This is my preferred response to McCain's attacks.

Yes, I still don't really know my way around.

First, this site is loading slowly on more than one occasion, and its becoming a real problem. I hope the speed can be improved?

Second, I have a new option on my menu - "Write new Entry." What does that mean?

Third, who do I e-mail about these things? What's their address? (Please don't post in a way that spammers can read)

Fourth, is there a way to find the top rated comments?

Thanks, and I'll trade mojo for answers. Sorry about filling the space on the list; I'll delete once I get the info I need.

-Falsehood

John McCain:

I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

I just watched both full CBS interviews with McCain and Obama, viewable at CBSnews.com.

Obama credited our troops with reducing violence, but continued to say he would not have supported the surge, given that he had his own proposed strategy which was never put into play. He refused to engage in hypotheticals about what would have happened under his plan.

McCain, beyond making the comment quote above, said multiple times that Senator Obama lacked understanding of the policy issues, and that Obama does not acknowledge the Surge's success. He did engage in the hypotheticals, saying that Obama's strategy (similar to that proposed by the Bipartisan Iraq Study Group) would have led to defeat. Furthermore, McCain repeately pushed the idea that Obama would ignore the conditions on the ground, something that has never been his position (and that he got flak for in the primaries.)

Absolutely classless.

Update [2008-7-22 22:7:48 by Falsehood]: McCain also made a fundamentally wrong assertion regarding history and the Ambar awakening in the same interview. The Huffington Post has the story.

Hi All,

The popular expression I see on this site and other has always bothered me, because I think it does a disservice to the truth, and to the credibility of those who use it.

There's no question that McCain stands for a continuation of many Bush policies - Taxes and the War being two biggies. But when I see McCain at a townhall, or speaking, there is a stark difference between him and this president.

McCain doesn't come off as aloof - I can't picture him flicking off the camera as Bush did. He is also much more accommodating of dissent, in a way I could never picture Bush being.

Today, during a townhall, he kept the crowd silent while a war protester spoke about Iraqi war crimes, fighting for oil, and the consensus for withdrawal. McCain thanked her, and then gave his position that our presence does not inflame the Middle East (which is flat wrong) as well as his reasons not to withdraw immediately. He then let her have the microphone back, and she said some more while he asked the crowd to let her speak. After his response, he let her speak a third time.

This protester, whoever she was, did not expect it. I could hear her voice, and how gratified she was that this man had let her have a real (if short) dialogue with him. George Bush would never have done that.

When we constantly make that comparison - that McCain is 4 more years of the same sort of leadership we've had from Bush, we are being intellectually dishonest. This is not an endorsement of a McCain presidency; it is a recognition that the "McSame" label is one that allows McCain an honest opening to defeat the case against him.

If our case against McCain is based on his utter sameness to Bush, then he can defeat that case by being who he is.

It's the wrong tact, and the voters will see through the McSame label. Again, we still need to push how his positions match Bush, but we don't need to say that they are the same person. McSame is a personal attack, and I don't think its accurate or good tactics.

Update [2008-7-18 19:38:55 by Falsehood]: - Please Un-Recommend. The other diary is off this list, this one doesn't need to stay up and take up space. Update [2008-7-18 21:27:22 by Falsehood]: - Ironically, the diary has actually moved higher up on the rec list since the first update. Let that be a lesson to those who think they can game the rec list - I can't game myself off of it.

Hello All,

First, let's have a little background here:

Max Cleland was a Georgia Senator who lost multiple limbs in Vietnam. In the 2002 Senate elections, he lost to Saxby Chambliss, who ran ads with Osama bin Laden against him. Ann Coulter also claimed he lost his limbs while drunk with buddies, which was completely false.

That moment was when I lost all respect for Ann Coulter.

This is the first in a series of diaries comparing the positions of McCain and Obama, and their implications upon ascending to the Presidency.

