If for nothing else, her exposure to what it takes to run the country and to run national defense, and the fact that it will systematically be easier for the Clintons to establish a system for foreign relations, makes Hillary about a million times more qualified than Obama.

As far as what my ideology has to do with the situation, it was merely a comment on how McCain's lack of conservatism on a few issues would not get in the way of me voting for him over Obama.

I repeat, a Senator from AZ is beholden to the people of his state, the people who elected him, not what blowhards like Rush and Hannity and Mel Martinez and Ed "The Chin" Gillespie decree from on high.

"That's politics.  I realize you and others here may not like it but that's the reality."

Thanks, Teach, I'll jot that down in my trapper keeper. My point was that it shouldn't be that way, it doesn't work well that way, and that if we had 100 guys like McCain in the Senate we'd be alot better off.

"It's ideology.  A belief system that is one's core and which is developed over time and experience.  In my case it's about what I've learned to believe is right and best for my family, my fellows and my country.  I am not trying to convince you that what is right for me, would be for you, but it's not something I am willing to compromise."

Fair enough. When you announce your mayoral candidacy for Superobviousville, gimme a shout. Full support.

"Some of you have strong ideology that is polar opposite of mine.  You are partisan about it.  I respect that."

Not too apparent that you do. Personally, I'm guilty of the same when it comes to neo/theo-cons. Otherwise, I'm pretty respectful. Ask Bdav or Jbmiknee.

"What I have little respect for is those who try to claim the middle and whose "beliefs" will follow the prevailing winds or sound-bite of the day, thinking that by doing so they lay claim to some moral, ethical, intellectual high ground in which only the enlightened are truly able to discern the nuances of each and every issue."

This paragraph of yours, I believe, couldn't be much more misplaced. Thing is, I, like most, would agree w/ that sentiment. But even the far right pundits like Hannity, Ingraham, and Rush aren't attaching that attribute to McCain. I haven't read that assertion anywhere credible.

McCain swings w/ the prevailing wind? Really?  And the 2nd half of the paragraph doesn't even logically connect w/ the first. At all.

And complaining about others laying claim to the moral high ground?? Ncrangerman loves him some irony, he do.

"Finally, I've no respect for anyone, who doesn't respect themselves enough to refrain from name-calling toward someone they've never met, nor really know anything about.  Choose to engage me or not, at least act civil if you do."

Well, there is one misunderstanding here. If you inferred from my post that I was specifically calling you an asshole, you are mistaken. I was speaking in broad terms (the left or the right), so, unless you are the type of person I described, one who believes (in your case) that the neo-conservative side is 100% in the right on every single issue, i wasn't referring deliberately to you. That said, it was fair enough to take it that way.

However, if you are one of those people (and they exist in equal measure on the left), then I stand behind my original assertion wholeheartedly. But I doubt you are that dogmatically blackandwhitey.

I also suspect that you, judging from your comments over these many months, hold a similar opinion about those who espouse progressive dogma. As in, they be assholish.

And if you have been paying attention, you'll have noticed that while I am combative, I'm not much for name-calling around here. I believe I have argued with you in a civil manner.

I gotta say, this whole concept that one side has to crush the other, that you are either w/ us or against us, this 51% tyranny that you seem to be in favor of, is really troubling. That may be the current reality and as you want it to be, but it's stupid. Partisan stupidity.

And FWIW, I'm a libertarian, dude. I have issues w/ both sides.

But blah blah, I've rattled on way too much.

and its one thing to be flabby, it's another thing to be john mccain right now.  he isn't just old - he's ridiculously old.  makeup can't even hide it.  his neck flab is awful - I can't imagine what it's like on the rest of him

you could also google obama and fainting

Neither of em is close to as stupid as the current President and his cabinet.  At least the low grade morons currently running this country will be gone.

And your theory hasn't held up so far, either. Obama has KILLED Hillary among white men, and done very well w/ white women. Latinos, not so much, so there may be something there.

As for the Michelle Obama comment, I think you need to depucker a little.

And Obama may not be a centrist, but you'd have to be asleep to miss how he big he is scoring with independents and moderates.  

Experience and the ability to appeal to a majority on the issues (not just with your speeches) is probably more important in my opinion, something that Reagan definitely had and Clinton probably had to some degree.

Don't underestimate Michelle Obama.  

I guess if it gets too bad, they can always get her to stroke out, and he can get back to nailing the lobbyist.