Yes, there were military actions under Clinton. Peace is a relative thing. It has not existed in an absolute from since cave men started hitting each other with rocks.

The fact remains that the Clinton years were a good time for America, there was prosperity, and "relative" peace, which is as good as we are ever going to get.

The Reagan years were good ones too. Good leadership does that for a country. Unlike the Bush years, which have sucked almost since the moment he sat down in the oval office for the first time.

"Ok, You've covered your ass"

Pres. Bush to Intelligence briefer warning him "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".

Yea, that peace and prosperity under Clinton sucked all right!

Peace?
So, you ignore al-Quieda had already declared a state of war? You ignore Somolia. You ignore Bosnia. You ignore Ecuador and Peru. You ignore Yugoslavia. You ignore Operation Desert Focus. You ignore Operation Desert Strike. You ignore Central Afrida in 96. You ignore Liberia. And you ignore continuous military action in Iraq since 1996. You ignore action in Albania in 97 and 98 and you ignore Macedonia in 98. You ignore Kosovo in 98. You ignore Sudan in 98, and afghanistan in 98. You ignore Serbia. You ignore East Timor.

Under Bill Clinton, the US military was in fact sent on more missions than they had been under any president.

This is 'peace'?
Why, because the press said it was?

Do you ever think for yourself?

Oh and bit, don't be a hack... try and come up with something clever on your own.

So, Bill Clinton is back?

Eight years out, Bit remains in his darkened room, rocking back and forth, muttering Clinton's name...

The president does not talk to people who are not billionaires, or useful for photo ops. The president does not enter a room that has not been sanitized to prevent any possibility of dissent or opposing views.

So, Bill Clinton is back?

Sen. Obama's events are much like that

Documentation?

This sort of thing is unfortunate, but the alternative is the Bush model.

Sen. Obama's events are much like that. They certainly aren't like McCain's town hall meetings. And don't forget his interaction with the press. To him eight questions about Tony Rezko were enough for him. And where are Obama's weblogger calls? He's certainly not as open as McCain.

The president does not talk to people who are not billionaires, or useful for photo ops. The president does not enter a room that has not been sanitized to prevent any possibility of dissent or opposing views.

Paraphrased Bithead: Obama didn't moderate his web site closely enough for wackjobs. That shows a lack of judgement, and unsuitability to be President.

Actually, it's of a kind with many other such omissions of good judgement, many of which have been pointed out here.

Paraphrased Bithead: Obama didn't moderate his web site closely enough for wackjobs. That shows a lack of judgement, and unsuitability to be President.

Question: Aren't there also wackjob posts on McCain's site?

Bithead: "the 'everyone does it' defense rings hollow, sorry."

Anybody who claims to be on either side of the political fence will harbor such views. So this point of yours isn't valid.

You sure you wanna go here?

Just because a few nutjobs out there are anti-semitic and claim to be on the left doesn't mean that Obama is the anti-semite candidate -- it means there are a few nutjobs out there. Furthermore, Obama's campaign site is a community blog that anybody can post to. So if an anti-semitic post is made -- which could have been made by anybody -- you can't point to it and say, "Look, Obama hates Jews!" because the post could have been made by anybody.

(Sigh) Fine.
Study with care, the situation with Jerry Wright as it developed, and tell me how his reaction to that situation meshes with your statements, here.

If you don't have a grasp of internet technology and social networking like this,

... perhaps I should be running for Presdient as a Democrat? It seems clear that Obama and his people didn't consider that exact point. This stuff is entirely predictable, and avoidable. That they did not avoid it shows a lack of judegment I want nowhere near the White House.

And somehow, the 'everyone does it' defense rings hollow, sorry.

Of course... but Obama seems to be getting more than his share. And I must ask if you'd be quite so forgiving were such comments found on McCain's site, or on an RNC site.

I tend to doubt it.

Actually, I don't give a rat's ass about any random posts on anyone's site. If a reputable organization did an actual survey that showed a significant correlation with anti-Semitism and support for McCain, then I would at least look at it. And I'd read thoughtful bloggers on the right to see what they thought, such as OTB, Stephen Bainbridge, etc., just to make sure that I got a balanced opinion. And even if I decided that the correlation was real, I would be fully aware that such a correlation, by itself, does not imply that McCain himself is anti-Semitic, nor does it directly reflect on his suitability to be POTUS, nor does it say anything about whether or not we should hold high-level talks with Iran.

But if some lefty blogger said: "Oh look, someone posted an anti-Semitic remark on McCain's site. What a complete OUTRAGE!", I'd not even bother to click on the link.