McCain: "Events will prove one of us correct in the next few days."

"The next few days"? If he really meant that, it shows a serious lack of understanding of the complicated effects of major military actions. Even "Mission Accomplished" didn't happen until May 1st.

Of course, it took far less than the 5 years between then and now to prove that it was Senator Byrd who was right. But McCain has evidently not noticed the proof yet.

And as for the debate he claimed happened, who's he kidding? Anyone who disagreed with the Bush Administration and their enablers was ignored, insulted, or dismissed. And many of the loudest and most insulting and dismissive voices are still getting paid for their oh-so-serious opinions, while many of those who were proven correct are still ignored.

I mean, what else can be said? Pathetic.

I continue to be darkly bemused by all the people who claim that "government is the problem, not the solution" when it comes to schooling, poverty relief, healthcare, corporate oversight, etc, etc ... and yet have an incredible faith that government officials can be trusted with invasive and pervasive access to personal information with little or no oversight.

I don't care who's in power, Repubs or Dems, Bush or McCain or Clinton or Obama, or Jesus Christ himself with Buddha sharing the office. No one should be trusted with these kinds of powers without meaningful controls and ongoing oversight. It is unAmerican in a far more profound way than most of the petty things that word is so often applied to.

I'm Pleased

Very reasonable discussion. I was expecting the Obama supporters to play the nailed to the cross game.

-- The Notorious W.E.S.

How thoughtful of you to bring your hammer.

Quick, name three pundits who got better jobs, raises, more attention -- whatever -- for being right about what a cock-up this was going to be.

("Being right too soon is socially unacceptable." -- Robert Heinlein)

shooter242 wrote: "I am indeed a conservative and I think it's time to talk about military isolationism, and it's likely outcomes. What do think will happen if we pull out of Iraq and demonstrate an unwillingness to interfere elsewhere? It's something that has to be considered and weighed."

If you really want to seriously consider the topic, you can't pretend it's an simple either/or choice between (1) pre-emptive and essentially unilateral invasions based on stove-piped intelligence and (2) "military isolationism".

What be happening is that the McCain campaign can't directly criticize Obama on this topic, as it would involve a risk -- however slight -- that folks might start to pay attention to the unsavory moments of some of the religious folks McCain hangs with. So there's some self-interest involved.

Of course, the high-mindedness is the official policy. Unofficially, who knows?

That amplifies and gives credence to everything they do. Ignoring it or "rising above it" is fatal. It needs to be confronted head on.

-- GlennGreenwald

I think it could be credibly argued that Obama's response did rise above the heavily-spun Rev. Wright matter. And no, his approach wasn't 100% magic-wand effective, but I suspect it was a hell of a lot more effective than anything else he could have done.

Well before I became a supporter -- and some small part of why I'm a supporter -- I noticed something about Obama's response style. He likes to use the campaign equivalent of an old martial arts technique. Instead of meeting something head on, he often finds a way to use the energy of the attack against the attacker.

Now, that's trickier to do than the good-old head-butting or classic-Dem half-hearted dodging and blocking. But done correctly, turning your opponents' attacks against them is devastating. I honestly think that if Obama wasn't as good at it as he is, Hillary "presumptive nominee" Clinton would have long since wrapped up the nomination. Can it be as effective in the long run against the Right and their echo chamber? I don't know, but I'm hoping we'll find out.

Amazing

how most of Obama's donations were less than $100. Talk about people powered politics.

-- bethb10

Right now, in an undisclosed location, there's a group of people desperately trying to figure out how to make political contributions below a certain amount against the law. I'm waiting to see the news reports -- based on remarks by "anonymous DOJ officials" -- that most small donations come from members of shadowy, "terrorist-linked" organizations.

Half-kidding, half-paranoid, that's me.

It's a longshot but at some point Clinton could do the honorable thing and drop out----"I cannot drag my sense of entitlement in to this general election at the cost of the entire party, both my supporters and Senator Obama's. The stakes are too high in this election."

And pigs could fly, if they were birds.

If the delegate count (&etc) was reversed and it was Obama who was this far behind, this would all be over already.

Nealwriter wrote: "How ironic that the one thing people seem to admire most about Clinton--her tenacity--could potentially be the undoing of the Democratic party."

Tenacity is a great thing ... when it's tempered by good judgment and a respect for facts. We already have a President with untempered tenacity. Doesn't seem to work very well.

EMStoveken wrote: "Just as votes in the general election are little more than requests made to the electoral college, so now are Democratic primary votes suggestions to this group of professional politicians."

I invite you to explain that to the primary voters, especially all the ones for whom this is their first time participating in decades (or ever). Explain it in such a way that they will still support Dem candidates in November, and continue to participate as Dems in the future.

Good luck with that.