That's a little weird.  In what way is he an arab?

Danny, McCain is a man who loves to take risks, as he himself has admitted many times.  He is a high-stake craps shooter, although I think he loses more money than he wins.  His whole life is full of scrapping with one adversary or another, and that explains why he has not been a very effective senator.  His list of accomplishments is small primarily because he has alienated a lot of people in his own party, and he is considered a difficult man to work with by Republicans and Democrats alike.  He certainly has shown integrity at times, but he is uneven in that department.  To gain the nomination of the Republican party, he essentially had to reverse himself on many of his former positions (called flip-flopping when Democrats do it), and they would still hate him if he had not prevailed in the primaries.  I think that the majority of those who voted for him simply felt that he was the only Republican that had a hint of a chance of winning the general election, because of his popularity with moderates and independents.  He has done what he had to do to get where he is.

Sarah Palin is an excellent example of his decision-making style.  He saw himself sinking in the polls, so he threw the dice and bet on a long shot.  She has been a game-changer, and she has energized the Republican base.  However, she has the potential to be a big liability, so the strategy at this point seems to be very simple.  Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager has spelled it out.  They want to make it a campaign on personalities.  Palin and McCain will sell themselves as individuals.  They don't really have any big policies or plans for changing the government.  Sarah Palin, a potentially serious liability, will be kept away from the press.  She may interview with "friendly fire" news organizations like Fox.  They will do all in their power not to let her be interviewed by anyone who would ask tough questions, because her reputation in Alaska is as someone who gives good speeches but bad explanations of her actions. 

While McCain has a real shot at winning the electoral vote--most think the election will be close--the odds are still against him.  I think that they will be forced to expose Palin to the press sooner or later, and they will be far more hostile later.  It is unprecedented to try to sequester the VP candidate like they seem to be planning.  Obama's strategy will be to try to steer away from personality comparisons and run a campaign on the issues.  His surrogates will take on Palin, and he will try to stay above the fray.  I don't know how well that strategy will play, because the "personality" spin is that he is elitist--too aloof.  He is clearly the most qualified to be president, but a very large number of Americans are swayed by visceral reactions to personalities than issues.  That is what McCain is counting on.

He is clearly the most qualified to be president

That depends on your measuring stick.  If total government experience or foreign affairs experience is the measuring stick, then McCain is most qualified (and Palin least qualified).  Other measuring sticks may be available?  What are you using?

I also do not subscribe to the view that the "most qualified" candidate is necessarily the candidate we should select for President.

That depends on your measuring stick.  If total government experience or foreign affairs experience is the measuring stick, then McCain is most qualified (and Palin least qualified).  Other measuring sticks may be available?  What are you using?

Cimics, we need to make up our minds exactly what is meant by "experience".  The Republican hyperbole regarding Palin's experience is nothing short of astounding, but the point has been made that her paltry executive "experience" somehow trumps Obama's 12 years of legislative experience.  I suppose it also trumps McCain's, by that logic.  (As mayor of Wasilla, she screwed things up so badly that the local power brokers made her hire an administrator to take over some of her responsibilities.)   Still, the point that executives require a different set of skills from legislators is valid.

Obama shows great potential as an executive, because he makes wise decisions, thinks strategically, and has great organizational abilities, as evidenced by his tightly disciplined campaign that has offices in almost all, if not all, 50 states now.  Hillary could not match him there, and that is one reason why she lost.  Obama understands and values diplomacy, whereas McCain's instinct seems to be to try to bluster his way through.  (I'm contrasting the two approaches to the Georgia crisis, where Obama called for a measured response and McCain only blurted out hostile messages that we could not back up with force.)  Most of all, Obama seems to understand the "bully pulpit" nature of the presidency, and he is adept at forming coalitions and compromises.  McCain has almost none of those skills.  He hasn't even been a very effective legislator, despite all his years in Congress.  When he was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal, a bipartisan committee absolved him of serious wrongdoing, but they accused him of "poor judgment".  His most recent choice of Palin for a running mate is a good example of that poor judgment--maybe a good tactical move, but bad for the country.  Obama, by way of contrast, picked a running mate with far more legislative experience than McCain.  That experience will serve Obama well during his firsts term.

I also do not subscribe to the view that the "most qualified" candidate is necessarily the candidate we should select for President.

That depends on how you define "most qualified".  But I do believe that policy positions are an extremely important consideration, as well.

Obama, by way of contrast, picked a running mate with far more legislative experience than McCain.  That experience will serve Obama well during his firsts term.

Now why is it you say "a very large number of Americans are swayed by visceral reactions to personalities than issues" as a tacit admission McCain is likely to win, but then say something like this? Prepping yourself for the heart-break so it doesn't hurt as much, are you?

Frankly you don't seem to get that "experience" for anyone is irrelevant as long as all that "experience" is in the wrong position.

