New Yorker Obama Cover

Great. All the anti-Obama wack jobs who really believe he and his wife are terrorists will fail to see that the cover is actually satirizing THEM for believing the distortions.

Of course it's offensive and tasteless (to some). That's kind of the point, isn't it? To sell more magazines?

Those right-wingers at the New Yorkers are doing exactly what we knew they would!!

I bet they will wait till Sept. for the Saint Obama cover....

A retarded magazine ... Only the Hersh articles are worthwhile IMHO.

Call me nuts (Jessie), but I find THIS much more offensive for someone who want to be the President of the United State.

Prof - to each his own. I consider myself a very patriotic person and I while I always remove my hat and show quiet respect, refuse to put my hand on my chest. Maybe it's the fact that I was ordered to do so for many years. Even as a kid it gave me the creeps. Seems about 2 steps away from a Nazi salute or some other ritual I want no part of. I admit he looks a little goofy but I have no problem with it. When your test as to whose a patriot and real American boils down to the level of whose wearing a lapel on their coat, god help all of us.

Not to mention that particular rendition is such a botch up of the anthem, it could actually be considered unpatriotic to recognize it as such.

Just the image of the flag burning offends me. If the plan is to sell magazines its backfired as far as I can tell - I'll never read that rag again.

The burning of our flag, whether satiric or not, is and should always be offensive.

Not placing your hand over your heart is also offensive to me.

Not wanting to wear a lapel pin while activing pursuing the presedential nomination...Offensive.

When things got rocky during the campaign, then deciding to wear the lapel pin.....even more offensive.

Look. The truth is when you're running for anything, appearances matter. (So no one cares whether mets, prof, or jersey puts his or her hand over their heart.)

Here, I just cannot believe my eyes. Perhaps it was because this came about at the same time the little profs pre-school class was learning the National Anthem and putting their hands over their hearts.

I thought, wow, the little ones are learning about the symbols of this great land, yet someone who wants to be President cannot do what a 4-year-old is asked? C'mon.....

Is this the only reason why I don't like Obama? No.

But it is instructive as to the kinda guy he is.

Watch it again. Doesn't it seem creepy?

It does to me.

This is a riot, I cant wait for the McCain version. I guess they will be shown to be either Adam and Eve or Sonny and Cher.

It's offensive to others that so many people make such an issue of things like lapel pins, if you want to wear one fine. That doesn't mean someone who doesn't isn't a patriot. It's like all those magnetized support the troops ribbons on cars. Do those people actually do anything like write letters, send care packages?

I agree, jerseygurl. Lapel pins and troop ribbons are nothing more than eye candy. I've listened to enough Obama speeches to know by now that his patriotism is above reproach.

Jerseygirl, Anyone can have their own beliefs as to what is proper or not.
The fact of the matter is that if you are running for president of the USA, or any other organization, union, social club, etc. you should not find it invasive of your rights of expression to wear the insignia of the organization.

He doesn't HAVE to wear the pin, but we don't HAVE to vote for him either.

It is obvious that someone explained that to him, that is why we see it on him every day now.

I always put my hand over my heart when I'm burning a flag.

Lapel pins, the Pledge of Allegiance, and loving your country does not make you a patriot. Defending your country and upholding the constitution does. Uniform not required.

I think the cover is funny, and I think it's meant to be funny.
As for whether a candidate is "patriotic," the majority of voters do little to discover what the candidates truly stand for. Most voters are very lazy and get caught up in looking to see whether candidates wear a stupid lapel pin or whether they have their hand on their heart because it doesn't take any time to do that. Voters should be looking to the non-mainstream media and should spend time doing a little research to find out who the candidates really are.

The New Yorker cover will just add more fuel to the already absurd fire even though they mean it to be satirical.

As for flag lapel pins, come on! Did Kennedy wear one? Did Nixon? I don't even think Reagan did? This is a new development where politicians have to go around wearing something to show their patriotism! I'd much rather Obama had showed his patriotism defending the Constitution by voting against FISA rather than caring whether he wears a flag pin.

