Making a big show of it accomplishes what?

I guess it's time to go back to DKos to find some objectivity and civility....

Is he not old? [Hal said, is 72 million years old]
You're the one treating it in a derogatory fashion. cheap.

Was the green screen speech not one of the most hideous on record?
Your opinion, calling it hideous, offered as fact? Cheap.

Did McCain not offer up Cindy in a topless talent contest with simulated fellatio?
This ones actually pretty funny, but everyone knows that he was either joking or more likely didn't know that many of the contestants were topless. I've never heard of it my self in all the years I've heard about the chip throwing contest. I guess you would be the expert on feces throwing though (Omigod I'm starting to make personal attacks just like you, must be too much exposure to the dark side)
still to make it sound like he offered her up seriosly for this... Cheap.

Did McCain not have junior high school cheerleaders at his rally? [Hal fails to add that he added the derogatory 'Creepy' to the end of this]
Cheap.

I guess you're going to tell me that I shouldn't attack a POW or something, right?
Since your the one calling it getting tired of the 'old POW bit', yes.
Cheap.

I don't expect your cheap attacks to stop, after all its the prime political season, but come on, event without your response most readers would see through your cheap attacks.

Cheap? Is he not old? Was the green screen speech not one of the most hideous on record? Did McCain not offer up Cindy in a topless talent contest with simulated fellatio? Did McCain not have junior high school cheerleaders at his rally?

I mean, really Dill. Where's the cheap shots there? I guess you're going to tell me that I shouldn't attack a POW or something, right?

Geebus. I must say that I really won't miss the faux surprise, crocodile tears and feinting spells. It's one of the most annoying ticks of the right.

Obama has a heck of a lot of positive qualities both personally and about his campaign and message. ... Nothing of substance.

I see that if I take out the cheap personal attacks against McCain from your paragraph, you finally make sense.

The point, Dill, isn't that there's negativity or character assassination or fear on the democrat's side. I mean, that's just part and parcel of politics. And the point, likewise, isn't that these exist on the republican side. My specific point to you was that on the one hand, Obama has a heck of a lot of positive qualities both personally and about his campaign and message. While McCain, on the other hand, has nothing but a distinct lack of charisma, a huge age issue, can't inspire his troops, etc. And on the actual McCain campaign, as we've seen leading up to this point, has consisted of nothing but comparisons to Britney and Paris, Argula, etc. All character attacks, and fear. Nothing of substance.

While I'm at it, it occurred to me how cynical bains and y'all are wrt Palin. As bains keeps pointing out, he just loves the democrats attacking Palin as unqualified as he believes that highlights even more the argument that Obama isn't qualified to be president. But here's the rub. If bains really actually did believe that, he'd be just as sure that Palin isn't. Rather, what bains is all giggly about is about the political choice of Palin. He - apparently - doesn't really care one whit about qualifications. It's simply a political issue to use against Obama.

That's one cynical party you have there.

Yes, I'm certainly having fun mocking Sarah Palin, but that's just me. But it's McCain's campaign that I was referring to. Flattering as it is to have you single me out as the poster child for Obama, I think that's probably a stretch for even Dr. B to swallow.

One thing that is interesting is that you seem to think that my pointing out the negative aspects of McCain, right after I pointed out the positive aspects of Obama is an act of negativeness. Well, I guess on the right, where merely being in a state that's close to Russia counts as foreign policy experience, I can be sympathetic to your confusion.

mmm. Lieberman was the pick McCain wanted to make.

And certainly would not have been a good pick, unless he was, say, 20 points begind. By definiton, Leiberman was a 'hail mary play'. And I know you're not going to like this, but the fact is you only run such plays out of desperation, a situation McCain is not in.

At the *very beginning* of this thread gave my choice: Lieberman

When given the choice, Hal leans left. I guess it makes sense that far. But why would you chose such? Because it would help McCain win? Or because it WOULDN'T? Gee, now there's something to ponder.

But really Bit, why don't you demand satisfaction from the authors of the Politico article I quoted instead of me?

They're not here pitching the stuff at us. YOU are. Don't try to hide from that one now.