One of the more measurable impacts of the Bush presidency has been the decreased standing of the United States in the world. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the two superpowers that had largely defined world politics became a single superpower left to enjoy its victory, along with a 10 year period of economic expansion.

The 1990s saw a United States that went on to play policeman, in a sense. Military spending continued to be huge (about 46% of all military dollars in 2006 were spent by us) We took back Kuwait and established the Iraqi "No Fly Zones." Other countries the US became involved in included Macedonia, Kovovo, Haiti, and Bosnia.

To be clear: I am an Obama supporter, and have been so for well over a year now. I also do not endorse or agree with PUMA's positions.

The above disclaimer aside, I am a little worried about the diary sitting atop the rec list at the moment. It represents a viewpoint that gets dangerously close to the same thing that many of this site condemn - the criticism by association, and not by fact.

Put simply: that PUMA opposes Barack Obama doesn't mean that they endorse the actions of various conservative groups.

Let's go back to 2004, when many of the people here got incensed by the photo-shopped photo of Kerry standing at a rally next to Jane Fonda. That picture was a smear by association - it said that John Kerry's shared opposition to the war with Fonda tied them together, when in fact Kerry's shared opposition did NOT imply that he agreed with what Fonda had done (which she apologized in part for in 1988).

I have seen objection time and again to the false comparisons of the right - that Obama's sharing of the stage with Ayers means he's a terrorist, and that his membership at Trinity means he's a black separatist.

We are doing the same thing here. Real PUMAs - those who actually supported Clinton - are with you folks on policy, probably more so than I am, as a moderate. They are for Universal Healthcare, they are for ending the war, they are for all the positions that Clinton and Obama shared.

As Fivethirtyeight.com accurately predicted today, (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/d emocrats-swayed-more-by-muslim-misinfo.h tml) this means that your fellow Democratic PUMAs have a motivation yet greater than this policy.

They think Obama is the worst thing to come along in politics since, er... Bush. They don't like his style; they don't like his past; they don't like him.

Accusing real PUMAs of being what they aren't doesn't help. These people can be your assets - but only if you choose to not make them your enemies. They will call, volunteer, and blog like mad, but only if you make them feel welcome doing so. We can't let this become personal.

Even as an Obama supporter, I can recognize genuine reasons to vote the other way. I don't think they outweigh the reasons to vote Obama, but I'm not God, and we're a democracy for a reason.

It is ok to oppose Obama.

It is not a cardinal sin.

It is also perfectly appropriate to blow PUMA arguments to shreds, but accusing them of being in league with the right-wing doesn't do that. It doesn't change minds, and it doesn't help matters. If you have something to say to those who haven't gotten over the primaries, don't spend your time making accusations.

Spend your time talking about the war in Iraq, healthcare, and tax cuts. Spend you time talking about the needs of down-ticket races. This doesn't have to be personal.

Please don't make it so.

People, come on.

This is not helpful, necessary, constructive, or positive. There's a reason Obama has a strong vetting team for the VP slot - to find stuff that we don't know about possible candidates. I have no interest in second-guessing a process that I'm not a part of.

There are valid reasons for Clinton to be VP, and valid reasons for her not to be. I personally think Wes Clark is the best for the slot, but it's not my call. Nor is it something I should be getting invested in. Find a race or contest to get invested in where you can actually make a difference - there are lots of local candidates who could use some help.

Let Obama's team do its job, and lets stop fighting the primary wars. There are too many constructive subjects to write on that don't get enough attention - Congressional races and current policy issues, such as the Medicare vote that Ted Kennedy returned for.

Update [2008-7-10 12:43:59 by Falsehood]: - Added Clinton's name, and commendations for those in the comments who have been thoughtful. If you want another idea of an area for Obama to talk about, we can discuss the Party Platform that needs to be written. I've yet to see a diary on that. Thanks for the rec's - rest assured I know I don't deserve them, but that this diary expresses a common sentiment.