This is the first I've heard about this.

Something I don't quite understand...how would him visiting wounded soldiers take the focus away from the wounded soldiers?

My source for the Obama incident was McCain himself talking with Shawn Hanitty or however you spell it.

I also heard that numerous of the better VP candidates flat out refused to have anything to do with Obama as a running mate due to his lack of party support. He wants to do everything his way with no regard for the rest of the party. It would be change, but I'm still not sure what kind of change yet.

I will look up more sources to see which is actually true if there are any. I don't like how McCain just seems to be running his campaign as an anti Obama thing instead of on how he is qualified and what he will be doing. Obama is over visiting the Middle East and McCain is just whining about Obama. Do something. Enough talk!

Update

It looks like it was a bit of a Republican plot to make Obama look bad. From what I can tell, both candidates are not allowed to visit such places for political gain which I completely agree with. Obama would not be going their at all if it weren't for the publicity, but I doubt McCain would either. McCain's party seemed to know about this ruling and have stayed away from such events because of it. They just use it against Obama because he didn't know until after he had already planned it. The orders were from the Pentagon supposedly so neither can go as a nominee, but they could go as a senator.

LOL..Wow, what a surprise there.. an adversarial candidate on an arguably conservatively biased network jumping on the boat to push bad spin on his opposition, even if the information is slightly inaccurate. :) Again, it's one of those things where it really does pay to check before you presume it's right..

Thank you :) Again, it's unfortunate that such inaccuracies are being passed out as truth, but welcome to the election year and spin city! :) It's always wise to double check :) As far as either candidate going as "senators".. yes, they could..but I'm sorry, no matter the title, their role is now established as a candidate, and a visit under any auspice would yield the same results.

Again, I would question the source of that rumor (*G* Maybe Fox News, or McCain? :) ) , as it seems to me that the Democratic party as a whole seems staunchly behind Obama, without the division between moderates and conservatives that seems to be present in the republican party over McCain. (Incidentally, McCain's recent flipflopping about increasing the Social Security tax has raised even more eyebrows between Republicans). While again, none of us may know what goes on in those behind closed doors meetings, most of the movers and shakers within the democratic party have at least -publically- endorsed Obama's candidacy, with the notable exception of Bill Clinton, who has been very visibly absent. Unfortunately, given Hillary's failure to remove herself from the race when a primary victory was clearly not going to happen for her, I think the former President has worked himself into a bit of the doghouse party wise,and his lack of endorsement is more working -against- him and his wife,than anything else.

Initially , I think there were some concerns that Hillary's devoted voters would rebel against Obama in the voting booth..but I think that multi-million dollar offer of reimbursement to her campaign fund may have eased Hill's hurt feelings and appeased her "fan base".

I agree *completely* with you on this one.. McCain's camp seems to be offering less substantive dialogue in his campaign and more about negative and personal attacks. At this point in the game, that's simply not an effective strategy, and were I his campaign advisor, I'd be chewing some butt about now. I'm sure part of the negativity comes from frustration, as , as I said, McCain is basically fighting an uphill battle at this point ,and more and more momentum seems to be going against him. I also suspect that the campaign may be trying to come across as "tough"... and that may be backfiring in public opinion. Another difficulty that I imagine the McCain campaign is having is that McCain isn't as motivational a public speaker as Obama can be.. that's in no way meant as a personal insult to the man, but simply as an observation that there are just some personalities that are more charismatic and outgoing than others...and in this campaign, you have two very different personalities. The McCain team may just be having a hard time getting the "charisma" out there.


Again, thank you, Frostbyte for your commentary, it's a delight discussing these matters with you :)

Dee :)

As frostbyte will confirm, in another to this.. the pentagon has made the request that neither candidate visit the facilities, to keep men and women who may not wish to be "politicized" from being "politicized". It's a matter of trying to respect the privacy of the wounded and their families, and to keep them from being "used" as political propaganda, respecting them as soldiers and military members, rather than allowing them to be used for political benefit by either candidate.

