept--Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana, Maine, and points beyond--yes, but he did so in 2-1 fashion in several instances. Bill Clinton certainly can't make inferences regarding the racial composition of the voters of say, Maine or Nebraska, the way he did about South Carolina. Senator Obama has demonstrated an ability to win everywhere. If his momentum leads to another sweep in the DC-Maryland-Virginia primary tomorrow, the pressure will mount on Senator Clinton to end her candidacy.

If Obama becomes the first black president, he will have accomplished the feat by running not as an African American for president, but as an American whose race (that word seems an unscientific relic of a bygone era committed to "scientific" classifications) is incidental to the success of his candidacy. He has been smart to steer clear of the professional African Americans--Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Kweisi Mfume--and run on his appealing personality, opposition to the war, and promise of change. Unlike his internecine opponent, Obama is hard to dislike, which would make for a fall campaign above the nastiness. He speaks in platitudes, but his record speaks liberal. Though his style has trumped his substance in the fight for the nomination, Republicans will expose that liberal record in making the fight for the presidency about substance over style. They will have to, as the septuagenarian McCain's style is no match for the dynamic Mr. Obama's.

I'll be voting for Obama. He is not much worse than McCain on the economy, but is FAR better than him on foreign policy.

Ben, you are such a tool. You measure all politics through the lense of military isolationism. Obama better than McCain on foreign policy? How so? What proof do you have of any of this? Zero. Outside of what he says he stands for, what DOES Obama really stand for and can any of us pretend to know what he'll do if he wins the Presidency?

Yes, a President (gag me) Obama would certainly work to get us out of Iraq or anywhere else where military operations are in play. But it doesn't seem to matter to people like you or most others who are warm and gooey over him that Obama's stated agenda is to sit down for discussions with third world leaders (especially in Africa) and to funnel our money to them to improve their self imposed plight.

What makes you think I am gushy over him? I find them both to be unpalatable at best, and largely to be the same in their views. McCain however is slightly better on the economy, but much worse on foreign affairs. As for your argument regarding that, if making sure foreign aid doesn't get to African countries is a higher foreign policy priority for you than is ending one needless, unnecessary war, and possibly avoiding the beginning another one with Iran, our priorities are different.

I am in no way an isolationist. I support total free trade and interaction between all nations of Earth. Being an internationalist is not about wanting to drop bombs on innocent people, and being an isolationist is not about wanting to avoid doing so.

I have no such priority. And I certainly wouldn’t choose a President on that basis. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that I was not a wild supporter of our incursion into Iraq. But, I wouldn’t base my selection of a President on the possibility that that selection made it a priority to get out of Iraq exclusively.

If I had to choose between placating third world despots and leaving the defenses of the United States open to a political interpretation of “why can’t we all just get along” or choosing someone who is strong on defense I’d likely sway that way.

I would agree that McNuts would take it further.

There is clearly not one good choice in this race. By degree, they all $uck and it’s mildy depressing that we really don’t have a legitimate candidate to choose from. So I haven’t, yet.

But I would question anybody who would put their vote behind a candidate with a very weak political and life record whose admitted purpose is to make the United States all things to all people and who has no clue on how he’d do that.

You say that you wouldn't choose a president based solely on the Iraq/Iran issue. One what other issue is there a substantive difference between McCain and Obama?

"Why can't we all just get along" is certainly preferable to McCain's warmongering, and American foreign policy could use a little injection of it after eight years of a much realer form of isolationism: Aggressive militarism.

I suppose a (conservative) case can be made for voting for Obama, but I don't think it's very strong. If I knew that a President Obama would devote his first years as president to overturning all the terrible things President Bush has done -- war in Iraq, Patriot Act, military Commissions Act, illegal wiretapping, Dept. of Homeland Security, -- then he may win my vote. However, I suspect that Obama's first act as President would be to reverse the Bush tax cuts -- the best thing Bush has done -- and leave everything else in place. We are going to stay in Iraq, the surveillance state will remain robust, and the Patriot Act won't get a scratch.

Obama is likely to reverse the few good things Bush has one -- tax cuts, Supreme Court appointees, -- and leave all the bad things in place. Chances are, he won't get my vote.

Why do you think so?

And McCain is certainly willing to erase Bush's tax cuts. He refused to sign a promise from Americans for Tax Freedom not to raise taxes or impose any new ones.

Eric, those supposed 'terrible' things that Bush did are the only things that protect your a$$ so that you have the ability to get on here and spew your foolish bull$hit.

Absolutely no basis for that in reality asdf, you live in a fantasy land.

Great read on that here: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

There is simply no factual evidence whatsoever to suggest that suicide terrorists attack the USA for any other reason than that we occupy their lands.

Did you happen to notice all of the other things that the Leftist mentioned after the war in Iraq? No. Because you are obsessed by the war in Iraq.

There are bigger things right here in the U.S. that can bite us immediately if we are not vigilant with regard to making sure those who would attack us don't get their chance.

People like Herr Wilds think that the government actually gives a crap what he has to say and that he and his ilk are subject to those things he rails about that are there to protect us.

Anyway, Iraq may or may not be one of those safeguards. But, again, if we left there tomorrow I would be ok with that. But deal with it because I don't believe we’ll be leaving soon. No matter who ends up in the WH.

Whose going to attack us asdf? What other storybook monster will you cook up for your insatiable bloodlust?

Well, nobody I guess. Certainly not Islamist terrorists. What harm could they be?

Obama is definately the guy for you.

Ben,

McCain now says he supports the Bush tax cuts and also his record on on spending is far superior to Obama's. McCain may or may not raise taxes. Obama will raise taxes first chance he gets.

ASDF,

Occupying Iraq with 150,000 troops isn't protecting me or anyone else in this country. The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act are not there to protect Americans, but to give the executive more power. If there was a real terrorist threat out there, then Bush and others wouldn't be so derelict in safeguarding our sovereign borders.

The purpose of the War on Terror isn't to wage war against terror, but to use terror as an excuse to wage war.

Those statements might have meant something on 9/10/01.

Ideas that were good before 9/11 -- liberty, limited government, Constitutional protections -- are still good after 9/11 and bad ideas before 9/11 -- nation building, aggressive wars, granting government unaccountable powers -- are still bad after 9/11.

9/11 isn't an alchemy that transmutes bad ideas into good ones.

So tell me Eric, what freedoms have you lost and how has it affected your life that our government is being more vigilant and more in tune with protecting us against our enemies? Specifically.

Ben,

I misposted above, but will ask here again:

Is SCOTUS of concern to you? Who would more likely propose a pro-Roe nominee? No one has a crystal ball, but one can (should?) play percentages on this.

ASDF,

The foreign policy of the United States since 9/11 has been to wage aggressive wars against nations that do not threaten us. While we did invade Afghanistan, our objective was never to capture Osama bin Laden, but just to replace the Taliban with a "regime" that answers to us. Likewise, in Iraq we invaded a country that did not threaten us, to deprive it of weapons that it did not have, so we can begin the process of building a permanent military presence in the Gulf. Our borders are insecure because the "terrorist" threat is entirely phony.

The government tramples on freedom not when one person's "freedom" has been compromised but when it assumes the power to deprive anyone of certain freedoms. The government does not need a warrant to listen or our phone calls or read our emails if we correspond with someone overseas. So we have no way of knowing if the government has listened to our phone calls or read our email -- and that's because it's acquiring unaccountable power that threatens our liberties.

As expected Herr Wilds, you provided no specific examples of how our government’s newly extended powers to surveil effects you or any other law abiding American citizen. Instead you continue to drone on about illicit wars and nation building.

So it’s clear that if we leave the world alone they’ll leave us alone. Right? Riiigght…..

It’s interesting to me that some people in this country are more afraid of and concerned about what our government is doing with regard to the silent gathering of information that is ultimately designed to protect us, but could care less that foreign governments that sanction beheadings, suicide bombings, political and social oppression and support groups who have sworn death and destruction of the West get a big pass.

I’d rather that my government electronically pick up some chatter between me and my wife discussing what I’ll be ordering for dinner than to get blown up in a subway.

Really??????!!!!

ASDF,

This isn't complicated. Liberty means less government, and bigger government means less liberty. The government isn't assuming expanded powers to protect us from any "threat." Those in the government just want more power and are cynically exploiting 9/11 and "terrorism" as a pretext to arrogate itself more power.

The executive now as the authority to listen to our telephone calls without a warrant and without notifying us. Under President Bush it is now easier to declare martial law and suspend posse commitatus. President Bush can now declare anyone an "enemy combantant" and deprive them of habeas corpus. Do you want to live in a country where our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution? Or do you prefer to live in a country where rights are at the discretion of any aribtrary authority? I want the former, you the latter.

I want a free society where government is hamstrung by a Constitution. You want to rely on the good intentions of politicians not to overly abuse their power.

I object to the war in Iraq because it is all by all criteria a war crime, and those responsible should be held accountable. What's the difference between the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our invasion of Iraq? Both are acts of naked aggression.

"I’d rather that my government electronically pick up some chatter between me and my wife discussing what I’ll be ordering for dinner than to get blown up in a subway."

This is an elementary fallacy -- the false choice. There is no proof that any of the security measures implemented under President Bush has prevented a terrorist attack. In fact, almost all of the terrorist "threats" are phony. Our government is simply using the fear of "terrorism" to wage aggressive war and assume more power.

Conservatives have always unerstood that the greatest threat to liberty comes not from a foreign power, but from our own government.

I realize that it isn’t complicated and, for the most part, I agree with you. I would love the kind of government you noted and in another time that's the kind of government we had. The Founding Fathers understood this but as society and the World has evolved those concepts and the intellectual honesty that begat those concepts have been weakened and in most cases lost.

The difference between what you and what I think is that you look at our government as being stacked with a bunch of evil insidious plutocrats. I’m cynical by nature myself but I don’t think that our political leaders are men who are specifically plotting to strip our freedoms and undermine the Constitution. Necessarily.

Also, I’m pretty sure that GW and his ilk didn’t come into office expecting to have to deal with something like 9/11. Following that tragedy things changed and I’m pretty sure they considered that they were doing the right thing by, among other things, expanding the powers of OUR government to deal with preventing such an incident in the future.

"almost all of the terrorist "threats" are phony". EW

Really? And you know this for sure how?

You have the right ideas Erk but I think your priorities are misguided. Sounds like more of the same 'America bad; World good' to me.

Yes Ben, I am married. And she's a saint for having to deal with me.

"Well, nobody I guess. Certainly not Islamist terrorists. What harm could they be?

Obama is definately the guy for you." - asdf

They attack us. The point is, why? The reason is because we occupy their lands.

"Yes Ben, I am married. And she's a saint for having to deal with me." - asdf

That wasn't me, but I am glad to hear it.

"McCain now says he supports the Bush tax cuts and also his record on on spending is far superior to Obama's. McCain may or may not raise taxes. Obama will raise taxes first chance he gets." - Eric Wilds

Fair enough. But I think increased taxes would be less threatening to both the economy and our liberty than McCain's determination to continue this war and start another one with Iran.

"Is SCOTUS of concern to you? Who would more likely propose a pro-Roe nominee? No one has a crystal ball, but one can (should?) play percentages on this." - Jackson

It is a concern of mine, but the track record of Republican nominations is so horrible that I don't find them, as a party, any more likely than the democrats to nominate conservative judges. Bush II has been good on this issue. Its the only issue he has been good on, really, and he is alone among republican presidents in having been good on it.

Holy smokes Ben, I keep hearing this from you like those crazy terrorist b'stards were somehow justified in attacking us. There was absolutely no justification and there never could be, no matter what, for them to kill 3,000 of our fellow innocent citizens. You are wrong on so many levels, the least of which being that it was a gutless sneak attack by undeclared enemy combatants (can't even call them that) on unsuspecting civilians. This is another example of how skewed your priorities are with regard to this subject.

And, what lands did we occupy? Other than Eastern Europe or South Korea and excluding countries we resided in to do business with or being in countries at their request and invitation, where had we been and what were we doing to deserve what happened?

"Holy smokes Ben, I keep hearing this from you like those crazy terrorist b'stards were somehow justified in attacking us. There was absolutely no justification and there never could be, no matter what, for them to kill 3,000 of our fellow innocent citizens. You are wrong on so many levels, the least of which being that it was a gutless sneak attack by undeclared enemy combatants (can't even call them that) on unsuspecting civilians. This is another example of how skewed your priorities are with regard to this subject." - asdf

To go from "terrorists attacked us because of our foreign policy" to "innocent Americans are to blame for attacking us and terrorists are justified in killing innocents" is a massive leap of logic. But thanks for the slander!

"And, what lands did we occupy? Other than Eastern Europe or South Korea and excluding countries we resided in to do business with or being in countries at their request and invitation, where had we been and what were we doing to deserve what happened?" - asdf

Try Saudi Arabia. Then Afghanistan. Then Iraq.

ASDF,

"The difference between what you and what I think is that you look at our government as being stacked with a bunch of evil insidious plutocrats."

That may be one of our differences, but it's not the most significant. The main difference, as I see it, is that you want to rely on the good graces of our political leaders to protect and insure our freedoms, whereas I want to rely on the division of power and a Constitution that prevents any one person, or one branch of government from accumulating unaccountable power.

"ou have the right ideas Erk but I think your priorities are misguided. Sounds like more of the same 'America bad; World good' to me."

More like: Constitution good; Neocons and politicians bad.

Ben,

"Fair enough. But I think increased taxes would be less threatening to both the economy and our liberty than McCain's determination to continue this war and start another one with Iran."

If I knew that John McCain would embroil us in another war then I would definitely prefer Obama even if it meant a slight upswing in the marginal tax rate.

You need to bone up on your geo-politics Ben. We don't occupy Saudi Arabia. We are invited guests. And it kind of blows your theory that they attacked us because of our middle eastern "occupations" as on 9/10 we occupied no such lands.

Your attitude would have been perfect for Europe in 1939.

Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship which is a client kingdom of ours, kept in power by the presence of our military.

You are of course unconcerned, since you believe that America can do no wrong and mass murder is permissible so long as the victims be Muslims.

World's not a nice place Ben.