John McCain says:

"Let me be very clear, I am not questioning his patriotism, I am questioning his judgement. Senator Obama has made it clear he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq.

"He has made these decisions not because he doesn't love America but because he doesn't thinks it matters whether American wins or loses."

Yeah, that makes sense. Right, John. Ramble on.

Meanwhile, as McCain talks about the Iraq surge ("That's what this is about! That's what this is about!"), Barack Obama offers a reality check, pointing out that we should focus on the Taliban, sponsors of al Qaeda and co-sponsors of 9/11.

"As commander-in-chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban," Obama said.

He said he would add two U.S. combat brigades, 7,000 fighters and support staff, and would provide an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance for Afghanistan....

..."Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan,'' he said. "Senator McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."

Do you, dear reader, really thing that this election is about a tactical surge in Iraq that happened last year?

Greg Mitchell tries to claim in Editor & Publisher that many major papers five years ago were in fact against the war on Iraq.

You may be surprised to learn that, precisely five years ago, at least one-third of the top newspapers in this country came out against President Bush taking us to war at that time. Many of the papers may have fumbled the WMD coverage, and only timidly raised questions about the need for war, but when push came to shove five years ago they wanted to wait longer to move against Saddam, or not move at all....

...Once equivocal editorial pages got straight to the point. "This war crowns a period of terrible diplomatic failure," The New York Times argued, "Washington's worst in at least a generation. The Bush administration now presides over unprecedented American might. What it risks squandering is not Americans' power, but an essential part of our glory."

Other papers were even more blunt. The Sun of Baltimore, consistently one of the most passionate dissenters on the war, began their editorial with the sentence, "This war is wrong. It is wrong as a matter of principle, but, more importantly, it is wrong as a matter of practical policy."

USA Today asked Bush to finally disclose risks, costs, and democratic government estimates for Iraq while the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wondered "what 'the peaceful entry' of 280,000 troops would look like." The Arizona Republic in Phoenix said that Bush and his "coalition of the willing," with prodding by the French, "have left the United Nations in tatters."

Well editorial pages are certainly where people turn to first, right? Never mind the war-fostering headlines on the front pages. Never mind the lazy absence of any meaningful fact-checking on Administration claims.

Never mind ignoring the sometimes massive anti-war demonstrations in New York and elsewhere.

No, the editors clucked and tutted and therefore should get a pass on their crappy coverage.

Any wonder why newspapers are still in trouble and mistrusted by so many?

Sometimes the partisan blinders end up being blindfolds.

Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft gets it all backwards:

Obama's Unity Schtick is precisely what the DLC and Joe Lieberman have been preaching for decades and that the progressive blogs were supposed to be fighting AGAINST.

Not.

Barack Obama is a progressive who pitches his rhetoric in rational, moderate, common sense tones to appeal to centrists and independents and even disaffected Republicans, drawing them to his point of view.

This is just the opposite of Joe Lieberman, who has been voting with the right on important issues (and let's start with the war on Iraq and go from there), while pitching his rhetoric against the left.

Equating the two seems to be simply -- as Barack himself might put it -- intellectually lazy.

It seems that John McCain said that MoveOn.org "ought to be thrown out of this country":

Speaking before a group in Hudson, New Hampshire last night, McCain took criticism of MoveOn’s Petraeus ad to a whole new level, saying that they should not only be ashamed, but “ought to be thrown out of this country.”

That is patently ridiculous, of course. This is America. We don't throw people out for things for saying stupid, distasteful things.

The thing is, MoveOn.org did fuck up with their Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad. It was stupid, juvenile rhetoric, and it succeeded in making the week as presented by the mainstream media to be about this stupid ad, instead of about the fucked up state of the Iraq occupation.

The Republicans were against the ropes, and MoveOn.org made them look like statesmen opposed by a bunch of snot-nosed kids.

SilentPatriot writes:

It’s almost comical to see Republicans run around condemning MoveOn for daring to attack a member of the military and calling into question their character or integrity, considering that’s the rhetorical weapon they usually wield.

Is that where we are now? Measuring our integrity and standards on a Rush Limbaugh scale?

There are plenty of rational and intelligent and cogent and clear arguments that can be made in New York Times ad buys against perpetuating President Bush's stubborn occupation. Lame-ass rhymes don't cut it.