PastaJoe

We're not talking about your friends, we're talking about the POTUS. I don't have to imagine a president looking up from a children's book...

Washington was informed on what was the current technology of the day. He didn't correspond with stone tablets, he used quill and paper. Maybe the Repubs should use your idea in an ad. "John McCain, as technologically up to speed as George Washington". And 70-80 year olds will tell you how they just don't have the energy they used to, and about their health problems, and that things were much better and simpler in the old days.

Obama has always said that he would set clear timelines for leaving Iraq, but they were open to modification if the situation called for it. The argument has been that Bush/McCain have not previously even been willing to set clear timeline goals, which doesn't give the Iraqis the incentive to resolve their political issues. And what does how a child in elementary school is registered by his parents have to do with the election? And if it's so, is there something wrong with being a Muslim? Or do you prescribe to the idea that all Muslims are bad? And the fact that he chose to become a Christian means nothing? So anyone who isn't born and raised as a Christian is also bad?

And that's a key point; if McCain caved to the conservatives on his first major decision over his better judgement, what else will he cave to if he's president? It's in fact McCain who has put politics first ahead of country, while Obama picked a person he felt was a trusted advisor and qualified to take over if needed, even though it didn't buy him as much politically.

Zing! I think it's McCain's way of trying to court the pony express vote.

The agreement in question is related to the continuing role of American troops in Iraq; such as if there will be bases, what will troops be allowed to do as opposed to Iraqi troops, and what would be the legal consequences of actions by American troops. This is not an agreement that states, "we will withdraw X number of troops by Y date", as the writer mistakenly infers and you mistakenly interpreted. Obama doesn't want to be tied down by some agreement that Bush negotiated without Congressional approval. Bush avoids calling it a treaty because he wants to bypass Congressional oversight. And I thought Bush/McCain said troop withdrawls should be based on results on the ground, not negotiated timetables, so which is it?

She may be politically smart, but she's not knowledgable on the issues. She does a good job of avoiding answering the questions she can't and deflecting by parroting canned responses based on key words in questions.

Yes Mr High and Mighty, my mother had to take painkillers a few years ago when she had shoulder surgery. She didn't like the effects they were having on her, so she decided to stop taking them and put up with the pain. I guess you think anyone who gives in to drugs should be given a pass since it's not their fault, so we should free all the people in prison on drug charges who didn't have the means and connections to get away with it like Mistress Cindy and Limbaugh. I wasn't "taking glee" in her addiction, but pointing out the hypocracy of the Republicans who think she's this great role model for women, when in fact she abused her position to acquire drugs.

Yes, and some of them are running for office.

But how is that true? According to Sarah Palintologist, Adam and Eve tamed the dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

How ironic; the boyfriend was laying pipe, and he ended up getting laid out by a pipe.

I knew she had got hooked on painkillers, but I hadn't previously heard about the Limbaugh-like methods she used to obtain them and the others that got adversely affected. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

The Sarah Palin talking action figure: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opini...id=opinionsbox1

In the Senate, even bills that pass the House unanamously have been blocked from votes through parlimentary procedures, especially by Tom Colburn. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8072701441.html I know Republicans have to put a good face on the situation, but the reality is that it is an extreme longshot that they would reclaim control of the Congress, or even maintain their current numbers. It's like the Syracuse University coach; he has to present a positive attitude for the team as they face Penn State this week, but let's be realistic.

I think if I had to work in a skyscraper like that now, I would seriously look at learning how to skydive with one of those small parachutes that some people jump off bridges or cliffs with. I would want to give myself options, even if they weren't great. Something is better than nothing.

Sorry, I don't have a Crackberry, and I said the same thing when I heard her convention speech.

I think she sounds more more like Rosanne.

The Congress approval rating is deceiving. When asked about which party they'd prefer to be in control of Congress, more people choose Democrats. They aren't upset about what the Democrats have tried to do, they're upset that nothing is being done to help working families, which is due to Republicans using parlimentary procedures to prevent votes on legislation, and presidental veto threats. I'm not concerned about the Congress changing parties, I just hope the Democrats get enough Senate seat gains so they can kick turncoat Joe Lieberman to the curb.

First off Poland's military is better equipped and trained for invasion scenarios than Georgia, and it would not be as easy as it was in Georgia. And unlike Georgia, Russia doesn't directly border Poland, and would have to go through Belarus or Ukraine to get to Poland by land or airspace. So again it isn't just like going over the border as it was in Georgia, which already has some Russian troops there as peacekeepers. I think it's a mistake to include countries that border Russia and were formerly part of the Soviet Union in NATO. There should be a buffer of countries in between, militarily aligned with neither side, to reduce the possiblity of conflict. Russians are historically paranoid about invasion, and with historical justification. Sticking our military on their borders is only rubbing salt in the wound, and gives them a reason to increase their military strength at a time when we should be trying to make them feel more secure about cooperating, as we did in the 80s and 90s.

I was referring to seats that are not safely held by the incumbent. There are more Republican incumbents in danger of losing their seats than Democrats due to the mood of the voters regarding Bush.

What shady characters is he associating with, since you say it in present tense? He's been asked about Ayers and his past many times, and answered them, most recently on Bill O'Reilly this past week.

Next we'll hear that Sarah can write her name in the snow, in both English and Cyrillic (Russian, to prove her foreign policy experience).

On the off chance this is not a satirical post, I believe you mean Muslim not Mormon, and Wahabbi not Wasabi. Obama went to school in Indonesia through 4th grade, then went to school in Hawaii from 5th grade through high school, which he graduated from in 1979. So in the early 70s Obama was still in grade school.

It's not in play, even conservative commentators admit that. The question is how large a margin will the Democrat numbers increase. It's all about what seats are up for election in which states. A national poll doesn't reflect views within the states, just like the electoral college vs national polls.

That's the point. Obama has been in the national spotlight, being vetted and tested every day for 19 months. We know all about him, warts and all, and what his policies would be on any number of topics. Biden and McCain are also known quantities. But now we're expected to make an informed decision on a person most knew nothing about in the next 60 days, while she is being tightly controlled and handled. It was very disturbing when she had the deer in the headlight moment when asked about the Bush Doctrine, to think that this person who only visited Canada and Mexico before last year, and thinks seeing Russia across the border qualifies her to be the potential commander-in-chief. We've just gone through 8 years with a president who had a similar disinterest in international affairs before taking office. And she still buys into the idea that Iraq was somehow connected to 9/11, as she expressed yesterday when talking to her son's brigade, that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.” http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/437066.html