To imagine, that in an election which should be based on 1. Concerns on erosion of civil liberties an increased presidential powers, 2. A country lied to on the reasons going to Iraq, 3. Massive economic downturns in the heartland of the country, 4. Several large natural disasters occurring,.5 erosion of confidence in government (i.e. Katrina) 6. Iran saber rattling, 7. millions of people without health care, that this much time talking about nonsense, makes me ashamed of my country and well happy I don't currently live in it.

I mean the candidates have pretty big differences of opinions on how to handle current political issues, why cannot we talk about these?

Wholeheartedly seconded, k.

Not that there isn't a double standard about what Dems get criticized for saying and what Republicans can get away with (see also Revs. Wright vs. Hagee and the other one whose name I can't remember at the moment), but... Thirteen minutes on some stupid quote? Jeezus. If we had a reasonable model for media in this country, the whole political situation would be vastly better.

"Does he really love America?"

This is too painful to watch. Thank you k for saying what I hope everyone's thinking.

Yep. I watched about a minute of this crap last night, turned it off, and said to my wife something very like what k wrote.

Not only does is this incredibly stupid stuff to be debating, THIS is exactly the kind of debate the GOP wants from the media. Any debate of their utterly failed policies is loser for them. (I wonder how long this clown spent of the capitulation of Steny Hoyer on wiretapping law and Telecom immunity?) The best you can do if you try to one-up Hannity with this kind of horseshit is play catch-up. And who gives a flying fuck what John McCain OR Michelle Obama said about when the started to love America or when they started to be proud of America. What a sad, pitiful waste of time.

So, John McCain thinks giving Habeus Corpus to prisoners is Wrong. What a maroon.

He thought Vetoing SCHIP was a great idea. What an ignoramus.

I agree with k. I also think that anyone who finds this to be news is deluded.

I'm a self described whacko liberal and yet I can see the bias inherent in this show from the getgo. Lot's of ad hominem, lot's of using the words "right wing wackjob" to describe people and then cutting off their response. Lot's of "in the context of" being said while taking things out of the larger context of reality and pigeonholing it into the 'context' of a paragraph of text that missed the point of the election entirely.

Not only is it a shameful thing to be arguing about "given the context" of the state of our country and economy, it is taking a page directly from Bill O'Reilly's playbook. The fact that it is 'liberal' doesn't make it right. It is still the shoddiest form of BS journalism there is.

They are really desperate to try to bury this "i've never been proud of my country" comment by obama's wife. I think all these comments are valid points - you really need to investigate what a candidate believes. The scariest thing about obama is that we don't know enough about him - so what if he believes in hope and change.

I agree with k. I also think that anyone who finds this to be news is deluded.

Well, the fact that the Right wing is guilty of blatant hypocrisy and borderline racism is not news, but someone actually saying it in the mainstream media is still a new development.

But then if every republican non-issue can be nullified with a democratic non-issue, then maybe the real issues can break the tie and we can all mock JoAnn for being so wrong.

Well, the fact that the Right wing is guilty of blatant hypocrisy and borderline racism is not news

Probably because news shouldn't cover your fantasy.

In any case, this really reveals how desperate the left are to delude themselves. Comparing one person's actual statement - "For the first time in my life I'm really proud of my country" - with half of what someone else said ... for that superficial equality that liberals love so well.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising after the whole situation with Obama's racist, anti-American pastor. Obama's got a problem! The guy he's been listening to for 20 years and has called his 'spiritual adviser' has been revealed as a blatant racist and anti-American! Quick, let's find someone with a tenuous connection to John McCain who maybe at one time in his life said something bad - that's exactly the same!

So, John McCain thinks giving Habeus Corpus to prisoners is Wrong.

Perhaps he believes giving 'habeus corpus' to enemy combatants captured on the field of battle is not always reasonable or practicable. And he's probably right, considering that the military has its own legal system that is completely independent of that in civilian life.

To suggest that Habeas Corpus is ever inconvenient is rhetoric worthy of John Yoo. Or Saddam Hussein. Or Hitler. You don't arbitrarily and indefinitely deprive a human being of their rights. If you think any government should be allowed to do that, then you prefer a totalitarian state. And that's not a conservative point of view. Instead it is cowardly and fear driven and backward, precisely the kind of thing America fought and defeated in WW2. My grandparents fought fascists abroad. At the ballot box we now must defeat them here.

As for a black woman, reveling for a moment in her ability to love America as a fully enfranchised citizen, only a generation or three deep into having the right to vote, the freedom to ride the bus and sit in the front, to sit at a lunch counter and not be called a n_r, you better believe it's a big deal she can love America. And I'm voting for her husband. Proudly.

Oh, and McCain called his wife a C_.

he believes giving 'habeus corpus' to enemy combatants captured on the field of battle is not always reasonable or practicable.

The same tack taken by John Yoo ... and for the majority of the Guantanamo prisoners, it's horseshit . Most of the Guantanamo detainees weren't captured on the field of battle at all. The evidence against many of these people is pitifully weak, and most of them weren't captured in engagements with U.S. forces at all. So perhaps, as is so often the case, you're lying again.

Most of the Guantanamo detainees weren't captured on the field of battle at all. The evidence against many of these people is pitifully weak, and most of them weren't captured in engagements with U.S. forces at all. So perhaps, as is so often the case, you're lying again.

That's exactly right. The U.S. offers bounty money for rounding up "terrorists". Some 90% of the prisoners at Gitmo were not captured by the U.S.