As for the hand over heart thing - I didn't even know you were supposed to put your hand over your heart during the national anthem until not that long ago. During the Pledge of Allegiance, yes. But I sincerely did not know. If he didn't stand up during it, that would be different. But to me it should be a personal choice whether one does this or not.

Ironic that the Barack Obama EXPOSED link is the top Google ad targeted for this story (see ad column to the right).

Along with "Hot Montclair Singles," of course. Thank God there's something solid to cling to in these times of
change.

All the anti-Obama wack jobs who really believe he and his wife are terrorists will fail to see that the cover is actually satirizing THEM for believing the distortions.

Perhaps the magazine is just trying to extend its readership. Studies show the anti-Obama-wack-job demographic is highly desirable, with an average yearly family income of more than $400k.

Pins are not required, but refusing to wear them is the offensive part.

Citigal, I'm with you on all counts.

At least the cover got some people talking and thinking, which I think is supposed to be the point of the exercise.

realistic wrote:
> Not wanting to wear a lapel pin while activing pursuing the presedential nomination...Offensive.

Interesting statement. Lapel pins have been always used as a means of identification to a group.
How the american public perceives it as a metric of patriotism of the wearer is beyond me. That something the Bushies created after in the panic of 9/11 and after.
Whats really sad is the implicit connotation that non lapel-pin wearer are not real Americans suitable to hold office.

Sad .. Sad .. Sad...

The New Yorker is going to piss off/ loose readers over this one....no doubt about that.

Lapel pins?...in the year 2008?....lame

I must say: I do find spelling presidential as "presedential" offensive, too. (hee hee hee)

PRCalm,
Welcome aboard.

What is really sad is that you are attempting to make light of the fact that a presidential candidate went out of his way to make a point that he will not wear an American Flag lapel pin.

When he received a little criticism about it, he wears it every day. I'm sure the Bushies, as you call them, did not make him do that.

I actually had more respect for him when he stood behind his decision. Now he jelly-backed his way into wearing one and I respect him less for it.

Whether he is a patriot or not is not my issue. It is the attempt to make a stand against the country you are trying to represent.

PW: The real travesty in that video you posted was the vocal rendition of the national anthem. Good Lord.

I found it interesting that the camera panned away from Obama when he started singing along with the anthem. What, he wasn't playing along with the supposed 'non-patriotic' agenda nicely enough for the videographer?

The whole point of the cover is to tweak all of us Conservatives because the magazine wants people to think that's how we envision B.Hussein Obama aka Lord Obama

Realistic, he started wearing the pin precisely because the Republicans and people opposed to his candidacy made such a huge issue out of it. It's a pin, and not wearing one did not have any meaning until all the hype. Period. We should really spend more time and energy learning more about the candidates, the issues and their positions on those issues. Here we are discussing a pin rather than Obama's position on volunteerism.

Why don't you discuss the fact that he will not stand strong behind his decision.

If he changes his mind every time the Republicans oppose what he does, then the Democrats have a bigger problem than the media lets us see.

I really have to question the judgement of anyone making their choice for anything based on lapel pins. It's kind of like choosing your doctor by the magazines in the waiting room. But it really doesn't matter much. Anyone who claims they won't vote for Obama because of lapel pins and pledges was never going to vote for him in the first place. Sad.

Realistic - the discussion is precisely about why he changed his mind. Devoting so much dialogue to a pin was not worth it so he put it on and now the dialogue should be focused back onto the issues but clearly people who don't like him can't get over the "pin". If it weren't so sad it would be ridiculous.

The Soviets were big on lapel pins. So are the North Koreans. Is this the kind of example we want to follow?

People do think that was about him Ice. My stepmother came back from Florida in shock of the opinions of other retires in the Jewish community who all think if Obama wins he's going to kill them. Yes ? you read that right! People in my office are just as bad with veiled racism. I don?t care who anyone votes for but at least take the effort to make an educated decision and not base it on the Daily Show, memories of Nuremberg or sound bites from Fox news. This is one interesting election year.

