Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Introducing the Campaign Timeline

When did Hillary Rodham Clinton make her driver's licenses for illegal immigrants gaffe again?

How long ago did John McCain start his attempts to limit the influence of outside cash in political campaigns?

Want to relive Barack Obama's keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention?

You can find all that and more in the new interactive timeline of the lives of Obama and McCain.

The timeline's entries also include related video and Washington Post content -- making it a more three dimensional experience of the major events in the lives of the two candidates.

Make sure to check it out.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 18, 2008; 8:30 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam Pick: America, America
Next: Friday Senate Line: Republicans' Happy Talk



Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !


Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I applaud the McCain's campaign in the way it is harnessing Sarah Palin's potential. The tightly scripted political rallies in which she has partipated have become very familiar as she has now delivered - more than 14 times to date - pretty much the same speech she made to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. That speech always includes a claim, widely disputed by newspapers, editorial boards and independent fact-checking groups, that she said "thanks but no thanks" to the famed Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. It doesn't matter how many want to pooh pooh what she says, the important thing is that she repeats her side of things often enough until it drowns out dissent.

It has been a wise strategy not to allow Sarah to let reporters ask questions or appear at any news conference to address a growing roster of questions about her views and her tenure as the chief executive of Alaska. Those have included matters regarding the Troopergate scandal, her use of a private Yahoo e-mail account to do government business and her positions on key issues like stem cell research. There is no need for any answers from Sarah related to those issues because those issues are unimportant to the American voter.

I proudly salute Sarah Palin and John McCain for a campaign trail well done!

Posted by: Voting McCain/Palin & so should you! | September 20, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Satellite images show ethnic cleanout in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.

Posted by: Surge This | September 19, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

WaPo commenters are the craziest commenters! You guys are the best.

Posted by: aceofspades | September 19, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Kathy | September 19, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !

Over 800 Visitors this week alone !!!


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !

Over 800 Visitors this week alone !!!


Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse


a derranged collilition of
femists, gays rights proponents,
intellectual liberals,
atheists, socialists.
the primary aim is the
attainment of political power
by doublethink and a class warfare agenda,
they hope to lean back
and have the biggest party
since '92
and send the bill,
to the hillbillies
in dem der red redneck states.

Posted by: usa3 | September 19, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !


Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse



WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.

Erik Jacobs for The New York Times
John McCain said he had consulted Henry A. Kissinger on foreign policy before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”

Now, as Mr. McCain prepares to accept the Republican presidential nomination, his response to the attacks of Sept. 11 opens a window onto how he might approach the gravest responsibilities of a potential commander in chief. Like many, he immediately recalibrated his assessment of the unseen risks to America’s security. But he also began to suggest that he saw a new “opportunity” to deter other potential foes by punishing not only Al Qaeda but also Iraq.

“Just as Sept. 11 revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand our freedom,” Mr. McCain told a NATO conference in Munich in early 2002, urging the Europeans to join what he portrayed as an all but certain assault on Saddam Hussein. “A better world is already emerging from the rubble.”

To his admirers, Mr. McCain’s tough response to Sept. 11 is at the heart of his appeal. They argue that he displayed the same decisiveness again last week in his swift calls to penalize Russia for its incursion into Georgia, in part by sending peacekeepers to police its border.

His critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region.

“He has the personality of a fighter pilot: when somebody stings you, you want to strike out,” said retired Gen. John H. Johns, a former friend and supporter of Mr. McCain who turned against him over the Iraq war. “Just like the American people, his reaction was: show me somebody to hit.”

Whether through ideology or instinct, though, Mr. McCain began making his case for invading Iraq to the public more than six months before the White House began to do the same. He drew on principles he learned growing up in a military family and on conclusions he formed as a prisoner in North Vietnam. He also returned to a conviction about “the common identity” of dangerous autocracies as far-flung as Serbia and North Korea that he had developed consulting with hawkish foreign policy thinkers to help sharpen the themes of his 2000 presidential campaign.

While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall. He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi’s opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein’s supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Five years after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. McCain’s supporters note that he became an early critic of the administration’s execution of the occupation, and they credit him with pushing the troop “surge” that helped bring stability. Mr. McCain, though, stands by his support for the war and expresses no regrets about his advocacy.

In written answers to questions, he blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the peril it posed.

