I understand that Kerry's response of, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me," did not work. He let the Repubs smear his name and he did not defend himself at all. He deserved to lose for that.

But, if all you do is make the point that McCain has no good character, then you have failed to show that Obama should win this election because he is better on the issues.

I am afraid that Obama is not doing much in my state, Oregon, because his campaign may feel it's already his for the asking. I see no effort to show a presense for McCain. But, I don't live in the McCain parts of the state.

I'm afraid that the Dem is waiting too long to show what issues are important for the Dems, and what position Obama wants to take on them. What we know, so far, is that Obama has dissapointed us on FISA. We know he will take us into wars, just more carefully. We know he gives good speach. These themes are not enough for me even.

I'd say wait very little time pointing out the slimey tactics of the McCain campaign and get moving on the more important ad campaign about issues. NOW.

I get the feeling that if, or when, McCain is defeated, and the Bush apparatus is dismembered in D.C., its critics will think of it in the same way they have thought Marx was proven wrong because the Soviet Union failed. We are told, likely by Bush idealogues, that we no longer have to pay any attention to marx, and his fellow thinkers, because in the test we saw of his ideas, in the Soviet Union, we saw them fail.

I don't think the "Imperial Presidency" idea will go away just because Bush is no longer around. Once Rome was ruled by Ceasars, they never went back to the Republic.

As we have seen, both the Dems and Repubs are beholden to the Corporations, and what ever they do or whatever policies they promote, both will work in the favor of those corporations.

I don't believe an Obama victory will solve the great problems that Glenn has been dicussing here. Obama has not been making corruption in government a big issue, nor has he been making the rule of law one. I might expect that from Paul, or Nader, but not the Dem or Repub candidates. There are reasons why Obama went with FISA, and they have to do with what that bill gets for the Corporations that support his campaign. It also has to do with his unwillingness to take on the people who have backed Bush and are behind the extremes of the Bush presidency.

I'm just saying that we might take heart if McCain was defeated, but we can't expect the world to change much beyond that.

I've been troubled by the assumption made by promoters of "Pearl Harbor" style decimation of Iran's infrastructure, that the only response we might anticipate would be a few days increase in terrorist bombings.

They think it will be pretty easy to smash up Iran from the air and go in to loot the place at our leisure.

Yes, one response by Iran might be to plan on a few bombings of American bases.

However, I think the more reasonable response is being made now in whatever negotiations the Iranians are making with China, Russia, India, and the European Union to support the rule of law and some figment of an international response to any such American terrorism.

I guess the argument could be, stop them at the Iranian border today, or you'll have to fight them in the streets of Paris, Moscow, or Peking tomorrow.

I suspect none of these countries do care that much about Iran, alhough they might, but it's the principle of the thing. They might care about that.

I spent some of this morning listening to your C-span book talk. I'm wondering if you have it written out.

I had a question about whether you could explain the argument the Right wing might use to support their contention that their talk about character and contrasts between strong Republicans and weak Democrats, or why war is stronger than negotiation, is a better way to pick leaders.

I know you think that the Republicans have a weak argument, but you seem to focus on the fact that their leadership are not really the morally upright characters that their campaign literature says they are. You wrote in the book about how Kohn Wayne set the standard for this, where his private life did not, however, fit the public persona of him.

My question might be, if the Repubs found some guy who was morally upright, who didn't privately throw his injured wife under a bus, so to speak, would they have a decent winning strategy? That is, would a campaign about character be a winning and desirable strategy when you have a morally upright candidate on the ticket? Or, are you saying a campaign on issues, like the economy, or foreign policy, is always preferable?

I suspect the Repubs have to reject a debate on issues because, you are correct about this, the population thoroughly rejects their committed stands on the issues, so they have to resort to a campaign on character. Unfortunately for them, McCain's character is not admirable in many ways. Though, there might be some argument that he has some good points.

Maybe the Repubs' argument is that we should go with Captain Queeg, even if he's crazy, because he is resolute first.