http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02…

In the 4th quarter of 2007, individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services the No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, contributing industries, respectively. War opponent Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received the most from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Another war opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was second with about $94,000.

I also believe troops on a military base re-elected Walter Jones after he became a vocal critic of the war.

Some in the Dems' left wing and to the left of _them_ actually believe the “answer” is to be even more cowardly and weak toward our enemies. (Some of them also seem to believe that we can actually buy the goodwill of everyone who hates us out of envy or for worse reasons.)

You should make an enemy's list on which you include the name of the country, it's GPD per Capita, the size of it's military and most importantly the reason why it's an enemy

No one, at this point, can or ought make campaign promises on the souls of these soldiers' children and mates who are additional ones who have suffered so much already. Most people, including candidates, have no idea. No idea.

The military way, as those of you who have served or had family members serve, is to keep it all among the initiated and say Yes Sir or Yes Ma'am to whatever one is ordered to do, including endangering oneself to squire/ protect civilian politicos or even old soldiers' crass exploitation of working soldiers who are in a life and death war.

Perhaps the time comes for us to speak out and say to the pols, Stay home and let the soldiers do their work they've been egregious sent into, voted into by some, and by some who were not yet Senators, voted for funds to sustain the war… but not enough money to properly outfit the soldiers, nor care for them during or after. There's a huge difference between the two. All I ask is have some mercy. Some decency on how others must live in Iraq, while pols come back home to live like Croesus before Cyrus
dr.e.

Some in the Dems' left wing and to the left of _them_ actually believe the “answer” is to be even more cowardly and weak toward our enemies. (Some of them also seem to believe that we can actually buy the goodwill of everyone who hates us out of envy or for worse reasons.)

DLS, let us know when you're done bleating.

I always found Bush's fly in-fly out trips to be more poltical than morale building.
I also rememeber McCain telling CNN from Baghdad how safe it was, just as a rocket whizzed by.
What do congressional groups learn in Iraq's Green Zone that they can't learn by other means?
These are more in the nature of photo-ops than real fact finding missions.

Now, if they spend time speaking to soldiers off-camera, I give them gold stars.
Otherwise, not so much.

By goading Obama, McCain is making it pretty impossible to suddenly make such a trip without seeming to validate McCain's initial charges or jumping when McCain ays jump/.
it's not the first or only trap McCain has tried to set for him.
Obama has been smart, so far, to avoid the traps, and that's what he is doing in this case, as well.
He has to be his own man and not walk on a leash controlled by others.
I would call that presidential behavior.

BTW, It someone is leaning to voting for Barr, I don't understand what he would find alluring about Obama in the rirst plac.e Obama is proactive about every domestic issue. Libertarians are largely the opposite, concentrating on personal freeddoms without much care for conditions in the nation as a whole. Except for the war, I don't see anything much in common as to a world view or governmental responsibilities.

I realize that, much to our discredit, politics is played by the rules of charades.
If McCian flies to Baghdad and the Green Zone ten times, that still doesn't amount to supporitng the troops as much as his vote on the GI bill would. do.

In fact after the visit I anticipate Obama ads featuring him addressing throngs of wildly cheering soldiers.

No advance team is required Jazz. Have you read the polls on the military's attitude toward the ongoing war?

Just ensure that the army knows attendance at any Obama rally is voluntary. He'll draw crowds. Trust me.

I've spent absolutely no amount of time on military bases, though, so let me ask this: are you really saying that an audience of active-duty troops is likely to act in such a way as to embarrass a visiting US Senator running for president?

I've got five years active duty behind me and I can tell you, not in my day.

I've spent absolutely no amount of time on military bases, though, so let me ask this: are you really saying that an audience of active-duty troops is likely to act in such a way as to embarrass a visiting US Senator running for president? Because, you know what; THAT really would be a shame.

Jazz, I agree with you, in that today's technology allows for multiple video conferences to occur. These do not receive the same media attention – nor do they have the same weight in average Americans' minds – as those meetings conducted in person. Some Americans have come to believe that the President hasn't been as involved in the process as they would prefer; by having a candidate portray themselves as willing to go to lengths further than the President, said Americans might come out with a more positive outlook for that candidate.

I also respect your viewpoint as a veteran, as you have more experience in those shoes than I most likely will for my lifetime. If Obama is able to surround himself with representatives from the armed forces who give him the strong, open, support in his stated decision to leave Iraq, then I will also be (pleasantly) surprised. I don't discount it as a possibility, however.

As an aside, I will be glad when the role of President isn't kept on such a high pedestal that we expect perfection from our candidates. I imagine that, due to the last seven years, Americans are wanting someone of a higher caliber than our current administration has to offer. The extent which both remaining candidates are being hounded for the most minute actual or hypothetical errors, however, is a wee bit much for my taste. The country's image and strengths have so much more contributing to them than just one human being.

Edit: My reference to “the above” meant the original opinion, not the comment that Jazz posted while I was typing .

As to the original post, I doubt there's much there there. I don't know if I've seen polls of active military, but I seem to recall reading that military families and vets are currently favoring Obama.

And after he would be in the White House?

It's as if Obama is relying on having more Teflon than Reagan or even Bush could have been claimed to have, aided by a lapdog liberal media, and counting on the widespread dissatisfaction with the GOP (as demonstrated in the 2006 elections) to get him past anything. Oh, that, and a well-timed sound bite or smile. That's what really matters to his biggest fans, it seems.

I do not believe he is overconfident (a fatal mistake) or reckless. He still looks set to win (if not greatly, then at least he will prevail) over “survivor” McCain.

Some in the Dems' left wing and to the left of _them_ actually believe the “answer” is to be even more cowardly and weak toward our enemies. (Some of them also seem to believe that we can actually buy the goodwill of everyone who hates us out of envy or for worse reasons.)

In some areas they have been brilliant. The strategy for calculating primary states, not just on the STATE level, but hitting the right districts with the right language to pull off mathematical wins was very well done. But the day to day training of the candidate (and his wife.. more on that later) has been woefully lacking, IMHO.

From the “bitter guns and God” comment to the inexcusable way that the Trinity church matter was handled, it's been almost painful to watch. And it's not just Obama. If that team has a lick of sense, somebody needs to get a muzzle on his wife until she can learn some of the hard nuts and bolts of the campaign trail. Observe Cindy McCain. Such a promising target with her background! Yet on the rare occasions you see her speak, it's always short, well scripted comments that support her husband's campaign and leave no damage behind.

A lot of this is being handled in an amateur fashion, and what should (in my opinion) be such a promising and positive campaign is being handed to wolves as red meat on far too many occasions. It's going to be a tough slog no matter how you look at it, but the Obama team isn't making it any easier on themselves.

I'd hold off on your criticism while this story develops. Obama may indeed do a Bush-style trip, with photo ops limited to a few top officials and an orchestrated meeting with Obama-supporting troops. You underestimate the man if you think he'll have booing Marines at his photo op. And I agree with Chris that there are likely many serving (multiple tours) in Iraq who will cheer the candidate who wants to say, “you're coming home, and we're going to let Maliki know he has to step up sooner rather than later.”