If a wounded soldier is used as political propaganda, then that use would, I think, shift the focus from their sacrifice and devotion as soldiers, to whatever spin the politicos chose to put on it, Im sorry if I didn't explain my position clearly enough. :)

Dee :)

I think "charisma" is very lacking in McCain, although I prefer actions to words. Bush is a terrible speaker, but he does take action...sometimes too much action.

Understood and Agreed :) Unfortunately,though..a good portion of any campaign is in the "marketing" , being able to "sell" the candidate, and some charismatic candidates personalities' are more easily "marketable" than others.

No voter should make a choice without seeking *objective* records of the candidate's activity and careful consideration of what ideals that candidate will present in his tenure in the Oval Office...

*however*.. we live in a "fast food" society, where sound bytes rule .. and sometimes, it's much easier for a more charismatic candidate to grab the attention, and make folks *want* to look more at the candidate.

Dee :)

I would call myself a Conservative Democrate or a liberal Republican. Not sure if there is a name really for me. ^_^ I'm not really on the fence with either, I just have very certain views that I highly agree with on both parties and some I disagree with on both.

I also must say that I like my job. It will definitely be better if the elected official is Republican. Democrats always try and shut down the military and that means less need for me and many other jobs which I feel are important.

Again, I would have to say...not necessarily so. The stereotype of Republicans being more military friendly than their democratic counterparts may have been based in fact, once upon a time, however, no longer is that necessarily so. Cuts in the military have, in the recent past, been almost evenly bipartisan in nature. Many point to the military cuts during the Clinton tenure as evidence of the democratic lack of support for the military...and during the primary campaigns, both Rudy Giulani and Mitt Romney made statements to that effect. -However-, what many people don't take the time to look at is that those cuts were actually prompted by post-Cold War cuts made during the presidency of .. *gasp* Republican George W. Bush, Sr. Bush , Sr.' s presidency saw a congress-supported cut of AD military from 2.2-million to 1.8-million. * , and an overall cut in total defense from 3.3-million to 2.9-million.*

During the time of the Bush, Sr. presidency, Congress was predominantly Democratic. During the Clinton presidency, Congress was predominantly Republican.. so, in effect, the cuts were bipartisan in nature, the Republicans certainly weren't the "champion" of the military cause.

Annnnd.. let's not forget that George W.'s tenure has resulted in the loss of thousands of AD Airmen through the "Force Shaping" program, as well as a reduction of the AF military budget (payroll included) to such an extent that programs affecting not only the AF family, but the AD military member have been lost. Veteran's benefits have also suffered by reductions under the current administration's policies.

As far as the candidates go...In a June 2008 Senate vote, Obama voted *in favor of* military appropriations.. Senator John McCain.. was absent, and did not vote.**

I understand your concern for your job, frosty... however, if recent statistics are any indication.. your job security is just as tenuous under a republican president as a democratic one.

Dee :)

*This information was obtained from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/260/

** This information is a matter of public record found at the official senate website:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00162

I would disagree. I think Obama would be more than desirous to make "peace" his rule and he only went to the Middle East for political reasons even though he's already said what his plans were before knowing the situation. I do think the economy may get better once we are out of there, but to cut and run is not the answer and Obama is highly likely to push for that if possible.

I'm a bit confused here.. could you perhaps clarify the issue here...are we speaking of foreign policy, or job security for the military, under the belief that Republicans are more military friendly than Democrats? Or the economy as a whole? Or the position on the war in Iraq?

Your disagreement seems to presume many nuances that I wasn't speaking of.. I was speaking solely to the commentary and what I consider a misperception (backed by statistics) that a republican president is somehow more military friendly, and less likely to "shut down" the military.

Text sometimes is a great medium for misunderstanding, so please understand that this question is an effort to discern exactly what you were meaning to say..

Are you intending to equate military job security to the presence of our troops in Iraq?

Are you using the term "shutting down the military" to refer to withdrawing our troops from Iraq, or to refer to the budget cuts which might have a direct impact on your job?

Dee :)