I do not know where to *start* with this one,so I won't. Full of inaccurate statements,bad spelling(please folks click that ABC box!)...but I appreciate you like your "guy" so much. Vote democrat.

Join the Hundred Years' War and vote McShrub to kickstart Great Depression II?  No thanks. 

Five years was six too many to be in Iraq, and eight years will be three decades too much Shrub.  No need to give him yet another term.

Thank you for this post. I know I'm not the only liberal that will be voting for McCain because of Obama.

I don't know of any liberals who'll be voting for McCain over Obama.

.

If the results had come in the other way, I'd be voting Clinton over McCain.  Or Biden.  Or even Gravel.   Ah, well, I always thought the DLC was bad for the progressive movement.

You do now RF.......Meghan.

The liberals I know care about the country's future too much to vote McCain.  I have a feeling that, come November, you will, too.

Sage,

What inaccurate statements? hey c'mon spelling, hey I fixed it like 2 secs after posting. Seriously, I know you don't want to admit it, but Obama has gone after that woman pretty badly and made some inaccurate attacks, just looks a exhibit "A", Random Factor. The poster right under yours. This poster is a prime example of what happens when politicians lie and influence weak minded voters.

RF really thinks McCain wants to be at war for 1 hundred years and thinks we are in a recession because Obama said it, despite the fact that McCain never said that he wanted to be at war for 1 hundred years and that the Nat GDP has not declined for one quarter let alone two quarters in a row. I know little things like facts don't mean much for RF but Clinton voters, conservative Dems, Republicans, hell most Americans do.

We want a respectful debate and we want to support a person that doesn't rely on race bate tactics and empty rhetoric. Clinton was one of the few Dems that actually took positions and at a time like this in our nations history we need answers not empty promises.

Don't get me wrong Obama never attacked a person based on their name like RF does with all the "McShrub" or whatever other childish names he comes up with. But Obama does misrepresent his opponents views. Ask Clinton supporters they know. I know the McCain ones. Hey that's fine, it politics and Obama is playing the game.

Look I want to extend an invitation to our  party for those of you interested in getting away from Obama and his politics. You are all welcome.

You fixed your spelling in the blog?

Vote McCain: Cut off your nose to spite your face.

As for agreeing with McCain on positions, I haven't watched the news for a day or two.  Anyone know what his positions on the issues are today?  Is he still for staying in Iraq but not for staying in Iraq, for abortion and against it, hanging out with Christians he calls "right wing loonies", for the tax hikes and against all tax hikes, for education and against it, for healthcare and against it, for campaign finance reform as long as the people who break the law don't get punished?

Schrödinger for John McCain!

Not exactly correct, BakerSuper.  McShrub wants to *KEEP* us at war as long as it takes to begin his 100-year occupation of Iraq.  Based on the region's history, about 1600 years of death and destruction ought to do that. 

.

He hasn't a clue what to do in Iraq.  And he has even less grasp of the economy.  But wait a week, as Tom notes, he'll change his mind.  Again.

OT, but you'll be seeing *THIS* everywhere soon:

Plus, headline of the year, UK edition:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

BakersfieldSuperman, are you saying you won't vote for a candidate that thinks we're in a recession?  Either Obama got really white and boring or this is John McCain saying that we're in a recession:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

As for the bit about 100 years, my understanding is that McCain won't leave unless we win and only wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years if we win.  If we don't win, we'll leave sooner; but we can't leave until we win.

RF, it's not that he changes his mind.  He just doesn't have a solid position on anything so he says incompatible things based on who he is talking to.

I hope so.  It could also be the age-induced short-term memory loss.  With any luck he'll forget he's running. 

Why not, RF?  It seems like almost everyone else has.  He can't even break 80% in the primaries when everyone else has dropped out.

He'll do well with the people who don't pay attention until the day before the election.  We need to work on the other 25 percent of voters...

RF, a few ads on the TV with him saying this and then that should be fine.  As long as it runs during Friends...*

*I realize Friends is not the show I mean here, but I'm not sure of its contemporary counterpart.

Scrubs, I guess.

