Veepstakes

I like the Reverend Wright as a running mate for McCain.  Wright is much smarter and more electable.

I have to agree with curious.  Bill Richardson would make a good running mate for "the Savior", since they're both pretty much equally clueless.   However, Richardson may be able to construct a complete sentence without adding six or seven "umms", "ahhs", or two to three second pauses...while he thinks of the next line of complete nonsense to lay on his adoring fans in the MSM.

B. Hussein Obama is such a lightweight pinhead, it might just be interesting to see how fast he can totally sink the economy and this country in general.

Ruuning mates are really important.  McCain because of his age, and Obama because he's Obama.

"From what I have heard and read it seems Romney is the presumed running mate for McCain.   I can't stand either one of them so makes no difference to me except that he might help McCain take a few states that Obama would otherwise likely win in."

Romney helps in Utah and maybe Michigan and Wyoming and hurts pretty much everywhere else.

I thought Richardson supporters had been turned off by what they kept calling a zipper problem.  Was that later debunked?  Rauschenberger and Richardson supporters did more to talk down their own primary candidate than anyone else I can ever remember.

roughly mirrored the Illinois senator's withdrawal schedule and offered--I think it has been widely disputed as to what Al-Maliki said but roughly is a big word considering that Obama isn't really sure what he has said about pulling the troops out and when?

Iraq's growing confidence as violence drops and Iraqi security forces expand their roles. I find this quote interesting after all your comments about whether violence would drop in Iraq after the Surge, but Obama wasn't sure either so maybe you are right.

Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, said after meeting Obama that Iraqi leaders share "a common interest ... to schedule the withdrawal of American troops."

"I'd be happy if we reach an agreement to say, for instance, the 31st of December 2010" would mark the departure of the last U.S. combat unit, he said - then noted that any such goal could be revised depending on threats and the pace of training for Iraqi security forces. When you say great ads do you mean for McCain because if I remember my math right that’s about 23 months after Obama would become president isn't that longer then 16 months? Obama’s last promise to pull the troops out was 16 months or did I misunderstand him again? Really it sounds like what McCain has said that it will depend on what is happening on the ground in Iraq, when things like threats and the pace of training for Iraqi security forces are considered then they will consider when to pull out. The new goal is of course just another flip flop by Obama not covered very well by the media, in other words it’s not 16 months its maybe 23 months or maybe when we think it’s safe, which isn't really a set schedule. So I guess I would say that Obama’s trip to Iraq and talk to Maliki muddled American Foreign Policy, we got some nice pictures though?

"hmm, i think Gordy should be our VP pic for Obama and Jason Barickman would make a fine choice for McCains VP pics. Obama would have someone who represents actual sane people and McCain would have someone who represents self-serving, egotistical attorneys!"

Huh?

Run: as I read the article, the December 2010 statement wasn't from Obama, it was from al-Hashemi, so no, it's not a change by Obama.

In fact, Obama's position hasn't changed at all, regardless of the media's insistance on pretending that they can't understand any position that takes longer than three words to explain.  Sixteen months is still Obama's goal, and has been for a long time, assuming that conditions on the ground allow.

I think we can all agree that it would be stupid to insist on a rigid timetable with no possibility of adapting to changing circumstances.  That's why Obama has never done that, and why all the media spin about an alleged shift is a clear oversimplification to the point of blatant misrepresentation.

Run: as I read the article, the December 2010 statement wasn't from Obama, it was from al-Hashemi, so no, it's not a change by Obama.Hi Kevin how are you? al-Hashemi as I understand the quote was commenting (not the story) on his discussion with Obama. The whole discussion in the media was how Maliki and al-Hashemi agreed with Obama, right? So when al-Hashemi says it Dec. 31st then Obama must also agree with that time table, read the comments on the thread. I was just repeating what I read. See this is a way of showing McCain does not know what he’s doing in not having a schedule for withdrawal. Well either Maliki agrees with Obama or he doesn’t, you can’t have it both ways.   ***think we can all agree that it would be stupid to insist on a rigid timetable with no possibility of adapting to changing circumstances. I wouldn't agree when the war wasn't going well Obama's statement's like many people on this Blog was much stronger like not in 16 months but get out now. That in my opinion is what would make McCain a better commander and Chief he had the experience to see that the direction of the war could be improved that a "Surge" would work. McCain didn't give up on the troops even when things were tough and allowed the troops to succeed. Obama doesn't even have the experience to even know when to stick to a plan. That’s bad for the military, troops and when trying to deal with other countries.