I'm going to copy this to a personal file for a possible perminent quote. You really do need to pray (oh the irony) things go the way you hope, or your face is going to be soooo red come November.

lol what partisan nonsense!  If Obama really had the best response to the Russian deal then why did he several days later revise his position so that it was essentially the same as McCain's?  Poppysmall bunnies.  What scares me is that you really buy whatever talking points you've been handed.

His position is not the same as McCain's, but he is a political realist.  The Russians are playing a game that Bush and Cheney understand well, since they have made no secret of their glee at outmaneuvering the Russians by building that Georgian pipeline.  I think that they are now a bit more sober on that score, having discovered that the Russians are no idiots when it comes to hardball politics.  Obama is in a difficult position, because he is not in a position to dictate American policy.  The best he can do is signal what his approach would be, and diplomacy and economic sanctions are our only option.  Tough talk is not the best option, because the Russians are not so stupid as to think that we pose a real threat to them in Georgia.  We can barely maintain our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan at this point.  Think about it for a second.  Why did Russia pick this time to sucker Georgia into attacking South Ossetia?  Bush and Cheney are no match for them.  Obama is wise enough to understand that this is a very complicated situation.  Luckily, he does not have any of his personal fortune tied up in the Caspian oil and gas pipeline.  Cheney almost certainly does, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bush does, too.  Hence, American foreign policy has been subordinated to serve their personal needs, which they do not distinguish from America's needs.  I don't think that McCain cares much about that pipeline, but Palin is a different story.  She is very much into oil futures.

There is no question that if we do not hold the line on Georgia that other states, for example the Ukraine, will be next.  After that Poland.  After that... well, it sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?  Obama can be our next Chamberlain.  Swell.

Don't be idiotic.  We are in no position to defend Georgia militarily.  The whole point of Russia's incursion has been to shut down the threat to their oil and gas monopoly.  The Georgia pipeline is toast.  It was a bad idea to begin with, and those who risked their fortunes on it will not be totally screwed.  The Russians have no intention of shutting down another revenue stream.  They just want in on it, and they don't want to see their monopoly threatened.  That is why they are still occupying Poti.  Poti was where a pipeline was going to connect to tankers in the Black Sea.  Their occupation is intended to send a clear message to those with a financial stake in that pipeline.

Ukraine was next in line for membership in NATO.  That is off the table in the near future, so Putin has achieved that goal for now.  Poland is immune to invasion.  As a member of NATO, a Russian invasion would trigger WWIII.  The Russians don't want that.  Still, they are not above intimidation tactics.

"Don't be idiotic.  We are in no position to defend Georgia militarily."

That's really not the point, though I don't concede it, anyway.  There are plenty of non-committed NATO units.  This 'we' business presumes a certain unilateralism which I personally find distasteful.  :)

Really?  Where was your distaste when Bush essentially committed us to a unilateralist policy in the invasion of Iraq?  Or did you really think of the "Coalition of the Willing" as a serious multilateral force?  We paid for our allies, and we are the ones suffering the full economic burden of that war.  Even the Iraqis get to carry off a surplus budget while we are paying a trillion dollars for essentially nothing.  Even the Iraqis are cautioning us not to let the door hit us in the rear as we leave.  What suckers we were to buy into that fiasco.

"Ukraine was next in line for membership in NATO.  That is off the table in the near future, so Putin has achieved that goal for now."

Oh, you think that if we took a soft line, a nice 'diplomatic' approach, running to the UN and complaining and passing resolutions, that Russia would say, "Oh well, we're perfectly content with our fingers in Georgia and our two breakaway 'countries.'  As long as the Ukraine stays out of NATO we won't bother them, either."

You don't understand the point of going to the UN.  It is to enlist the others on the Security Council, not Russia.  They will veto any serious action, but our goal now has to be to isolate them diplomatically.

This is your position?  Patent nonsense.  That's the sort of ridiculous reasoning that saw Cambodia go up in flames at the end of the Vietnam conflict.  I mention it because that particular travesty resulted in millions of lives.  These are the stakes we are playing with:  not just the lives of our soldiers, but citizens around the world.

You are really clueless.  Sihanouk did everything he could to keep us out.  The US drew Cambodia into that war, and their blood is partly on our hands.  The Cambodians could not keep the Vietnamese from using their territory to supply the Viet Cong, so we very happily began operating in Cambodian territory.  The Khmer Rouge gained allies from North Viet Nam from our efforts to compromise Cambodian territory.  At the same time, the US government lied loudly and continually about the presence of American troops in Cambodia.  It was a fiasco from beginning to end.  But you don't really remember those times, do you?

"Poland is immune to invasion."

Nonsense.  Do you read the Russian news?  I do.  Not in Russian of course.  They have explicitly stated that a military response against Poland is forthcoming.  Bluster, perhaps.  I wouldn't count on it because...