I'd run it during Friends.  Gotta admit I watch reruns of that more often than any network television these days. 

This one,perhaps?  A little long, but...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Tom W,

I'm not sure what you are unclear about, I remember posting the video of McCain fielding the infamous 100 years question.  It clearly showed that McCain said we could be in Iraq or any other country for any amount of time as Long as Americans were not being killed, much like the situation we have in S Korea, Germany, Bahrain or any other number of places we are in the world.

I know I know, Democrats really want to win. But guys just making up stuff is not something I think the majority of people want. And is a reason for voters to consider going over party lines and voting McCAin.

This is what I'm talking about, the more "some" Obama supporters use this "I'm going to lie about what someone said" tactic to confuse people only drives more people to vote McCain. So please Tom W continue.....

The Republicans like myself thank you.

Oh and for the record McCain's positions are on his website. Tom W. Did you realize you have suggested that McCain, a Presidential candidate, could be against educations and health care? I know you have said some crazy stuff but wow man way to take it to the next level.

Did people make ridiculous stuff up about Clinton too? Question her patriotism and character? Yet another example of why I think  Dem's will become McCain Democrats. People want a real debate about where our country goes not the crap some people say just to further their own interests no matter the cost.

RF..that's not what McCain said..that's what you want him to have said.  (the 100 year thing)

The transcript has been posted numerous times...why do you still deny it?

McShrub has said he both favors and does not favor a hundred-year Korean-style occupation of Iraq.   There is no *ONE* transcript.  He changes with the wind.  His fantasy of a hundred years' armed occupation is not going to happen.   His hundred-years' occupation is no different from a hundred years of continued war.

.

As I noted, he's "fine" with a hundred years of occupation, said occupation to begin--when?  When we win?  We need a Democratic president to do that.  When we lose?  Then we've got just 95 years of bloodshed left.   He can't define "winning." 

.

But I can define "losing in Iraq."  It's "losing American personnel and money and not having anything to show for it."  Hey, we caught another al Qaeda-in-Iraq leader.  Making the country of Iraq *HOW* much safer for the ongoing civil war?  AQI is a sideshow. 

McCain has said we can't leave until we "win", right?  Is that the part I'm making up?

McCain on healthcare: http://www.boston.com/news/...

McCain camp working out healthcare details

Aides struggle to sort out his promises

McCain on Education: http://www.ontheissues.org/...

Basically, he's in favor of all education stuff, as long as it's not public.

McShrub opposes the occupation:

http://thinkprogress.org/20...

McShrub supports the occupation:

http://thinkprogress.org/20...

guys I feel sorry for both of you. Tom W you are making up positions that mcCAin does not hold, Rf you well you just keep working hard

I posted the link, BS.  McShrub both supported and said the occupation wasn't going to happen.  He clearly doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, either.

Wanna post a link where Obama "said votes shouldn't be counted"?   Then I'll post the link where Clinton said the votes didn't count.

.

Sure, Clinton vs. McShrub would've been a "respectful campaign," with McShrub wringing his hands in dismay at the mean 527 groups accusing his opponent of being a lesbian who killed to cover up her affair with Osama's gay chauffeur.

.

You're a "concern troll," BS.  We see a lot of them from the McShrubbery.  You'll say how horrible it was that Sen. Clinton came in second, how her supporters can feel at home with McShrub and strike a blow against the angry young black man by voting for the cancerous, aging white man.

.

And November 5, 2008, you'll be able to post "SUCKERS!"  Or so you wish.

Since there seems to be some dispute over what McCain said and his intent, let's let the guy, Dave Tiffany, who asked McCain about how long we'd be in Iraq, tell us what he thought about McCain and his answer...who would know better than the guy who asked the question (the emphasis is mine):

" I was the questioner at the January 3 Town Hall Meeting in Derry, NH, who McCain called 'Ernest Hemingway' and who asked him what he hoped to accomplish in Iraq and how long it would take. When I pressed him for a time frame and cited George Bush's figure of fifty years, Senator McCain shocked me by saying "Maybe a hundred".

