If Barack's going to win, he's got to get it right....

... and beating Hillary is NOT the same as beating McCain.

Especially on foreign policy and defense issues.

Last night's debate was a win for Obama, but only because he didn't lose.

Even so, his performance on defense issues was execrable, especially his mangled anecdote about the Captain in Afghanistan:

Here's the take from Gateway Pundit via Fausta's Blog:

"They were actually capturing tally-ban weapons because it was easier getting Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current Commander in Chief."

Okay, Gateway, hubby e-mailed me pretty upset over the Obama transcript. He said this:

1. CPT's command companies, not platoons.
2. Platoons are not divided up to go to 2 different theaters, EVER.
3. There is no ammo shortage in OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan). Many platoons are deployed to remote sites in the mountains and require aerial resupply. Those resupply missions are dependent on favorable weather conditions.
4. Taliban weapons are usually not very good and we would not use them without a very high level of command approval.
5. The CDR in Chief is so high above the platoon level that comment doesn't even deserve a response.

Barack is in fact fortunate that Hillary is just as big an idiot on real defense/military issues as he is. Being right about the "strategic blunder" of invading Iraq is not the same thing as being able to talk the real talk about military policy.

If you think that John McCain's "100 years" comment is going to hurt him, think again. If this is the best Barack can do about being commander-in-chief, he's toast.

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog