Whenever a great sounding “vision” leads to a horrible reality, the vision must be somehow flawed.

“The moral high ground” was lost when the N. Viet commies violated the Paris Peace Accords they signed in 1973. It was lost in 1979 as Iranians took Americans hostage. It was lost in 1991 when Bush followed the UN lead and stopped the US military from overthrowing Saddam, instead asking the Shiites to revolt — which lead to Saddam's helicopters killing thousands.

Well, maybe the moral ground wasn't lost as much as real people were lost and murdered. But moralists, who usually hold a double standard against America, don't care so much about real people. The vision thing is more important.

Whenever a great sounding “vision” leads to a horrible reality, the vision must be somehow flawed.

“The moral high ground” was lost when the N. Viet commies violated the Paris Peace Accords they signed in 1973. It was lost in 1979 as Iranians took Americans hostage. It was lost in 1991 when Bush followed the UN lead and stopped the US military from overthrowing Saddam, instead asking the Shiites to revolt — which lead to Saddam's helicopters killing thousands.

Well, maybe the moral ground wasn't lost as much as real people were lost and murdered. But moralists, who usually hold a double standard against America, don't care so much about real people. The vision thing is more important.

People who admire the shoot-first-and ask-questions-later agpproach will like candidates who embody that, regardless of whether or not there is evidence that it works. The same is true for the reverse.

People who adore Reagan have wiped his shorcomings from theri memores.
People who dislike Carter, remember only his shortcomings, and disregard his visionary ideas.

It's rather wonderful that anyone at all is swayed by clear -eyed analysis.
So much of history, in today's view, is revisionist, one way or the other.

People who admire the shoot-first-and ask-questions-later agpproach will like candidates who embody that, regardless of whether or not there is evidence that it works. The same is true for the reverse.

People who adore Reagan have wiped his shorcomings from theri memores.
People who dislike Carter, remember only his shortcomings, and disregard his visionary ideas.

It's rather wonderful that anyone at all is swayed by clear -eyed analysis.
So much of history, in today's view, is revisionist, one way or the other.

That's what the pro-”peace” (anti-US-success) crowd sees in Obama's anti-war stance as well as his willingness to meet with the government of Iran and Hamas, for example. Decent, normal Americans have serious concerns about this.

And we look oh so strong now with our military crumbling under the weight of the occupation of Iraq.

Advocating for war does not equal strength or smarts.

That's what the pro-”peace” (anti-US-success) crowd sees in Obama's anti-war stance as well as his willingness to meet with the government of Iran and Hamas, for example. Decent, normal Americans have serious concerns about this.

And we look oh so strong now with our military crumbling under the weight of the occupation of Iraq.

Advocating for war does not equal strength or smarts.

That's what the pro-”peace” (anti-US-success) crowd sees in Obama's anti-war stance as well as his willingness to meet with the government of Iran and Hamas, for example. Decent, normal Americans have serious concerns about this.

That's what the pro-”peace” (anti-US-success) crowd sees in Obama's anti-war stance as well as his willingness to meet with the government of Iran and Hamas, for example. Decent, normal Americans have serious concerns about this.

Common knowledge to whom? Not to those of us who are informed. Nobody, anywhere I've been in the USA, considered Kerry strong, much less as good as Bush. The nation was still pro-GOP (pro-security) in 2004 and Kerry was another McGovern. He's a liberal from Massachusetts! That made him instantly alien and offputting. The question was by how much he was likely to lose to Bush in 2004 — it was very likely he would have lost every state but Massachusetts [snicker] that November.

Common knowledge to whom? Not to those of us who are informed. Nobody, anywhere I've been in the USA, considered Kerry strong, much less as good as Bush. The nation was still pro-GOP (pro-security) in 2004 and Kerry was another McGovern. He's a liberal from Massachusetts! That made him instantly alien and offputting. The question was by how much he was likely to lose to Bush in 2004 — it was very likely he would have lost every state but Massachusetts [snicker] that November.

For anyone who supports the war in Iraq and wants to see it continue on, for anyone who feels that the current national economic policies are the best way forward, who wants to see more conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court working towards overturning Roe v. Wade, among other major, generational issues, McCain is an ideal choice.

Bingo! That is it in a nutshell. And anyone who doesn't want all these things but still votes for McCain because their preferred democrat lost the primaries is acting like a 10 year old.

A few problems with the original post. For one, Democratic candidates tend to poll well earlier on, and lose steam as the election becomes closer.

And Bill Clinton? And Kennedy? And FDR? By picking just losing candidates, you're skewing the data.

If Obama is already polling behind McCain, that's a very bad sign.

Statistically he is tied with McCain in just about every poll. The only one outside of the margin of error (The NYTs poll) has Obama winning by ~10 points http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

If Obama is the nominee you can pretty much guess that those numbers will be more skewed because very few Republicans will vote for a candidate that liberal.

What's so liberal about Obama? He seems pretty centrist to me. You perhaps have never heard of Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold, the really liberal Democrats.

Even if the polls overstate all of this, McCain is going to pick up a good number of Democrats, and win the majority of swing voters.

What gives you the impression that he is going to win swing voters?

And if you want to assume McCain is another Bush (which is way to pat in my book) then let's be fair and assume that Obama is another Jimmy Carter.

That'd be fair if you can prove a linkage between what Obama is proposing and what Jimmy Carter did as president. McCain *has* linked himself directly to the policies of Bush. More and permanent tax cuts for the wealthy as the backbone of his economic policy and continued war and aggression in the Middle East for his foreign policy.

Whomever has the better candidate should win, and that would be the GOP.

What does McCain propose that you find so appealing?

I find this amazing. For all the ineffectiveness of Carter's administration (and the difficult times in which he governed), he did not leave the country on the precipice of imploding economically (once the foreign investment keeping our government running squeezes the last drops out of the US financial markets, we're in for more hardship than an hour's wait in a gas-line on odd-numbered days), weakened militarily, or shedding its long-earned national reputation for upholding human rights (having terrorists thumb their noses at you is nothing next to losing the moral high ground to them); nor did he or seek to drive a wedge not only between Americans, but also erect barriers between the branches of government that threatens to render the very idea of separation of powers meaningless.

The fallout from Bush's administration will last generations. The fallout from Carter's lasted two years.

For anyone who supports the war in Iraq and wants to see it continue on, for anyone who feels that the current national economic policies are the best way forward, who wants to see more conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court working towards overturning Roe v. Wade, among other major, generational issues, McCain is an ideal choice. And I don't fault anyone for thinking that. Those are all completely valid points of view held by many Americans. And if you hold them, you would be foolish indeed to vote for Obama over McCain.

But my quetion remains… if you *do* hold those views, why would you have been supporting Senator Clinton in the first place? She has pretty much the exact opposite positions on those issues. None of the candidates are making any secret of what their plans and positions are… you can find them all on their websites or youtube any of their stump speeches.