Do you read Russian?  I do.  And my father was Polish.  I have forgotten more about Russian politics than you ever knew.  Poland made a point of joining NATO precisely to gain that immunity.  They could be overwhelmed by Russian forces, but the price would be WWIII.  The Russians don't want that any more than we do.  You don't understand how cold war politics works.  Putin is former KGB.  He understands what he is doing, and this sort of brinksmanship is standard operating procedure.

"As a member of NATO, a Russian invasion would trigger WWIII."

Not if NATO shows that it is a spineless animal or a paper tiger.  If the US and NATO do not hold the line in Georgia then this will tell Russia exactly what can be expected if they use force in the Ukraine (who after all is not in NATO, so by your reasoning is an open target):  nothing.

Ukraine has a large, influential population of ethnic Russians.  The situation there is more complicated than you understand.  I don't think that Russia needs to invade Ukraine.  All they need to do is shut off the natural gas in the winter.  Europe will squawk, as they have in the past, but squawking is music to Putin's ears.  He doesn't care.  He has the gas and oil that they need, and both parties know it.  Russia doesn't need to invade if they can manipulate.

At a NATO news conference a couple of weeks ago a reporter who actually understood what was at stake asked the question, "Just what value is there to membership in NATO, anyway?"  Everyone knows that every day that Russia still has troops in Georgia is more evidence that NATO itself is a paper tiger.

In Georgia, NATO is something of a paper tiger.  They stand no chance of NATO membership in the near future, although I do worry what stupid gamble McCain might make if he were to gain the presidency.  He loves to gamble, so there is a chance that he'll shoot craps on that one.  Too bad for all of us if he does, but it's just a game, right?  But our European partners will never go along with unilateral action by the US.  They no longer trust us like they used to, thanks to the guy you voted for in 2000 and 2004. 

You realize that the treaty has never been tested, don't you?  9-11 doesn't count.  I assure you, that reality is not lost on the Russians.  It wasn't lost on the aforementioned reporter, either, the indignation of the leadership at NATO notwithstanding when pressed on the point.

Think for just a second, will you?  Who supplies Western Europe with the energy to heat their homes in the winter?  Figure that one out, and you might understand more about European politics.  You might also understand what the Georgian pipeline was all about and why Russia invaded Georgia.

Mark my words, if Obama wins the presidency, you can kiss Georgia and Ukraine goodbye.  You can kiss Taiwan goodbye.  You can kiss Israel goodbye... well... Israel will take care of itself, but I reckon they'll take a hit, anyway.

I can't believe how naive you are about political realities.  Israel is totally dependent on us.  If we were to withdraw support, they would not survive.  Neither Georgia nor Ukraine are "ours".  Saakashvili is a total idiot who allowed himself to be snookered into attacking South Ossetia, thus providing Russia with a seemingly legitimate excuse to invade Georgia.  The Russians understood how to push his buttons, and they waited until the Chinese Olympics to push his buttons.  Ukraine is not a Western country.  They want NATO support to oppose Russia, which wants to re-absorb them.  Their chances of staying out from under Russian control are not good, as they depend on Russian energy supplies even more than the rest of Europe does.

But as the bodies pile up we can be comforted that at least Obama has taken the matter to the UN Security Council.  I'm sure the permanent members, China and Russia, will be quite pleased to hear what Obama has to say.  They'll get 'right on it.'  For of course, we already know the value of the UN, don't we?  The UN is quite prepared to issue resolution after resolution after resolution, and in the face of violations, do nothing.  So, that is one organization that has already been tried and found wanting.  NATO, I reckon, is next.

We have far more leverage with NATO than the UN.  What you don't seem to realize is that Russia and China are traditional enemies who actually engaged in military skirmishes with each other during the Cold War.  A smart foreign policy would seek to use that enmity to help reign in Russia.  Right now, we aren't exactly free of China's influence either, since your "dear leader" Bush ended up mortgaging the farm to them in order to conduct his ill-conceived invasion of Iraq.

Mark my words, if Obama wins the presidency, you can kiss Georgia and Ukraine goodbye.  You can kiss Taiwan goodbye.  You can kiss Israel goodbye... well... Israel will take care of itself, but I reckon they'll take a hit, anyway.

i am going to file these predictions away in my 'SntJohnny' file, along with this little gem from 2004 (it's from the hacked forum, thread entitled - appropriately - "Well-earned fish slap for Johnny"):

"There will be no safe place in Pakistan [for Al Qaeda]. Syria and Iran will be taken out in 12-18 months. North Korea will find itself in dire straits. The American military will expand times three, maybe five, because this time when Bush says that the war on terror is a long and arduous one, people will know what he's talking about and realize that Bush is fighting it just the way it needs to be fought."

Instead of which, Pakistan still appears to be pretty safe for Al Qaeda (despite the odd widely publicised cross-border foray by US special forces).  Syria and Iran still do not seem to have been 'taken out' four years later, and North Korea is not obviously shaking in its boots from Bush's hard-line 'commitment to diplomacy'.

Not questioning your crystal ball reading, obviously...

i expect there are, but what would be the fun in digging up those?