I kind of enjoyed The New Yorker cover (same artist, I believe) that showed the red phone ringing in the white house at 3:00 am and both Obama and Hillary were reaching for it. From the same bed, of course...

Jerseygurl,

I understand you want to defend his decision to do what makes Republicans happy, but you are missing the point. If he made the bold decision not to do something, whether it is something as small as a lapel pin, or to drape himself in a flag, he shouldn't abandon his beliefs to avoid controversy.
I will not keep beating this dead horse. I promise.
Thank you for listening.

monongahela, you win today's prize for hitting the proverbial nail on the proverbial head. Seeing all of the apparatchiks in our country wearing flag lapel pins always reminds me of the Soviet leaders overseeing a parade. Jingoism lives!

Realistic, I fear you have missed the point. To not wear something is not exactly a "bold decision" unless you're talking about pants and underwear. That's the point. He didn't flip flop - he just decided he might as well put the freakin' pin on since people were making a stink about it.

How on earth is the wearing, or not wearing, of a lapel pin a "bold" decision? Holy schmokes!

You brought up flip flopping, not me.

It is so easy to find an image of anyone that looks questionable. The Obama YouTube clip was not the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, it was the STAR SPANGLED BANNER - and if I recall - you just sing it with pride! Go to a Yankees game and berate all of the fans that stand without their hand on their heart. I bet it is well over 75% of them.

I guess the Bush administration shows its patriotism by draping the coffins of our fallen soldiers with an American flag.

I will voting for people who I feel best represent the direction my town, county, state, and country should be going. We have too many dangling issues that are making my family's quality of life more challenging to balance. Everyone should remember WHY we vote as opposed to WHO the MSM tells us to vote for!

I thought the cover was funny (and it was a satire). That said, Obama is my guy (and I'm Jewish, and my parents and their friends -- all Florida Jews are voting for him). Also, as a longtime PR pro I will gander that the New Yorker will gain readers (many I hope. Love that magazine!) because of this cover. Still, I can understand why some folks might be offended by it. I don't care whether Obama wears a flag pin or not. I do care that he gets elected and somehow helps to get our great country out of the terrible mess that we're in (because of you know who).

The cover is ugly.

It looks more like Mad magazine than the New Yorker.

Mets2008, do you really have any recollection of what constituted a "Sieg Heil" until 1945? I much doubt it. You might try watching Visconti's "The Damned" some day for pointers.

Jerseygurl, you simply sound as wrongheadedly stuffed full of yourself as ever. Which brings me to ask, did you at least buy a "buddy poppy" or something similar at a supermarket or a red light this past May?

Jayonyx, the honored (and quite honorable) custom of draping a returned soldier's coffin with an American flag predates the Bush administration. By something like 150 years. So save for your emotional miserliness for something else, yes?

The cover was fine, too. That so many refuse to acknowledge the artist's use of irony merely indicates to me, sort of, what hath the narrowmindedness of the likes of laserboy truly wrought round baristaville.

You've put your finger on it, Liz.

"I do care that he gets elected and somehow helps to get our great country out of the terrible mess that we're in (because of you know who)."

Lord Voldemort?

The New Yorker has pushed the envelope before; this is not the first time.

Obama scares me. Not sure why. Perhaps it's his cold stare, his glibness. There's a bit of the narcissist in him. I don't like his stand on taxes, specifically capital gains taxes. He also seems to think that he can singlehandedly fix the mess in Iraq. Good luck.

Perhaps what scares you, Mrs. M., is his electability.

Mrs. M -- what scares me is another 4 years of a Republican in the White House.

I've been scared for the past 7-1/2 years. Don't worry, you kinda get used to it.

Oh brother.

What doesn't scare me about Obama is that he is not a Republican.

monongahela wrote:

> The Soviets were big on lapel pins. So are the North Koreans. Is this the kind of example we want to follow?

Exactly, any authoritarian regime needs a focal point beyond a simple flag to define themselves and to justify their un-popular 'deciderations'.

