The way you are answering the surge issue is not the way McCain will use it. McCain will say, Obama was against the surge, I was for it, and the surge was a success. You start talking about the lack of political progress (which Obama will do), the Sunni cooperation, etc and you are going to lose people.

This is what I think most people who don't follow politics see:

Iraq was a violent place. McCain supported a surge of troops Obama did not. Surge of troops is added. There is now less violence in Iraq. Hence, the Surge was a success.

Unfortunately, it's very black and white for most people. How does he answer it in the same simplistic terms? I'm not sure how he does that.

This is a easy point for McCain and he'll hit it more than once for sure. If it's one of the first questions, which is a good possibility, it will set the tone of the debate. Obama needs to set it in his favor since this area since it is perceived by many as his weakest.

Sure that's ok but your condescending tone leads me to believe that you think otherwise of what I'm saying regardless.

This guy things simply and writes airport books. He shouldn't ever be treated as an "expert" at anything.

Since many you here think they should have fought, what would you suggest they do?

Fight the president on an issue that the American people believe, right or wrong, will reduce gas prices? Fight him over a potential veto that they will lose anyway?

I would love to hear what they should have done from those of you who disagree. I'm sure the advice is exceptional from your armchair.

It is a big deal to many people and if the republican's can't get this thing passed, and McCain comes in and gets credit for the deal, it's a game changer.

I think some people will look at it as leadership, regardless if it is a ploy or not. I think one needs to reserve the idea that McCain truly cares about the issue too. That is a possibility.

Guessing how the voters will react won't be seen till the polls show it. But I'm not so sure people care about politics as much as they care about politicians actually doing something. Those of us who follow politics everyday immediately smell something in the air about this move, but I'm not so sure normal day to day people would. McCain would be perceived as doing something....a leader, experienced...and Obama isn't. I think it could be argued that the majority of the country follows their leader. In the absence of real leadership (Bush) they might just cling onto McCain. Especially if he's part of getting something passed.

The VP debate should be interesting but let's not get too optimistic about a Palin wipeout. Remember how Gore was going to take care of Bush in their debates, and Bush came out much better than anyone expected.

Bush came out better because of extremely low expectations, which Palin has as well. I think the deal breaker was the scoffing that Gore did. While I think anyone with a clue about the issues probably did the same thing in their living rooms, it did not play well at all with many people. Gore was incredibly overconfident and I hope Biden doesn't make the same mistake. He puts his foot in his mouth regularly. The McCain camp is going to do it's best to try and play *any* slip as bullying her or whatever. Sad but they are going to downplay her as much as possible. I just hope Biden can tiptoe on that fine line and highlight how much she doesn't know and how she is just a pawn in McCain's game to win the campaign.

I disagree with this comment some:

and the fact that someone largely exists outside the Washington establishment is, in my view, a positive -- the further away the better. In fact, one of the most disappointing (though not surprising) aspects of Obama's candidacy is how quickly and completely he's morphed into a standard Washington establishment candidate.

This consistent call for our leaders to be from "outside the beltway" etc is a bit of populist rhetoric that I think is not helpful nor truthful. Washington is an enormous entity in itself and changing it would take multiple presidencies. I'm aware that the leadership can appoint new cabinet members and other bureaucratic officials, but having been someone that has spent some time working in Washington, I know that there is something to be said for knowing how the system works. Taking someone from a midwest town and plopping them into the White House sounds great and all ("shake up Washington!"), but the system is what it is. Change slogans are largely campaign rhetoric and nothing else.

Obama may have morphed into a "standard Washington establishment candidate" but in my opinion, that's a good thing. So many people are under this dubious idea that one person can change Washington. Perhaps some changes can be done but the system is a beast of it's own. Changing Washington is a good campaign slogan, since saying we should continue doing what we are doing is almost always a lost cause, but in reality it's far from the truth. One thing I like about Obama is that he understands reality. Washington experience does matter quite a bit and if you actually want to accomplish something in the huge government system that is, you need someone that understands that. I think the rest of the country should understand that too.

Since you know, he's from Kenya and that's where Muslims come from.

I think I'm going to write a chain email about this breakthrough!