The Sept. 11 attacks “demonstrated the grave threat posed by a hostile regime, possessing weapons of mass destruction, and with reported ties to terrorists,” Mr. McCain wrote in an e-mail message on Friday. Given Mr. Hussein’s history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, “his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously.” The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action “to prevent outlaw states — like Iran today — from developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Formative Years

Mr. McCain has been debating questions about the use of military force far longer than most. He grew up in a family that had sent a son to every American war since 1776, and international relations were a staple of the McCain family dinner table. Mr. McCain grew up listening to his father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., deliver lectures on “The Four Ocean Navy and the Soviet Threat,” closing with a slide of an image he considered the ultimate factor in the balance of power: a soldier marching through a rice paddy with a rifle at his shoulder.

“To quote Sherman, war is all hell and we need to fight it out and get it over with and that is when the killing stops,” recalled Joe McCain, Senator McCain’s younger brother.

Vietnam, for Senator McCain, reinforced those lessons. He has often said he blamed the Johnson administration’s pause in bombing for prolonging the war, and he credited President Richard M. Nixon’s renewed attacks with securing his release from a North Vietnamese prison. He has made the principle that the exercise of military power sets the bargaining table for international relations a consistent theme of his career ever since, and in his 2002 memoir he wrote that one of his lifelong convictions was “the imperative that American power never retreat in response to an inferior adversary’s provocation.”

But Mr. McCain also took away from Vietnam a second, restraining lesson: the necessity for broad domestic support for any military action. For years he opposed a string of interventions — in Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia, and, for a time, the Balkans — on the grounds that the public would balk at the loss of life without clear national interests. “The Vietnam thing,” he recently said.

In the late 1990s, however, while he was beginning to consider his 2000 presidential race, he started rebalancing his view of the needs to project American strength and to sustain public support. The 1995 massacre of 5,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica under NATO’s watch struck at his conscience, he has said, and in addition to America’s strategic national interests — in that case, the future and credibility of NATO — Mr. McCain began to speak more expansively about America’s moral obligations as the only remaining superpower.

His aides say he later described the American air strikes in Bosnia in 1996 and in Kosovo in 1999 as a parable of political leadership: Mr. McCain, Senator Bob Dole and others had rallied Congressional support for the strikes despite widespread public opposition, then watched approval soar after the intervention helped to bring peace.

“Americans elect their leaders to make these kinds of judgments,” Mr. McCain said in the e-mail message.

It was during the Balkan wars that Mr. McCain and his advisers read a 1997 article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page by William Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard — both now Op-Ed page columnists at The New York Times — promoting the idea of “national greatness” conservatism, defined by a more activist agenda at home and a more muscular role in the world.

“I wouldn’t call it a ‘eureka’ moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is what we are trying to articulate and they have already done a lot of the work,” said John Weaver, a former McCain political adviser. “And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the making-friends business. The Weekly Standard represented a part of the primary electorate that we could get.”

Soon Mr. McCain and his aides were consulting regularly with the circle of hawkish foreign policy thinkers sometimes referred to as neoconservatives — including Mr. Kristol, Robert Kagan and Randy Scheunemann, a former aide to Mr. Dole who became a McCain campaign adviser — to develop the senator’s foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign. (In his e-mail message, Mr. McCain noted that he had also consulted with friends like Henry A. Kissinger, known for a narrower view of American interests.)

One result was a series of speeches in which Mr. McCain called for “rogue state rollback.” He argued that disparate regional troublemakers, including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia, bore a common stamp: they were all autocracies. And as such, he contended, they were more likely to export terrorism, spread dangerous weapons, or start ethnic conflicts. In an early outline of what would become his initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. McCain argued that “swift and sure” retribution against any one of the rogue states was an essential deterrent to any of the others. But Mr. McCain’s advisers and aides say his “rogue state” speeches stopped short of the most sweeping international agenda put forth by Mr. Kristol, Mr. Kagan and their allies. Mr. McCain explicitly disavowed direct military action merely to advance American values, foreswearing any “global crusade” of interventions in favor of relying on covert and financial support for internal opposition groups.

As an example, he could point to his 1998 sponsorship of the Iraqi Liberation Act, which sought to direct nearly $100 million to Iraqis who hoped to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The bill, signed by President Bill Clinton, also endorsed the ouster of Mr. Hussein.

Mr. McCain said then that he doubted the United States could muster the political will to use ground troops to remove the Iraqi dictator any time soon. “It was much easier when Saddam Hussein was occupying Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia,” the senator told Fox News in November 1998. “We’d have to convince the American people that it’s worth again the sacrifice of American lives, because that would also be part of the price.”

Hard Calls

Mr. McCain spent the afternoon of Sept. 11 in a young aide’s studio apartment near the Capitol. There was no cable television, nothing but water in the kitchen, and the hallway reminded him of an old boxing gym. Evacuated from his office but stranded by traffic, he could not resist imagining himself at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. “There are not enough Secret Service agents in the world to keep me away from Washington and New York at a time like this,” Mr. McCain told an adviser.