Cathar,
Your cynicism is misguided and unwarranted. I was a Naval Officer during the first Gulf War. If you want to talk history...lets go. I am first hand - are you? I am very patriotic to the constitution and what it represents.
As an American, I have a right to speak against what I feel is wrong for this country. MSM doesn't spend enough time talking about the war and those who are affected. They WILL show the feel good stories but not the ones that show the hells of the fight. There are faces and stories behind every name that is placed in the Iraqi Freedom Obituary. Let's not forget that!

I was not posting a comment to get into a fight with my neighbors, all I am concerned about is gaining back our constitution and bringing our troops home.

"wrongheadedly stuffed full of yourself as ever"

And pot calls kettle black yet again....

Jayonyx, the honored (and quite honorable) custom of draping a returned soldier's coffin with an American flag predates the Bush administration. By something like 150 years. So save for your emotional miserliness for something else, yes?

But what does date as occuring during this administration is their attempt to prevent the media from taking pictures of these coffins coming home.

MM, I just don't get you when you talk about politics.

Obama scares me. Not sure why. Perhaps it's his cold stare, his glibness. There's a bit of the narcissist in him. I don't like his stand on taxes, specifically capital gains taxes. He also seems to think that he can singlehandedly fix the mess in Iraq. Good luck.

When I think of glib, the perfect example that comes to mind is our current dear old commander-in-chief. I think Obama has been anything but--he has demonstrated unusual (for politics) candor, thoughtfulness, and an ability to address extremely complicated issues without dumbing down or simplifying for the lowest common denominator.

Cold stare?? *Narcissist*?? Baffling.

The successful presidential candidate must present himself as someone who can lead the process of fixing the situation in Iraq (and, hopefully, deliver on that). I suppose you'd prefer it if he said he had no idea what to do?

I don't get it.

He can say whatever he likes. I can say that I'm a point guard for the NY Knicks but I hardly think anyone would believe me. I just don't feel the "foundation" behind his words.

You don't "get" me because I don't share your political views. That's all right, it's OK to agree to disagree.

Now I'm intrigued MM. Why do you feel there is no foundation?

While the current political climate is quite emotional, MM (and I am of course susceptible to that too), it just seems your statements are built entirely on emotional reactions. I am curious as to why you think McCain's approach to Iraq would be preferable to Obama's.

Glibness meaning lack of preparation is GWB to a T! And by no "foundation", do you mean no Heritage Foundation?

Ones opinion(s) of Obama HAVE to be based on observation and the way he looks because the man has never done anything else with which to demonstrate why exactly he is qualified to be President of the United States. If the US was a REAL corporation and Obama submitted his resume to be CFO/President, he wouldn't even be able to get an interview for the job with his limited skillset. It may sound offensive, but it's true.

Simply put, McCain has fought in a war, Obama has not. If you needed work on your car's transmission, would you ask a certified public accountant to give it a tune up or a qualified auto mechanic?

Granted, I am not 100% sold on McCain, either, but I think he speaks from the heart. When Obama speaks, I think "PR-speak" I think there's a lot of sizzle there but no real steak.

When I think of glib I think of Tom Cruise.

I am not sure I care about whether or not OB wears a lapel pin but I really care if he doesn't wear underwear same goes double for McCain. I don't think I could stand 4 years of a commander and chief going commando.

DeborahPub, good to know you are a PR professional, somehow I missed that when you chose to mention it in ALL your other posts.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney never served in the military. Although Donald Rumsfeld served in the military, he never fought in a war. And McCain's military career before his capture after crashing a plane, was far from exemplary. Your point?

Re communication styles, that's a personal preference. I don't disagree that McCain speaks from the heart, but I find him to be frighteningly ill-informed on some important subjects (notably, the nuances of the situation in Iraq) and far too impulsive to be the leader of this country.

I am grateful for McCain's service to this country in the military, and can only imagine what he endured as a POW. I would never diminish his contributions in that regard. However, there are an awful lot of people who've served in the military who would not be fit for political office. The fact that he served on active duty does not make him a military expert. Nor does it make him the best candidate for president.

