I think it is a mistake when a politician tries to parse his language when "introducing" himself. As people find out more about the politician, they are likely to say "that doesn't match what he said earlier".

To put it another way, if you think you need to mislead (without directly lying) the people, why do you think it will be better for you later when they see through the misleading. Would it be better to just skip the misleading statements. Or is there a really big hole that Obama feels compelled to fill?

And he’s not a Muslim, either

Makes you mindful of Flipper's cry:

" But I'm NOT a tuna!!"

On the other hand, the bit about “values straight from the Kansas heartland” and allusions to childhood poverty are a bit much.

So attending schools on academic scholarships is a sign of great wealth?

Of course, if I supported the candidate who gained entrance to the USNA based on bad grades and Dad and Granddaddy's connections, then finished near the bottom of his class, I'd be worried a bit to concerning education.

I'd be worried a bit to concerning education.

Subject for another post but the short answer is I don't give a crap about their schoolboy exploits at this stage of their careers.

Davebo, do you have difficulty following topics? B. Hussein's father was still legally married when he married Obama's mother. Under Muslim law that is OK, however offspring are also considered Muslim. So, Obama is either an illegitimate bastard or a Muslim. Since he, no doubt, recited the first four verses of the Koran while in madrassa in Indonesia, he could be both. The possibilities are intriguing.

The possibilities are intriguing.

Only if you're a nitwit.

Honestly, I’m not sure that anyone who believes that nonsense is likely to be dissuaded by a TV commercial.

Maybe not, but it will stop most of them from talking about it to people who might be influenced by it.

Only if you're a nitwit.

I assure you, he is.

I don't give a crap about their schoolboy exploits at this stage of their careers.

Why then should me care about McCain's war exploits?
His life experience as a young man is valid and Obama's is somehow not?

GHW Bush was a war hero and a mediocre president. Reagan never saw combat, and he was a hell of a president. George McGovern was a war hero and the right still reviles him.

Guess McCain's military experience is not relevant to the race...

Davebo, do you have difficulty following topics? B. Hussein's father was still legally married when he married Obama's mother. Under Muslim law that is OK, however offspring are also considered Muslim. So, Obama is either an illegitimate bastard or a Muslim. Since he, no doubt, recited the first four verses of the Koran while in madrassa in Indonesia, he could be both. The possibilities are intriguing.

Presumably what's interesting is if he considers himself a Muslim (ie practices it and holds to its beliefs), rather than if some foreign law considers him a Muslim. I suspect under Muslim law McCain would be a criminal, but that doesn't mean he's considered a criminal in the US.

His life experience as a young man is valid and Obama's is somehow not?

I've written many times that McCain, as Kerry before him, is relying far too much on his Vietnam experience. I do think a position of leadership under the stress of combat is more indicative of executive skill than doing well in a classroom environment, though.

I do think a position of leadership under the stress of combat is more indicative of executive skill than doing well in a classroom environment, though.

You've seen Wes Clark on McCain though? How much leadership did McCain provide?

That's great and all, the way he grew up, overcame adversity. But, of course, that was the past. Last time I checked, Stalin faced quite a bit of childhood adversity, too. (And, yes, I know, a bit over the top.)

PS: haven't seen the commercial in North Carolina yet, despite my state supposedly being targeted.

Stalin faced quite a bit of childhood adversity, too. (And, yes, I know, a bit over the top.)

Given the similarity of policy in so many areas, perhaps it's not so over the top, after all.

Given the similarity of policy in so many areas, perhaps it's not so over the top, after all.

If we're going to try and compare Obama to a Communist leader (which we shouldn't, since they really are very different), I would think Trotsky would be a better fit than Stalin.

What's most disturbing is how Obama is above reproach. It's become almost blasphemy to criticize him in anyway. Kudos to John Stewart for pointing this out in his comedy routine, but he'll probably catch flack for that, just like the rest of us. It's as if Obama has been packaged and sold to us as some kind of diety, when he's nothing more than a junior senator, with a thin resume, who voted present a hundred times at his job.