No, you and a few other people worry about it

Fact is, Iraq is off the front page. Most Americans don't think too much about it either way. You're the 'media maven', count the decline in the number of articles now vs. 2 years ago. People are worrying about their own welfare not what the pundits are telling them to be outraged and/or terrified of. I think this more than anything is what sticks in the craw of the pundits, bloggers and other self appointed jerks; that they've lost significant power to make us sit up on our hind legs and bark on cue.

Thatta boy! You tell 'em! Here's your McScooby Snack ...

If the "American people" were really so against the war, wouldn't they just ignore all this tripe and vote Obama overwhelmingly?

This is exactly why the McCain campaign is -- with MediaCorp's help -- desperately trying to pretend that Obama is changing his stance on Iraq.

The McCain supporters are really out in force.

It's the 4th of July, folks. Aren't you supposed to be off somewhere pretending to be patriotic?

If Obama becomes prez, hopefully when he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, the economy is strong again, because otherwise that will impose a HUGE burden on already struggling companies.

Obama has repeatedly said that he would let those tax cuts expire. Plus, phasing out the occupation of Iraq would be a huge cost-cutting measure. (Not just financial costs, either.)

I've lost track of how many times I've thought "If this is what counts as 'controversial' about Obama" it makes him look pretty good to me.

Seriously, stack this sort of vacuous smoke-blowing up against McCain's membership in the Keating Five.

No one can stay in business long by alienating good workers.

[laugh] You almost had me going there. That's some excellent snark. Until this last bit, I actually thought you were serious.

But give me the choice between eating GM foods without pesticides and foods with lots of pesticides, and I'll take the GM food any day!

If those were the only two choices, I might agree. But they aren't.

That would be an easier task were it not for McCain's record, and his admission, "On the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."

What does McCain's record have to do with anything? If his record were relevant, he wouldn't be the (presumptive) Republican nominee, even given the lame competition he had.

On the upside, the AP reports that Obama leads in the all-important barbecue poll. According to an AP-Yahoo News poll, 52 percent of respondents would rather have Obama at their summer cookout than McCain, who only got 45 percent.

As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

Oh wait, no I don't.

Tom-Delay-flavored schadenfreude ... saaaa-weeeet!

Why is it that John Kerry's service could be and was significantly examined and attacked by the MSM after the swiftboating--and that in comparison to Bush's lack of service during the Vietnam war--but McCain's service is somehow sacred and not-to-be-questioned?

I wish Kerry's service had been significant examined by the MSM. Unfortunately, the facts of his service got a lot less attention than the accusations.

(Now, of course, at least one of the Swift Bloaters is participating in the fake outrage about General Clark.)

McCain can't run on the issues, because he knows the public doesn't want what he's selling. Petty stuff like this is all his campaign has.

Presumably they see that it worked for Bush's campaigns, so why try anything different?

After watching the Dem primary, I have some hope that Obama has a sufficiently different approach to Gore and Kerry that the Rovian approach won't work as well this time. Post-primary performance so far, well, I dunno.

Granted, now he's up against a Repub, so the media bias is more lop-sided. But I hope the Obama campaign finds some better traction soon.

I'd add, by the way, that John McCain, who is so conservative on gay rights that he has even opposed civil unions, supports the ballot measure, and wants to see gay marriage banned in California and other states.

Speaking from Massachusetts, my response to this is: Him and what army? We've got equal treatment under the law here, and we're not about to give it up.

Plus, given the way he treated his first wife, I'm not sure McCain is in any position to be talking about other folks' marriages.

Anyway, good on Obama as far as it goes, though ultimately it can't entirely be up to each state. There are federal benefits involved, full-faith-and-credit issues, DOMA, etc ...

So much for the New Boss NOT being the same as the old boss...

If I see one more person trotting out that quote, I'm going to sick Pete Townsend on them for gross misuse of a cliche. In this context, it has all the insightfulness and emotional impact of McCain's green-screen speech.

If you really, honestly believe that Obama -- for all his flaws -- would be the same sort of president that Bush is, you haven't been paying attention at all.

... and MediaCorp feigns reporting.

Standard Operating Procedure.