Each of the candidates would require expert advice to effectively deal with the complicated situation in Iraq, and would need to be willing to *heed* that advice (unlike the present administration).

Jay,
Your flag comment was a partisan slap and at a minimum Cathar and myself take exception with it. Yes, you are free to bitch about whatever you like. Previous wars gave us those rights. But don't give us the holier than thou "I was a Naval Officer" crap. We both served as well and can quote history just as quickly (Cathar probably faster). Your views with regard to the war are a small minority of the military mans view (historically voting Conservative/Republican at well above a 2 to 1 clip). It doesn't lessen your ability or right to speak out against what you feel, but let's not kid anyone that you represent anywhere near a majority of our fighting men and women when you say it. Now, with that said, I'll take Naval history for 200 Alex.

cheese, your statement could easily be applied to our current president, as well as many others.

Cheese, the US is not a corporation. It is not a for profit business, it is a very large country with a very diverse population. One can, and should, form an opinion based on his grasp of the issues and his ideas about how to solve real problems.

We have already experienced the "MBA" president for nearly eight years and the result has been disatrous.

MM - interesting that you think actually having served in a war makes one a better qualified commander in chief. I would be you voted for Bush and not Kerry in the last election.

It just seems that much of the anti-Obama sentiment here is not based anything he has acutally said, any of his positions or any of his accomplishments ( yes, there are a few). My biggest problem with McCain is that he thinks we need to stay in Iraq to finish the job but we all saw what happened when we got involved in civil war in Vietnam. His vision for Iraq is to continue to fight until....what? He has admitted he knows nothing about economics and the economy is in a bit of a free fall. So how is he the better choice?

Things are not always what they seem:

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9848675

"And McCain's military career before his capture after crashing a plane, was far from exemplary. Your point?"

Spot the Looney,
John McCain was selected as 1 of some 1300 members of his Naval Academy class out of an applicant pool of around 25,000 - 35,000. He gave his entire college life up to attend the Naval Academy, then is shipped off to Flight School to go through 18(ish) months of very demanding ground and flight training in order to get his Naval Aviator wings. He then gets shipped to an active duty squadron in the Navy which leads him to fly combat missions, risk his life on a daily basis and ultimately be shot down and spend 5 1/2 years as a POW under lets just say less then pristine conditions. All the while he gets to risk more and get paid less than his civilian counterparts. Sure it was his choice (the serving his country part), but exactly which part of that was not up to YOUR high standards? Talk about offensive and uninformed statements....geez (I have left a lot of more boring non exemplary stuff out in the interest of space).

I've seen hundreds and hundreds of New Yorker covers over the years and I don't think I've ever seen ont that was this 'over the top'.

It's sort of funny in a 'holy s##t!' way but kind of puzzling too.

I can't wait to see the McCain cover!

Cheese_with_your_wine?,
You come off being glib. Have you and Cathar formed a coalition to be the opposition to whatever someone posts? This war, no matter what you may agree to, was declared under false pretenses and shows no signs of letting up. Does this not affect you? What is your solution to bring the troops home?

I am not acting holier-than-thou; I am speaking as a concerned citizen who recognizes some serious issues that will affect my future. Throw the party rhetoric out the door and we can talk like two citizens that can learn from each other.

I am going to leave this thread at that. But I would love to talk about matters that impact us all.

MM - I would agree with you on that thought, but this is a published opinion piece. Although I think it's good to read the opinion sections and editorials from various publications it's equally important to understand that an opinion is biased. On either side. One really has to delve deeper, read the speeches, read the histories, get the full story behind the reasons for the way a candidate voted a particular way on a particluar issue.

Jay,
Don't confuse a short snappy snarkish response with any lack of knowlege of the issues on my part. What you have failed to see here is that I disagree with you 100% on pretty much everything you have said (or written in this case). I don't believe for a minute that the war was either unfounded or begun under false pretenses. I am also a proponent of staying until Iraq's military is ready to take over the job on it's own. You believe what you believe, but it appears there is no intersection between our beliefs or common ground for us to have a productive discussion.

Speaking of emotional decisions about the candidates...

Why don't you McCain supporters care about how he treated his first wife when he returned from Vietnam? I am wary of generalizing candidates' personal lives to their professional ones, but considering the degree of emphasis the Republican party seems to put on morals and values, I am not sure why this is not considered objectionable to his followers.

To me, his actions suggest a lack of personal integrity, and I do feel that's relevant to his fitness for the job.

Cheese, this is interesting. Even Colin Powell no knows the report stating evidence of any - ANY - nuclear capabilities was edited, doctored and pretty much fabricated. Then there is the question of the Iraq military - are they Kurds, Sunnis or Shiites? That is what will prevent the country from every having a military to take over the job because the job is a civil war.

Kate,
I have no problem with someone questioning McCain on that topic (not that you need my premission or blessing). Nothing is unfair or off limits in a Presidential election. Swing away..

JG,
Your exaggeration and innuendo seems to know no bounds. As to the Iraqi military, I shall assume you have not been there (please correct me if I am wrong), and thus will stay with the opinions and reports of some of the actual Officers who are actively engaged in the process in Iraq.

Holy Sclamoley cheese, what credible reason was there for the US to invade Iraq in 2003? Where is the official response to that question that hasn't been proved wrong? Just curious.

Cheese_with_your_wine?,
I respect your voiced opinions and I am sure to challege your views on future posts - god willing! lol

Further on what Kate said, a real examination of McCain's military service reveals him to be a mediocre pilot whose various plum assignments came directly as a result of his father's and grandfather's accomplishments. If it weren't for those connections he likely wouldn't have even made it through the Naval Accedemy, much less become a pilot. Sure, he risked his life for his country, and we should all be thankful for that. It does count for something, even to a liberal like me. But that alone does not mean he will be a good president. His past behavior and disposition stike me as ill suited for any leadership position, much less president.

Thanks Jay, I look forward to the occaisional "reasonable" discussion on Baristanet.

... But I still don't know what Obama has done in his past that leads me to believe he is anything more than a guy who is beautifully educated.

And speaks well.

Nothing.

As a former Hillary supporter, I cannot vote for a guy who has done nothing. (Other that use HOPE and CHANGE.... which sounds so 1992...)

However, since I did not read either of his TWO autobiographies (TWO!), perhaps I'm wrong...

(And the best thing about this cover is watching liberals go crazy and eat one of their fave mags.)

Dear "Girl,"
Why so snarky (there are actual people behind these posts you know)? I mention being a PR pro because I know that this sort of publicity (just look at the number of posts based on this cover) will help sell more magazines. It certainly has garnered the New Yorker a huge amount of publicity.

Pokey,
I am too tired of trying to educate to post it again. I answered the question in a recent post. Just look there.

Cheese, in other words, there is none. I think you are referring to this post:

"We have accomplished many important things in Iraq. Here are a few. We have an ally for the future where a ruthless dictatorship existed before. We have removed the threat of bio and nuclear weapons from Iraq. We have freed an entire country that was essentially held hostage for 30 years (they seems to appreciate that our troops tell us). Just enforcing the gulf war cease fire violations was good enough for me, but getting rid of Saddam and the rest was just icing on the cake from my perspective."

None of which is a credible reason for the death and destruction, for going to war. (there were no WMD and there are plenty of other places we should invade if "dictator on the lose killing" is a criteria) If you have something else....

Oh, and "Girl", I found your comments about going commando very amusing. My head is dizzy from trying to keep with so many passionate posts (many quite educational and interesting) on one thread, so a little levity was welcome.

Please when you feel the need to discuss these issues, do so in Spanish, seeing Obama says how stupid we are as Americans visiting other countries with only English and paraphrasing tidbits of French--as he laughs to an immigrant audience.

Pins, hands, those are minor issues. How many times does he go back on what he says already, the kids on TV, the immediate withdrawal of troops, et el.

