He's been married for a long time to his current wife. They've adopted children, etc., etc. His behavior as a POW, refusing early release so his fellow prisoners could get out sooner... These things speak to his character and the impression people should have of him. Most marriages fail, and for all kinds of reasons. The whole point was that he said what he had to, as little as he had to, and people are going to accept it for what it is - the biggest moral failure of his life.
Yes he has moral/character issues going for him, I was just criticizing something that in my opinion has nothing to do with my party affiliations. I wouldn't necessarily hang the balance of the election on this little discussion we're having. The whole point to me was, that he was very uncomfortable talking about this issue (obviously) and he skirted around it as quickly as he could. Not a bad political move on his part, but somewhat misleading.
The only reason John McCain's marriage failure is coming up is because he's running against a Democrat for the President of the United States, and those who bring it up want to taint McCain's judgment and character. Why even discuss this crap anymore?
He was asked a question, and he didn't fully answer it imo. I'm not bringing up anything or weighing this problem too heavily.
He's already answered this question before. He is quoted as saying that his marriage falling apart was his fault, not the war's, not anyone or anything else. Maybe he thought that he answered the question sufficently enough and didn't have to go into exact detail. Maybe he assumed that everyone in the audience knew that he cheated on his wife. Whatever the case, it's clear that the Democrats are trying to wash their hands of John Edwards and attack John McCain at the same time.
Well my comments are still valid. I'm not psychic though, I have no idea what his intent was. I'm not attacking McCain and then defending Edwards.
Back to the subject at hand... I think both candidates kind of blew the answer to the question about SCOTUS justices. The answers were partisan and predictable. If I were McCain, I would have answered something along the lines of, "I think all the justices are brilliant and we're fortunate to have them, but you can expect my picks to be along the lines of Scalia or Roberts or Alito."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952351194789 No Contest By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT Election '08: Last weekend's McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won't keep his promise to debate McCain "anywhere, anytime." McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big. <hr size="1"> Read More: Election 2008 | Religion <iframe src="http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3?http://podcast.outloudopinion.com/ibd/ibd2.php" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" width="480" frameborder="0" height="30"></iframe> <hr size="1"> It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain "anywhere, anytime." But in June, Obama said no to McCain's challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings. After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.'s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama's Achilles' heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men. "It's one of those situations where the devil is in the details," Obama said at one point. He could have been referring to his own oratorical shortcomings when a teleprompter is unavailable. We learned a lot more about the real Obama at Saddleback than we will next week as he delivers his acceptance speech in Denver before a massive stadium crowd. The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, "in parents who have viciously abused their children." According to the Democrat, we can't really erase evil in the world because "that is God's task." And we have to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil." For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must "defeat" evil. If al-Qaida's placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn't evil, he asked: "You have to tell me what is." Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq's scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who "had his skull fractured" by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay. When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said "drilling" — for reasons of national security and economic need. On taxes, Obama waxed political: "What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code." McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: "I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth." To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience. It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.
I'm kind of disappointed that Obama didn't take up McCain's offer to travel together and do town halls together like Kennedy and Goldwater were supposed to. I personally can't get enough of townhalls or debates, and I think that it would be a sign that things really are changing in politics if the two candidates travel together.
So the author is saying Michelle Obama is going to dictate the military? Obama's answers were like an ink blot test, or word association games. Sometimes he gave the answers that first came to his head, not that he doesn't care about terrorists or is not willing to listen to military leaders. Obama doesn't believe in terrorism because he acknowledges some atrocities around the world? Seemed like a scare tactic on the author's part.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12652.html Nader predicts Obama to pick Clinton Count Ralph Nader as unimpressed by the crop of supposed finalists to be Barack Obama’s running mate. “I don’t think he’s that dumb,” said Nader, commenting on widespread speculation that Obama’s choices are down to Sens. Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, or Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. The smart pick, according to Nader, is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Nader phoned into Politico Tuesday afternoon to offer his prediction that a surprise nod to Clinton is actually what Obama has in store—never mind the talk of mistrust between the Clintons and Obama. “He just has to swallow hard and do what JFK did” in picking rival Lyndon Johnson in 1960, said the liberal activist and maverick presidential candidate. According to Nader’s logic, Obama may dislike Hillary, but will conclude he has no choice but to get over it if he hopes to leave next week’s convention in Denver with a unified party and a decent shot against John McCain in the fall: “The polls show 25 percent of her supporters have not gotten on board.” “He’s got to be very concerned by the [neck-in-neck] polls and by what happened at Saddleback,” added Nader, referring to the recent candidates forum hosted by evangelist Rick Warren. “He got beat in Saddleback—big time.” Nader said his own sources—and, to be blunt, they sound a bit sketchy—lead him to believe that Clinton remains in serious consideration. A friend, he said, recently saw Clinton family intimate Vernon Jordan on Martha’s Vineyard and reported the “usually very effusive” Jordan to be suspiciously “tight-lipped.” Nader said he does not see how Biden, Bayh or Kaine would help Obama politically, and believes the speculation about them is a "smokescreen." If it’s a traditional white male politician Obama is after, Nader offered, the better pick would be former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, who brings national security heft and could put his home state in play. It might be tempting for the Obama partisans to brush off Nader’s freelance handicapping, but dismissing him as a crank is a risk. Many Democrats believe he siphoned votes and cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000. As for his own reading of the vice presidential tarot cards, Nader admitted, “I may have egg on my face in a few days.”
It's a tough choice to make, but I really care about winning so I'm still not completely opposed to the idea.
