It’s not my main point, at all, but I am saying that “[within] about 50 years, a dream that had been systematically denied women and blacks for centuries suddenly became a full-blown reality and completely within reach”.

But, you and I could go back and forth about that for hours, and would, at finish of the process, end up agreeing to disagree. It’s a shame we cannot share wine or beer or margaritas as we go back and forth, as that might make things more collegial and amusing and fun. We could each tease the other over being a fool.

My real point is that most of the real voters – the ones who actually do visit polling booths and cast ballots – do believe in the American Dream. Barack faces a real challenge if he is to bring enough of these voters over to his side. He’s doing a delicate balancing act: I love America; the American Dream is propaganda; trust me to make America into what it should be. That is a delicate and tough sell.

In my favor, only hours after my above comment, Barack began making that exact argument in his speech in Independence, Missouri: I am patriotic! I love America. Trust me to make her better.

Anyway, that’s my real point: Barack has to do a delicate balancing act. Break out the flag pin.

I can’t say I care a whole lot about either, but the whole overblown controversy led my friend Kyle at CFLF to make some really important points about McCain’s concept of the relationship between the President and the military that I think hits on so…

I didn’t know he said that, specifically, but he’s right. Certainly, the American Dream was literally, by law, unavailable to large segments of the U.S. population prior to the second half of the 20th century (women and African-Americans). Unless you’re saying that in about 50 years, a dream that had been systematically denied women and blacks for centuries suddenly became a full-blown reality and completely within reach, I’d say the notion that the American Dream is not available to all Americans is pretty much a statement of fact.

No reasonable person believes McCain’s experience fully qualifies him to be POTUS. However, it partially qualifies him, and it highlights difference between him and Barack.

Does Barack’s life indicate he possesses senses of honor and of duty to nation? Does Barack’s life indicate a willingness to risk his life and his comfort in service of honor and duty? These questions may be argued. However, in the case of McCain, the argument is over. This is a difference between McCain and Barack which voters notice.

Barack has said he doesn’t believe the American Dream is available to all Americans. He believes the American Dream is, for many Americans, mere myth and propaganda. Barack is making an argument that America is now an unfair nation, and that he will lead us to becoming a fair nation.

Voters legitimately wonder: does such a candidate feel senses of honor and of duty to an unfair nation? Why would he? Does Barack love America, or does he really only love his vision of what a more liberalized America would be?

Voters care about this. Stormy times may come. Voters want assurance that POTUS will stand up for America in those times. If Barack loses, it will most likely be b/c of this type of voter worry about him. It won’t be racism. It will be this: does Barack love and believe in America?

Barack cannot quell voter fears in this area by sending out Wes Clark to define McCain (and there’s NO WAY Clark made those statements without first clearing them with Barack’s campaign – be serious). To win, Barack has to emphasize, again and again, unqualified love for America. He has to decide he believes in the American dream. Barack can only quell voter fears by defining himself. He cannot quell voter fears by defining McCain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think this was thoughtful post by you. Yet, though you put thought into your assertions, I disagree with many of them.

I don’t think many voters believe military service qualifies one to be POTUS.

I don’t think media hold back on the tough security questions b/c they are intimidated by McCain’s heroism. Some media may be reticent to closely examine his military record, but they will not hold back on tough questions about world problems (except insofar as media are ignorant of world problems – which is frequently the case – but has nothing to do with McCain).

McCain’s foreign policy experience swamps Barack’s experience; Bush’ Iraq policy is winning Iraq – and Americans are more and more coming to understand that. As an example of one American who is coming to understand Iraq is being won: how is Barack’s recent “slow withdrawal depending on conditions” any different from Bush’ “as Iraqis stand up we will stand down”?

Re: McCain and listening to commanders on the ground

First, giving full consideration to military expertise does not equate to agreeing with the conclusions of military experts. Barack has leapt to conclusions about Iraq without fully doing his homework.

The second problem with your argument is that McCain frequently criticized conduct of the Iraq War in the period before the surge. McCain argued we needed more troops and more aggressiveness. This was independent thinking on McCain’s part. It was also politically risky. It was not meekly condescending to … anyone.

Either he is horrible soldier or one of the unluckiest ones ever, so let’s let him run the military and a war!

Is losing a potential future link to a higher-profile like-minded blogger more important than maintaining integrity?

Seriously, if the Democrats had a war veteran running for President and some Conservative bloggers started questioning his honor by referring to his participation in making a “propaganda film” while he was a tortured prisoner of war, people would be (rightfully) losing their minds over such despicable actions.

A touch far?

We elect president’s, not generals. The Department of Defense offshoot of the Executive Branch is supposed to serve as civilian control over the military, not the opposite. And if McCain doesn’t understand this, then he shouldn’t ever be president.