Wow.  I guess that proposal (which I'd consider quite un-doable) is meant to capture the independents, but it would backfire if he had a bunch of his base stay home on Nov. 4.

I'm glad, for the sake of avoiding return fire that you mentioned

but you've got a valid point about the whole "flag-pin-on-the-lapel" nature of recent GOP shenanigans.  This might be a controversial statement, but in my opinion the most patriotic thing that a candidate can do is vow to give America a stern talking-to about responsibility, accountability and realistic goals.  Then turn around and eliminate the America-centric foreign policy in exchange for a much more tempered, global and realistic one (blasphemy!).  But if he/she isn't wearing a flag on their jacket, then they're a fraud.

BTW - anybody know why the Democrats don't like to wear flag pins on their lapels?  Because they worked way too damn hard as ACLU lawyers to ruin their $3,000 Armani suits with a stupid pin...  (See, I can jab at the left too!)

1st random comment of the day.  George W. Bush being such a lame duck President has allowed the county to accept an Obama as a logical choice other the other end of the spectrum.

2nd random comment.  I think in the next year, we'll start hearing some very credible, intelligent, prominent people talking about *gasp* revolution here in the U.S.  Sound too extreme?  Just wait. 

Iran's current regime needs to go bye bye, big time. If diplomacy or whatever can get the job done, fine. If it takes bombs, fine too. In the post 9-11 world, half-way around the globe will never again be far enough away for Islamofascists regimes to be: non-existent is the only distance that is far enough away . . . Or do you think the regime in control of Iran is hunky-dory? Or for that matter that the use of Total War was not justified in those historical instances in which it was used to effectively achieve total victory against malevolent regimes?

I realize that as a liberal, you maybe like to imagine that appeasement of nasty thugs is a viable option to achieve long-term peace and security, but I'd ask if you can point to any actual historical precedents that show this to be more than just wishful thinking?

If I really thought Osama was in fact the pacificist peacenik that his PR campaign has managed to make him into for popular consumption, I'd probably vote McCain, despite Palin. But I just don't think it is the case. Obama is a survivor, a ladder-climbing, strategically-gifted, game-playing winner. He'll do whatever it takes to get a second term. If he is actually faced with a situation in which bombing Iran is the most expedient thing to do, I doubt he'd be any less likely than McCain to do it. Let us not forget, it was Bill Clinton who put the icing on the cake that provoked Al Qaeda into existence with his trigger-happy cruise missle strikes.

I'm still not going to vote for Obama, simply because I think he is a sleazy con-man. But I don't really think voting against him is that important in this case.

In short, I really don't think it matters one way or the other. Both options are disgusting, repellent, and fraught with risk and fear. Why bother voting at all in such a circumstance?