Over the next days and weeks, however, Mr. McCain became almost as visible as he would have been as president. Broadcasters rushed to him as a patriotic icon and reassuring voice, and for weeks he was ubiquitous on the morning news programs, Sunday talk shows, cable news networks, and even late-night comedy shows.

In the spotlight, he pushed rogue state rollback one step further, arguing that the United States should go on the offensive as a warning to any other country that might condone such an attack. “These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure. “We’re going to have to prove to them that we are very serious, and the price that they will pay will not only be for punishment but also deterrence.”

Although he had campaigned for President Bush during the 2000 general election, he was still largely frozen out of the White House because of animosities left over from the Republican primary. But after Mr. Bush declared he would hold responsible any country condoning terrorism, Mr. McCain called his leadership “magnificent” and his national security team the strongest “that has ever been assembled.” A few weeks later, Larry King of CNN asked whether he would have named Mr. Rumsfeld and Colin L. Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” Mr. McCain answered, saying he, too, would have offered Mr. Cheney the vice presidency.

Even during the heat of the war in Afghanistan, Mr. McCain kept an eye on Iraq. To Jay Leno in mid-September, Mr. McCain said he believed “some other countries” had assisted Osama bin Laden, going on to suggest Iraq, Syria and Iran as potential suspects. In October 2001, when an Op-Ed page column in The New York Times speculated that Iraq, Russia or some other country might bear responsibility for that month’s anthrax mailings, Mr. McCain interrupted a question about Afghanistan from David Letterman on that night’s “Late Show.” “The second phase is Iraq,” Mr. McCain said, adding, “Some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.” (The Federal Bureau of Investigation says it came from a federal government laboratory in Maryland.) By October, United States and foreign intelligence agencies had said publicly that they doubted any cooperation between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda, noting Al Qaeda’s opposition to such secular nationalists. American intelligence officials soon declared that Mr. Hussein had not supported international terrorism for nearly a decade.

But when the Czech government said that before the attacks, one of the 9/11 hijackers had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official, Mr. McCain seized the report as something close to a smoking gun. “The evidence is very clear,” he said three days later, in an Oct. 29 television interview. (Intelligence agencies quickly cast doubt on the meeting.)

Frustrated by the dearth of American intelligence about Iraq, Mr. McCain’s aides say, he had long sought to learn as much as he could from Iraqi opposition figures in exile, including Mr. Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Over the years, Mr. McCain often urged support for the group, saying it had “significant support, in my view, inside Iraq.”

After Sept. 11, Mr. Chalabi’s group said an Iraqi emissary had once met with Osama bin Laden, and brought forward two Iraqi defectors who described terrorist training camps and biological weapons efforts. At times, Mr. McCain seemed to echo their accusations, citing the “two defectors” in a television interview and attesting to “credible reports of involvement between Iraqi administration officials, Iraqi officials and the terrorists.”

Growing Impatient

But United States intelligence officials had doubts about Mr. Chalabi at the time and have since discredited his group. In 2006, Mr. McCain acknowledged to The New Republic that he had been “too enamored with the I.N.C.” In his e-mail message, though, he said he never relied on the group for information about Iraq’s weapons program.

At a European security conference in February 2002, when the Bush administration still publicly maintained that it had made no decision about moving against Iraq, Mr. McCain described an invasion as all but certain. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching.”

Regime change in Iraq in addition to Afghanistan, he argued, would compel other sponsors of terrorism to mend their ways, “accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms.”

Finally, as American troops massed in the Persian Gulf in early 2003, Mr. McCain grew impatient, his aides say, concerned that the White House was failing to act as the hot desert summer neared. Waiting, he warned in a speech in Washington, risked squandering the public and international support aroused by Sept. 11. “Does anyone really believe that the world’s will to contain Saddam won’t eventually collapse as utterly as it did in the 1990s?” Mr. McCain asked.

In retrospect, some of Mr. McCain’s critics now accuse him of looking for a pretext to justify the war. “McCain was hell-bent for leather: ‘Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, we have got to teach him, let’s send a message to the other people in the Middle East,’ ” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.

But Mr. McCain, in his e-mail message, said the reason he had supported the war was the evolving threat from Mr. Hussein.

“I believe voters elect their leaders based on their experience and judgment — their ability to make hard calls, for instance, on matters of war and peace,” he wrote. “It’s important to get them right.”

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Dem politician's son suspected of hacking Palin's e-mail-- read more in my blog:

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

for those of you who think that the liberalmediaelite are somehow out to get you, remember who owns those companies. GE owns MSNBC, Disney owns ABC, and Time/Warner owns CNN. You are fooling yourselves if you think that these companies are in any way liberal. They are in the business to make money, pure and simple.

