being the Bush loyalist that he is, did Portman help out with the voter fraud and vote suppression in Ohio in 2004?

Man, if he did, that would be a handy thing for McCain to have.

Either that, or take the CEO of Diebold on as VP.

we get rid of electronic voting machines, which leave no f***ing paper trail whatsoever!?

Then we can at least be sure that the votes are accurate.

For wackos to get a Tec-9 through a gun show loophole and walk into a school or workplace and kill a bunch of innocent people.

God bless the 2nd Amendment!

Not even old enough to talk and he's already being used as a political tool.

By a bigoted, wacko tool, to boot.

If by "country" he means the oil companies, energy CEOs, Halliburton, and all of Bush and Cheney's rich buddy "base".

Ultimately, it underscores how little of an energy policy McCain has. They throw everything in there from patriotism to POW to (strangely) the Apollo moon missions to distract viewers from the reality that they don't have a comprehensive or sensible energy policy. They don't have anything beyond the vague concept of drilling for oil domestically. All they have is warm fuzzies about men on the moon and being a "patriot". But no ideas on how to fix our economy, global warming, or ending our dependance on foreign oil through green and renewable energy.

We need real ideas and solutions, not more empty slogans.

may completely break apart this summer. For the first time in all of human history.

By the way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080627/sc_livescience/northpolecouldbeicefreethissummer;_ylt=AlPt0fq8rirIZaPivGec8U2s0NUE

Well just to be extra vindictive and childish, I'm going to write in John Kerry - after all he should have won in 2004!

That'll REALLY show everyone!!!

For speaking the truth about this issue. I'm so glad that someone FINALLY had the courage to step up and ask what everyone has been wondering- how in the hell can McCain claim to have such a great ability for foreign policy, when he's never been in the position to formulate the plan and to call the shots?

I think the amped up shock and outrage from the GOP and the McCain camp is only due to the fact that Clark's appearance interrupted their endless blowjob from the media.

Clark for VP, anyone?

There is no requirement in the Constitution that a President or even a Presidential candidate need to have had military service.

This was intentional. Our Founding Fathers realized that democracy would fade pretty quickly if it were controlled by the military. That is why command of the military as Commander in Chief is given to a civilian.

I'm tired as hell of people constantly saying that a candidate for any office would be ineffective if they haven't been in the armed services. Many individuals at many levels of our government - both past and present- have proven that.

Actually, it seems to me that the McCain campaign started the conversation about military service, and that General Clark was answering in response.

As far as Obama's capabilities:

He's been a community organizer in poor neighborhoods in Chicago, was president of the Harvard Law Review and has served in the Illinois state senate.

And while this resume may not be a thick as his detractors may like- Obama has a proven ability to bring both sides of an issue together for a mutual solution. Further, he is capable of intelligent consideration and nuance. He isn't going to be a hard headed dolt who goes in with guns blazing- shooting first and asking questions later. That alone makes him worth consideration in light of the past seven and a half years- and the fact that McCain would do nothing to deviate from the policies of the Bush administration.

"Cite a single bipartisan bill Obama sponsored and shepherded through the Senate. Show a single instance of him reaching out to and cooperating with Republicans."

Okay, I'll give you two.

The Earned Income Tax Credit that he passed in the Illinois legislature with the cooperation of Republicans.

And, in the US Senate, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act co-sponsored with Republican lawmaker Tom Coburn. This bill passed, and allows us taxpayers to go online and see how the government is spending our money.

I only gave those two bills as examples. Initially you insinuated that he hadn't even passed ONE bipartisan bill.

I'm not going to take the time to go through his entire Senate record, but I'm fairly confidant that these two instances are not isolated examples.

As far as the "present" vote- this is something Obama is not alone in using. All politicians use the "present" vote for various reasons, at times it can be used as a way to express protest.

When you've been outmaneuvered, changing the subject won't cover that up.

It's amazing that the media can report anything at all, since McCain's dong is in their collective mouths most of the time.

Then again, as Glenn has so clearly shown, Time magazine is nothing more than a pathetic, partisan rag at this point. Pity that people still think of them as a legitimate news source.

Simple. It's dehumanizing. When you can paint a segment of the population with a clinical sounding word, the intent is to make "homosexual" people seem somehow nefarious simply through the way that you address us.

Also, the word "gay" has a distinctly positive tone, as it was used to mean "happy" for generations. It's much less threatening a word. Besides, we couldn't have the tough, manly men at Family Research use the word "gay". It might mean that they themselves are gay!

Being gay myself, I always found it a bit strange when people referred to me and other gay people as "homosexuals". It seemed a bit like they were using biological genus-species terminology. Homosexualis tyrannosaurus, or something. :)