At least the candidates are *discussing* John McCain, reminding the electorate that he's to other option.

If there's anything really worth noting here, it's that Obama does not do as well speaking "on his feet" than when he is delivering prepared remarks. This has happened to him several times over his campaign (and to HRC, and to McCain). What would a mature, thoughtful analysis and comparison of these 3 candidates' "off the cuff" remarks reveal?

I ask because while a president does give plenty of prepared speeches, speaking on one's feet seems to be a major component of the job.

This myopic "Analysis" of the language of the candidates is a distraction and has to stop. The left is creating its own paper tigers.

And the more that it gets put out there, the less room there is for important issues. THis one is worthy of Koppleman - Speaking of whom, can we get his name of the byline and put Benen there instead?

On the ticket with him, or he's toast.

There goes Oboma speaking the F'n truth again.

McCain is better than Bush. My blind sheep dog is better than Bush. (actually a lot better than Bush.)

The press has no F'n idea how to react when the truth is uttered by a politician. Its usually seen as some sort of gaff.

Ahhmmmm..... so called "press", you suck!

to think how any President, even one who shared Bush's policies could be as gawdawful and incompetent as George Dubya Bush.

I am not saying Bush's policies are not bad, they are dire - but even on the stuff where there is just an issue of doing a good job, the Bushies are a disaster.

That said, I wish Obama had said that it is apparent that McCain will be little more than a more presentable version of Bush, maybe a little better on the margins, but still a bad choice.

It is just inconceivable that anyone could be as bad as George Bush, isn't it?

I wouldn't mind an Obama/Clinton ticket. If we're going to get the first Democratic senator elected since Pres. Kennedy, we could do worse than emulating his strategy of getting his biggest rival (Johnson) on the ticket with him.

In fact, while I was still in the Air Force and the Abu Gharaib scandal broke, in my mortification at what our country had become, I wrote that McCain should lead a coup to remove this embarassment from office (Repub majority at the time). I don't write fan letters anymore and I will vote for the democratic nominee whoever that may be.

He'll be bad as president, but not as bad as Bush. No one is as bad as Bush (except perhaps Cheney).

Would Obama be worse?

Hillary?

Until someone enacts poicy and we see how the world economy and actions of all others account for/respond to those policies, there is no way of knowing.

These two are killing the chances they had, a golden chance, with their rhetoric, in my opinion.

You're right! John McCain would need Hillary on the ticket with him to avoid humiliating defeat. It'll never happen though. She won't bolt the party.

McCain was better than Bush before he was the same as Bush? I could have sworn the Clintons were running around town telling everyone that McCain was a better candidate than Obama just a couple of weeks ago. Is this part of the kitchen sink strategy? Say whatever it takes, even if that means totally contradicting yourself? Ladies and gentlemen, meet the woman trying to replace the worse president ever by running the worse campaign ever.

George bush may very well be remembered as the worst President in US history. Personally, I think John MCCain would be a disaster, but he would be better than Bush in some ways. That's the danger. Any imrovement over George Bush could resusitate the Republican party. They need to be banished to the wilderness.

Obama and Clinton are debating — and the press is (reluctantly) covering — the question of whether McCain sucks less than Bush, as much, or more. What's not to like?

This is how we wrest control of public discourse away from the "Is he mostly Christian or just partly Christian? Is she a jerk or just unpleasant?" discussions to which the mass media (and too many Salon readers) seem to have developed a Pavlovian response.

So let them "disagree." That's a debate that the Democrats will only win.

YES, McCain would continue largely on the same tack as Bush. He would continue many of the failed policies of the Bush Administration, but

YES, McCain is better than Bush because he wouldn't continue EVERY failed policy of the Bush Administration, so

YES, Hillary, you twit, it IS both. At least Obama didn't go out and suggest that McCain would be better than YOU, which is exactly what you have done on the campaign trail. Stop farting in the elevator.

Comparing Bush and McCain is pointless--its lazy dumb and senile dumb. We don't need either.

He would be worse than Bush, have you listened to the guy getting interviewed? "Sparky" would not be the first nickname that comes to mind. I do not trust him or the Senator from New York to return to and respect the traditional powers of the executive office. I will however vote for the New York senator only if she s(t)eals the primary and sponsors responsible, moderate candidates for the SCOTUS.

Damnit, I'm normally a relatively sane person and am voting for a dem in November come hell or high water, but Hillary's tactics are just infuriating. One week she's undercutting the potential/very likely Democratic nominee by saying that she and McCain have the experience to be President (clearly implying that Obama does not), and now, in her desperation, she's sniping about Obama saying that McCain would not be worse than Bush.

What the hell is her overall strategic plan? Is it just to get Hillary elected at all costs and damn the Democrat's chances is she's not the nominee? Can't she run a campaign on something substantive and try to beat Obama on those terms without giving ammunition to the Republicans for the general election?

I'm no naif, and I understand the terms of politics and getting elected, but above all else, I want to elect a President in the fall who will being to right the wrongs of the Bush administration. And Hillary too often seems to just be in this for herself and not the greater good.