Our guy Obama does a lot of whoops-my mistake--how about when he gets into office? Whoops that is not what I meant. His wife whoops that's not what I meant.

A Commander and Chief just can't keep saying whoops!
And that's what you guys don't get.

And to question mediocrity of someones career always makes me laugh because it is usually from someone who has never had experience "in the field" of any career or are just plain jealous. Mediocre career it might have been but ask his fellow hostages who he stood in his boots while in captivity.

I find him to be a worthy candidate--I find Obama to be one dimensional--

While offended by the magazine-I am truly proud of my country that we have the Freedoms to express satire.

And Jackson his buddy how big of him to accept his apology-I guess he files it under whoops
I guess he didn't really mean that.

Yes, jayonyx, I too speak from "experience." But one from an earlier war, one fought in a different gulf. I've also read a few books myself. So "let's go" indeed. (Et tu, jerseygurl and hrhppg? Did any of your yachting friends perchance sail with Nelson's navy, gurl?)

And since you're a veteran (but an officer, alas, and as a former ground-pounder I properly learned to distrust almost all such), you really should display more sympathy towards the concept of flag-draped coffins, oft accompanied as they are by grieving friends and family, not being subjected to cameras. As to the Bush administration's efforts to prevent extensive photographing of them, you as a veteran might even be equally wary of the media's obtrusiveness and flat-out, pushy nosiness re such sad events.

I'm sure, too, that the Roosevelt administration felt the same when remains came back from, say, Tarawa or Bastogne. And the partisan knotheads who work for the New York Times and CNN, after all, are a very far cry from Ernie Pyle.

I also noted (as ably did Cheese_with...) some cynicism above re John McCain's educational background. My own suspicion of the officer class aside, folks, the guy got into and graduated from an extremely selective institution. One that asks much more of its "students" than mere class attendance and the handing in of papers on time. Montclair State Annapolis is not. And in most ways I can conceive of, it is also the equal of Ivy League colleges, but with MUCH greater time constraints upon its "student hody." Plus a dedication to our nation and its freedoms which is simply not found anyplace else save West Point, the Air Force Academy and the Coast Guard Academy (plus a few embattled ROTC units, I'm guessing).

Also, welcome back, Clarice! (You really shouldn't go away so often.)

Cheese - no innuendo. Colin Powell spoke just last week in Aspen. It is unlikely the outcome in Iraq will ever be anything other than an eventual draw down, leaving a mess, which we will have to do in order to deal with Afghanistan. Not being glib nor "snarky" - just relaying the info. And if you don't believe Powell, listen to some of the recent public statements from the military leaders regarding Afghanistan.
Cathar, I have family in the military - the fact that my husband and I enjoy our small sailboat when we have time has nothing to do with anything.

And please tell us how your military family is putting the marker on OBAMA for the win---there is just no way.

To believe in a guy who hasn't even been over there yet as our Commander and Chief--I am sorry gurl just can't buy it.

I believe the New Yorker went too far on this one. I guess Obama is my guy too. Thanks to the biggest GOP failure in my lifetime.

Cut your nose off to spite your face-remember that when you hit the Obama button.

(Just seeing cstarling's name on the B-net homepage made me smile. That she hasn't missed a step is icing on the cake!!)

"A Commander and Chief just can't keep saying whoops!
And that's what you guys don't get. "

Good one- what did dubya do when he heard about 9-11?

and how did we get into this war anyway...an outright LIE - no whoops there!

Why I don't engage--because I knew this one would fly at me from the broom closet-Your right because there was no whoops-and you'll hear none either.

Because when your in charge and make a decision popular or unpopular you stick with it-

Mommy why don't you head over there and embrace one of those little home grown terrorist and bring them home and unleash them in your pre k.

Saddam was a killer--just because his social order was disrupted by us doesn't mean we didn't belong there--unfortunately it becomes more complicated --and the press wanted a instant rub off war and the coverage became more about the coverage and then they sent in their news people---and nothing was sacred --so our enemy had his chance to move to remote areas because we were giving away our information live...

