that as along we have troops in the inflamed area of Iraq we'll still have casualties.  When is enough, enough??

So to say it's not important whether or not we have troops there is just idiotic and scary.

I hate him.  And I don't really hate much of anything.

our what is it in our hearts that cause us to "hate" people we have never even met, spoken to, or otherwise played with.
We live in such a double standard and hyprocritical world nowadays its absolutely frieghtful. On the one hand we do not want to instill in our children that voting matters anymore and on the other we simply just want them to come to fall back conclusion of "hate". Its sad frankly. I have lived under the leadership of plenty of individuals that had more in common with baffons then myself. I have lived under leadership that has lied, disgarced themselves and the office they were elected to, have lived in a City were Councilman repeatedly broke laws while in office, ie drugs, and have witnessed first hand the reprocussions of a President too keen on follwoing the mantra of Ronald "Raygun" to cover his own inadequencies, but never have resorted to "hate".
People used to think "hate" and "racism" were issues of the Republican Party. The last two years have proven in my view that "hate" is born out of both frustration and denial. Frustrated that one can't get passed indifference and denial of the fact that both Parties are to blame.
Just last year we were hearing how the "illegal immigration" issue was "hate"mongering by the right and yet today we have been experiencing it all over the portrayal of voters in Appalachia in the Democrat Party.
When we resort to "hate" we IMHO relinguish a piece of ourselves and frankly no politician or effort is worth that.
No matter who hold office come January, I will strive to make my reality and that of my family work under the leadership as best I can even if I do not prefer or truly accept the agenda out of respect for the "Office" not the politician who holds it.
I learned a long time ago in the military, "You salute the rank, not the Man".
There can be no real satisifaction for accomplishing anything based soley on "hate" no matter how warrented.

I tend to lapse into hatred for a man I've never met because of the dangerous crap that comes out of his mouth - and how that dangerous and unintelligent crap puts those that I care for at risk of death and dismemberment.

I respect those who selflessly stand up and go to these "wars" over and over again, and it is a severe injustice to them that one of these "wars" is based on (now confirmed) lies - and that someone in McCain's position could so blithely disregard them and the crushing weight they have been bearing for 5 years now.  

They salute the rank, have the backs of the brothers beside them, and do their job in the most excellent way.  So there is a heavier weight placed on those who send our troops to war - and they have failed.  McCain keeps failing.

So maybe it's not actually hate -- maybe it's outrage.  Is that better?

Josh Marshall got this exactly right at TPM:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/a...

To quote Josh:

Sometimes these references by McCain are treated as gaffes but they're not. This is what McCain believes: that we should have a long-term troop presence in Iraq to guarantee the survival of a pro-U.S. government and assert power in the region. That's not a crazy position. That's the position of the current administration. That's why we're currently trying to secure an agreement with the Iraqis to ratify that goal. The problem isn't that McCain's position is incomprehensible. It's just not popular. Most Americans think reducing casualties is important too. But they'd like to do both -- reduce casualties and leave too.

The problem for the McCain campaign is that he keeps stumbling into clear statements of his actual policy, which is close to lethal since the vast majority of Americans disagree with his policy and Iraq is virtually the only thing he's running on.

because he is not reliving the 60s and Vietnam.  McCain still thinks we could have won Vietnam.  If only...  And so explains his desire to meet some ideal in another foreign land.  

Oops!  I am not analyzing his motivations, am I?  =)

But in all seriousness, does it matter why McCain holds these views?

No to me. Maybe he wants to stay in Iraq because of some kid that beat him up in fourth grade. Maybe it is because of Vietnam.

Obama is the choice because of the policies he argues for, not because of the psychological drivers behind why he holds them, or why McCain doesn't.

Those issues will be for historians to debate in the future.

My consistency on the issue established, everyone may now tear McCain's psyche apart without a word of objection from me.  

No, it doesn't matter why he holds these views.  I realized I was being silly towards the end of my post, which why I decided to bring it full circle back to earlier arguments we were making about motivations.

McCain is making the same kinds of loopy comments that George Bush and Dick Cheney made from the very beginning of the Iraq mess.  Yet, they were reelected.  McCain remembers well that America loves guys who talk tough.  Ronald Reagen talked tough, George H. W. Bush didn't talk so tough, George W. "Bring 'em on!" Bush talks world class Texas tough so McCain knows he'll still win plenty of votes if his absurd comments are tough.

McCain's comments may be a turn-off for people who think for themselves but there are still one hell of a lot of voters who want someone else to think for them. . .