Since that time his remark has been repeated thousands of times in the press, on political talk shows, by columnists, commentators, and by the Democratic candidates. There are music videos commemorating his words, and you can buy T-Shirts displaying the quote.

Needless to say, Democrats have had a field day with that sound bite. I'm wondering, where's my cut?

Now, three months later, McCain partisans are regretting the candor of their candidate, and in a full-court press, are claiming that McCain's opponents have mischaracterized his remarks.

In Check Point: McCain Said '100'; Opponents Latch On, Kate Phillips reported in the March 27 New York Times that McCain spokesman Steve Schmidt complains that, "There is a deliberate misrepresentation of the statement" by Clinton, Obama, and the DNC.

In Foes target McCain's 100-year war remark, Brian C. Mooney wrote April 2 in the Boston Globe that "McCain and Republicans say that [Senator Barack] Obama is trying to 'swindle voters' with 'dishonest smears'."

Charles Krauthammer, in his March 28 column, went much further, and declared hysterically, "It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie." One has to wonder what planet he's been on these last seven years!

Now the Manchester Union-Leader has joined the chorus with its Sunday, April 6 editorial, McCain's '100 Years': the Democrat's war on the truth.

While splitting hairs over the meaning of campaign rhetoric, all ignore the fact that McCain advocates an open-ended presence in Iraq, and the consequences that would follow from such a commitment.

McCain's words left little room for interpretation. By saying that he was fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years, he made clear his commitment to staying the course and, further, to remaining in Iraq for years after the country is pacified, assuming that's ever possible.

Everyone who was there that night got it: we weren't getting out anytime soon.

Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker summed it up when he wrote, "what the context shows, I think, is that yanking that sound bite out of context isn't really all that unfair. McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal -- that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

When offered the opportunity to backtrack later, McCain only dug himself in deeper, upping the ante to 10,000 years, or a million. He may as well have said "forever" when he confirmed his 100 years remark and added that he would support permanent bases in Iraq three days later on NBC's Meet the Press.

Not content to confine the endless war to Iraq, McCain went on to warn of other wars. Speaking to Tim Russert he asked, "What if Jordan falls? What if there's another war with Israel?" He also singled out the instability in Pakistan. Though he did not mention it by name, one can imagine that Iran figures in his thoughts.

McCain has stated his belief that "the war will be over soon", and that the Iraqi government and military will handle the ongoing insurgency. Given the current fighting in Iraq and the ineffectiveness of the Al Maliki government's military, this seems highly unrealistic.

McCain's comments to me raise more questions than they answer. If U.S. troops are garrisoned on permanent bases in Iraq, wouldn't it be likely that they would come under attack? And when they do, would we depend upon the Iraqi government to protect us? Of course not! How would that be different from the situation we face today?

If McCain's campaign now wants a do-over on the 100 years remark, then here is his shot. How long would he keep our troops in Iraq? Both of his opponents have offered specific exit plans. Where is McCain's?

I like John McCain. I commend him for his opposition to torture, and his refusal to scapegoat Spanish speaking people. I applaud his willingness to engage in debate with those who disagree with him. You might say he is my favorite "conservative liberal Republican" (as he recently described himself in what some called a Freudian slip).

But when it comes to the war in Iraq we part company. Americans want to see an end to the war and they will not get that from John McCain. And no amount of spin can change that fact."

Tell ya what.  Get a straight answer out of McShrub as to how long he'll keep troops in Iraq before recognizing it's a lost cause and I'll type it alongside his "hundred years" blunder.

A straight answer out of the great doubletalker? Don't count on it, RF.

McCain has also repeatedly claimed that he voted against President Bush's tax cuts because they weren't paired with spending cuts -- a different reason from the one he gave in 2001 when he voted against the tax cuts; falsely claimed during the campaign that he called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as defense secretary; repeatedly made the admittedly false claim that Iran is training Al Qaeda; and after telling The Wall Street Journal in late 2005 that he knows "a lot less about economics" than "military and foreign policy issues," suggested he had not said this when confronted with the quote in a debate question.

ok rf thanks... good post yeah they totally prove your point, good job lol

Thanks.   There's nothing more important than sincerity, and you fake that adequately.

.

You've got a link where Obama says votes shouldn't count?  I've got one for Clinton.

.

Hillary Clinton is a skilled politician who made an incredibly bad mistake in selecting her campaign staff.  If recent reports can be believed, they killed her chances in California.  This was her shot at the brass ring, and sadly she won't get another one.  She'd likely have made a good President, but we'll never know, now.

heres the qotes make you own opinion on what it means...dont let other make it for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

go ahed take a listen if you watch and it saound like McCain wants war our dilusional. After listening remember all that you have said and what you ahve been told. Unlike you guys who are just repeating what your told the people in the DNC and Obama heard this, knew what it meant but have twisted it for thier political gains.

Just like The DNC and thier croonies to lie to try and win a election

And, BS, to see someone from the right wing, such as yourself, suddenly come to Hillary's defense, after the way she and her husband were treated from 1999-2001, and beyond, is more than a little disingenuous. Can you say Vince Foster? Whitewater? Hillary's health care plan? Cattle futures?

With a straight face I mean.

When it comes to lying to try and win an election, nobody's better at it than George Bush and the GOP. I can't believe you would even bring that topic up.

By the way, I have seen the 100 years video, and I agree with Dave Tiffany. Why has McCain tried so hard to explain it away?

No, I asked for quotes to back up *YOUR* lie about Obama.

.

I *KNOW* what McCain said.  He said he'd oppose a Korean-style occupation of Iraq because it wouldn't work there, and that he'd be fine with a Korean-style occupation of Iraq once folks were no longer shooting at our guys.  

Which hasn't happened, isn't going to happen, and sets an impossible standard for that country.

.

If the guy ever had it--let's fact it, 894th in his class, bottom 1 percent--he's lost it.  If it weren't for his wife's money, and the incredibly bad array of choices on the Republican said this time 'round, he'd be retired in Arizona and yelling at kids to get the hell off his lawn.

Sure he can say it with a straight face, noone.  He's practiced.

Here's the Republican I could vote for, at least on Iraq. You'll note he just puts McCain in his place.

If only Paul were right about something else, too.  *ANYTHING* else.

Sorry to be loud about it, but

If the war continues just like it is now, how long is John McCain willing to stay?

I'll give you that he changed his mind about the 100/10,000/1,000,000 years thing or that he meant only if our people aren't getting regularly killed for it.  But no one seems to acknowledge that McCain has no plan for the reality in Iraq.

His plan is based on building a fortress in the sky. 

We've already sent more than 4,000 to guard it.  He'll send thousands more.

BTW, just for the sake of illustration,  here we are on a blog called "mitt" where the blogger is backing McCain.  I think given a few months, most Clinton supporters will look at McCain and decide the country has had enough of that.

Not necessarily a good example, Tom.  Willard may still buy his way onto the ticket, and given McCain's refusal to release his health records (or his wife's tax returns) that could be important.  BakerSuper may be hoping for a stroke.

I saw Mittens out trying to  attack Obama the other day.  I could see where he might end up on the ticket.  Especially with the fact that Republicans are broke this year.

And McShrub having his little campaign-finance-law trouble to boot.

Free bonus chapter on McCain's "free ride" with the media:

http://mediamattersaction.o...

If Barack takes the oath next January, when will the last troop be withdrawn?  How much time will you all be willing to give him?  I'm betting there will be more than a few liberals making excuses 4 years from now as to why the troops are still there.

That will be entirely dependent on how Shrub has schmucked up the situation between now and then.  It will presumably be before 2108, when McShrub will remove them. 

While I recognize you're just a troll, et, McCain's standing next to the house with a blazing torch and some oily rags..  I think I'll trust the black guy just the same.  Especially since old guys like him tend to drop things and forget where they left their burning torches, y'know?

Dril, "I'm betting there will be more than a few liberals making excuses 4 years from now as to why the troops are still there."

It will come down to semantics.  If McCain is keeping them there, it will be called the War On Terror.  If Obama or Clinton keep them there, they will be called "peacekeeping forces."

Either way, they'll still be there.