>In principle, I agree with you and I'd be extremely bent if someone questioned my patriotism. The weird thing is that Obama brought this up without anyone questioning his patriotism. Goes to my earlier point in that Democrats, at least the left-leaning ones, seem to believe they have to constantly state their patriotism even when not under duress. To me, that signifies insecurity.
If he's painted as a liberal, then he's been called unpatriotic, or at least "can not be trusted with national security" - which we heard echoed here just yesterday. If it was echoed here, it was out there for years. So rather than wait for the attack to get instantiated, he did a bit of pre-emptive strike... where did he learn that?
Though, that makes him a leftist by definition: they have forever suffered from this malady, of paying more attention to what opponents will say than what do their proponents say. And then, worse, shape their behavior to avert these attacks... and end up dancing to the opponents' music. I've seen that over and over back home. I served my service in a tourist town on the coast, and one of the guys got drunk and lost his shirt or something. And how did the lieutenant chide him? "Tomorrow you'll see an article in 'Corriere de la sera'"... what will the foreign newspaper say.
Which is exactly why I don't like the guy (both the lieutenant and Obama) as much. The other day he promised money to faith-based charities. So go ahead, every candidate promises everything to every friggin group which claims to wield a few thousand votes with which to blackmail their campaign, so everybody ends up having promised the same things - and end up being political twins.
And if they end up being so same, then what's the purpose of elections? Or is the only difference in which promises will they break when elected?
>Mike, wake up. I'll explain to you what happened. Obama defended himself against "charges" that were never made. Who, in the political world, called him unpatriotic?
As I said, the charge was hanging out there... if it wasn't printed in large friendly letters, doesn't mean it wasn't printed anywhere, not that it wasn't said. It just wasn't printed in large friendly letters. But it doesn't matter...
>...It's so transparent and you'll see more of it - Democratic minions will badmouth McCain and Obama will badmouth the minion's comments. I mean, c'mon, are you that naive?
...because the even more naive stories were sold for the last eight years, and there were buyers, or else they wouldn't have been sold. At least Obama, no matter what a suck up he seems to be to, let's see - faith based groups, health insurance business, Israel, (someone fill the rest), at least he seems to be willing to set the discourse, to set the stage, to push his points and not just react to whatever is thrown at him. Which means that it may get interesting this time. I may even get some beer and popcorn.