Perhaps he believes giving 'habeus corpus' to enemy combatants captured on the field of battle is not always reasonable or practicable. And he's probably right, considering that the military has its own legal system that is completely independent of that in civilian life.

In other words, human rights are optional. If you can be imprisoned (and even tortured) without any official charges being brought against you, and have no means of challenging your imprisonment, then you have no other rights. Habeas corpus is that basic--equal protection under the law, indeed, the very idea of rule of law, presupposes that only those who break the law, and can be shown to have broken it, are punished. Otherwise, punishment is arbitrary, the authority who wields it, tyrannical.

Exactly what I expect Callgirl to say. He's a spunk loving slut of the conservative right unable, or perhaps just unwilling, to smell the shit from his own side. It's simply inconsequential to bring up the attempt of wanting to level the playing field by digging up dirt for the other side. You'll completely ignore the attempts of the GOP to smear Bill Clinton and his sexcapades or John Kerry with the swift boat vets but you'll become irritated by one casual reference to John McCain's anti-American proclamations.

The quote taken by John McCain was not taken out of context in any way and was even placed in context by providing the entire statement. What's more damning than the fact that, contrary to the lack of pride Michelle seemed to have, John lacked love -- a much more powerful emotion one could have toward their country -- and the fact that it came from a political candidate and not just the wife of one.

It's hilarious to watch your side attempt to smear the other side when your side commits the same acts your side condemns! You'll point to Obama's lunatic of a pastor yet ignore McCain's religious endorsements like Pastor Hagee with his support of Hitler and his endeavors or Pastor Parsely and his Christian lunacies of crusades. I'm surprised someone as drugged by nationalism as you wasn't at all dismayed by the anit-American comments made by John McCain more than once as though it was worth repeating for those that didn't get the message the first time around.

Liberals here on this board have shown so much flexibility in their support, not of people and parties, but of ideas to even be willing to support a Republican, Ron Paul. You on the other hand run your mouth against liberals as though they were the root of evil in everything and have not once showed signs of independent thought or adaptive thinking, only swallowing the O'Reilly and Hannity's load.

Well said, Erick. And in fact, once someone starts arguing that Habeas Corpus is in any small way a negotiable item, they at that moment are no longer an American patriot.

And in fact, once someone starts arguing that Habeas Corpus is in any small way a negotiable item, they at that moment are no longer an American patriot.

So neither Obama nor Mccain nor any of the rest of us are Patriots! Oh, what to do now?!

That's up to you, JoAnn. Sorry if my rhetoric here is a little strong but it astonishes me that I hear people seriously talk about going backward on something as fundamental as this. If the government can detain an individual indefinitely without trial, and our own citizens defend that, then America has failed. People should consider what their patriotism means, and see if it includes respect for their own humanity.

Obama? I am under the impression he's for restoring the rule of law.

That's up to you, JoAnn. Sorry if my rhetoric here is a little strong but it astonishes me that I hear people seriously talk about going backward on something as fundamental as this

It astonishes me too Amorphousbob. The reality is that so-called "progressives" are not the majority. The number of conservative blue-dog Democrats attest to this fact.

So far as I know, Obama has been fine on habeas corpus, the problem is his vacillating on wiretapping/telecom immunity. His most recent promise to fight to strip immunity from the House's telecom "compromise" (i.e., capitulation), when it comes to the Senate. Well, I guess that's something, but not much since the bill legalizes warrantless wiretaps - not exactly what I'd call "restoring the rule of law". A major disappointment is more like it.

I don't doubt that, JoAnn. I do have confidence however that the youth vote, newly energized by a candidate they identify with and eagerly support, can tip this whole mess. There also has never been a more motivated black vote. And hopefully women, even those in red state households, will vote for Obama even as some of their husbands vote for the endless war guy.

In addition, conservatives (real ones, not the frothing faux christian hate crowd) are so dismayed that some of them may stay home, or even vote for Obama. And indeed, the crazed bible thumping Hate Thy Neighbor crowd is dismayed too. So they are not such a solid hideous voting block this time.

All this spells opportunity. We can elect Obama. I gave his campaign twenty bucks last week, for the second time. Will I be disappointed by some of his words and actions? Naturally. But that's ok. The government isn't supposed to be perfect for me, or anyone else. It's supposed to be better than horrible, and that requires our vigilance and participation.

One question - I still don't get how Obama is wobbly on Habeas Corpus, as I have heard suggested recently. If there's a link or a quote, someone please share? The link I posted above - "restoring the rule of law" goes to a statement Obama made on the senate floor that I think makes clear his stand on this issue. Thanks.

Ah, thanks Tim. Yep.

Pyromania is to homo erection as Foot-in--mouth disease is to homo...

"(What an) ignoramus."

MickCain combines Bush's curiosity-lack with Reagan's... age, out-of-it-ness, well, I can't recall... girl.

Calligraph is right, as usual, but off-center, Erick, here, is the reactionary, not meant ad hominem, I mean it ex amplum, amplem, whatever it be. The ilk of "call girl" is best sidelined by directing people's attention elsewhere. If McCain is as old and out of touch as he seems, his foot should yet be our greatest ally, limber him up, yoga, flexibility, George Sr.'s silver foot in his mouth, as he sucks, redux.

Podiaphilia. Hopeful I am.

FISA... Obama really has to be careful to not become a male prostitute. Obomerasty enables male prostitution. Where are his advisor's on this? K, apply for a job with 0bama O8... 0K? 'bama '8 '... K.

Magna Carta a Magic Carpet?

Incendio!