I could go on but why bother --in any event hating President Bush isn't or shouldn't be reason enough to vote against a different kind of candidate of the same party-because quite honestly JM is in fact not a cookie cutter of President Bush--nor is it a reason to go into that voting both and hit the button for spite.

And that is what you languish in...

Just google Obama apologizes--he makes a lot of whoops. And Just because you say it doesn't mean you mean it anyway. Do you think Jesse really gives a chit --personally if you weigh the comment Jesse makes and then read the article that goes with the cartoon which is more offensive.

If you are so Democratic then explain why Leiberman is still
pissin his own party off.

We need a Leader not someone who doesn't know how many states we have.

The fact that you have brandished the fact that you go sailing, jerseygurl, is of some import. Since you seemed to view it as a kind of index of "class." U vs. non-U, as Nancy Mitford famously put it. You originally brought it up as some sort of demarcation betwixt thee and others. (Sort of like you ever so casually mentioned here last week some kind of hazily defined business connection with Montclair's current mayor.) I think it hints at your core pretentiousness.

Having family in the armed forces was once rather common. (So was having actually served yoursel.) But you still need a MetroCard besides that connection to ride the subway.

CS: Wow. So in your universe, our real enemy evaded us because of the media??! You're selling a rotten bill of goods.

Our real enemy got away because we dropped the ball.

Our real enemy got away because Cheney, Rove and company decided that 9/11 would provide a good cover for their plan to invade Iraq, and they knew that in the midst of our grief and a national crisis, nobody would seriously question their motives.

Our real enemy got away because we went into Iraq without a plan, and our 'leaders' didn't listen to the experts in the region who tried to provide them with valuable information.

Our real enemy got away because our elected leaders have contempt for the country that elected them.

The fact that the Iraq war is unpopular doesn't make it right! And I'll modify Einstein's definition slightly here (apologies to Albert) and say: The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

There should be an OOPS from our leaders. They have made catastrophic, colossal mistakes that confer enormous costs in terms of both lives and money. There is no shame in owning up to a mistake and then making it right. There is enormous shame in fucking up massively and continuing to say at every opportunity that things are going really, really well.

cstarling wrote:
>We need a Leader not someone who doesn't know how many states we have.

Actually we need both. A leader who can inspire as well as having the intellect to make good decisions.

McCain, aka Czechoslovakia-still-exists aka 100-years-in-Iraq aka nuke-Iran, is neither.

Who cares! All it means is you didn't put your hand over your heart. Whether one pledges to a flag, or kneels before a statue in church, or prays to a man bleeding on a cross doesn't mean anything except that you've been trained to do so. It's Pavlovian conditioning... like "bless you" when you sneeze. Ugh!!!!

To many, EmDee, the statue is not of a "man bleeding on a cross," but of the very Son of God. That you may not believe yourself is entirely your choice. That you do not apparently understand at all, and resort to ignorant flippancy, does you no real credit.

Such reverence, too, is certainly not merely "Pavlovian" to the world's Christians. Would you be even so half so dismissive to the concept of the haj with reference to Muslims while in an Arab country? To the importance of Yom Kippur among observant Jews anywhere?

There were no Democrats in your process --contempt for our own country--...dropping balls seems to have been the responsibility on both parties and long before 9-11.

There will be no apology-and an apology means nothing in the long run--and both parties know there will be a long run-
And if you want to believe that the media has in no way gotten in the way of things your out of your mind-

I am fully aware of the insanity definition---there is a lot of banging your heads against walls hoping to break through-take some asprin.

Time will tell what we plan to do with the other serial loon
in Iran guess we shouldn't be worried about him either.

Nah, lets just vote for Change. 57 states worth.

It's not that I don't understand, I just don't believe that I have to bow down or look up when I say thank you. I won't pray to a symbol and I certainly don't believe that a symbol is holy. It's a book, statue, cross, building, etc. Someone told you it was significant. If it's gone it doesn't take away what you do believe in. Whatever that may be.