I have yet to see one of you attack Sean Hannity for his spoonfed interview of Sarah Palin. That was the most ridiculous thing I have seen in years. Aren't interviewers supposed to ask questions and let the interviewee answer them? All Palin had to do was say yes or no to Sean Hannity's loaded paragraph-long questions.

Posted by: Ann | September 19, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse



Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse


Didn't a lot of businesses ( and Internet Co.) go bankrupt because of lax (or NO) corporate regulation during Pres. Clinton/Democrat rule. So, how could Sen. Obama/Dem. call the Rep. stink when the same exact thing happened to them during the Clinton/Dem. rule.


I watch Sen. Obama speech about fixing economy. Frankly, he has no solution. He babbles on and on about Rep. cause recession; therefore, Sen. McCain is responsible for making companies bankrupt, and Americans should remove all Rep. and place him in charge. However, he does not have an intelligent solution which will solve our problem. His energy proposal stinks, his wealth shifting tax policy stinks, and he has no economic exp.; but most importantly, he does not have a specific fix for bad corporate practices and regulation.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Sorry ... wrong link for the Palin/McCain ticket video. Here it is:

Posted by: Palin/McCain??? | September 19, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

And when did the Alaskan Governor start claiming the top spot on the ticket? Watch this:

Posted by: Palin/McCain???? | September 19, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !


Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Oberman is Obamaman. It's clever. To bad for him that he is in the tank for Obama.
Because it is so fitting to call him Obamaman. Imagine if he was not it would not work. Funny how it all worked out.

Posted by: Steve | September 18, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Tennessee State Rep. Mike Kernell declined Thursday to respond to online allegations his son hacked into Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account.

"My son's the one in question, and I can't comment on him," said Kernell, a Memphis Democrat. (read more in my blog)

Posted by: DCfred | September 18, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

oberman had a nervous breakdown
during the primaries,
and he is lame, no one noticed.
I expect him to come out
with stockings and garters
one of these days.
you know how much he loves
benny hill.

Posted by: usa3 | September 18, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Other worthy questions:

- When was the last time anyone from the WaPo asked any politician about their policies and engaged them in a Socratic debate designed to get to the truth?

- When was the last time AnneKornblut wasn't in the tank for Obama?

- When was the last time anyone at the WaPo wasn't in the tank for Obama?

The answers to those questions are a bit difficult, as archives have to be looked through.

However, if anyone wants to know the last major time that the WaPo helped BHO lie, the answer's here:

Posted by: 24AheadDotCom | September 18, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC's Keith Obamaman has out done himself with his Obama love. His show now is editing Palin's recent interview in some lame attempt to help Obama. Where is this type of editing for making fun when Obama is concerned. Keith is is such a biased joke. And that dude that is on after him is even worse.

Posted by: Mathman | September 18, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse


BTW, didn't a lot of businesses (Internet Co.)go bankrupt because of lax (NO) corporate regulation during Pres. Clinton/Democrat rule. So, how could Sen. Obama/Dem. call the Rep. stink when the same exact thing happened to them during the Clinton/Democrat rule.

Posted by: Dem AlsoStinks | September 18, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener | September 18, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

We live in rural Missouri and we took a pole - we is voting for the colored fella. ...........

Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | September 18, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't it a guy named Marx that predicted that capitalism would destroy itself? Looks like he might have been accurate given the present MELTDOWN of our "free market-capitalistic system" which is looking more like a giant "PONZI SCAM".

Who gets credit for this debacle? Well, if you look at the way the BUSHIES have operated for the last 8 years, it's not hard to figure it out. For the last 8 years, these bozos have been chanting the old line about how the economy is sound and growing at breakneck speed while all along these rats were skimming their's off the top and setting the rest of us up for the big fall. Worse yet the present republican nominee and his side-kick would want us to continue believing that they have our interest at heart and not to worry. Excuse me?

2 on going wars, a housing mortgage meltdown, a massive crash of the financial markets, loss of civil liberties, and a long list of actions or inaction by a gang of greedy incompetent BUSH cronies that make up the majority of the Republican party.

I would hope that anyone with a sliver of common sense will not allow this to continue by putting 2 more BUSH CRONIES in office.

Posted by: Johann Wagener | September 18, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

"Socialism works! It is so funny to see all the "capitalists" on wall street begging for government help. There is no Free Market system. We are all socialists now."

Thanks to the Bush administration. Great to see real fiscal conservatives at work!

Posted by: scott | September 18, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 18, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Socialism works! It is so funny to see all the "capitalists" on wall street begging for government help. There is no Free Market system. We are all socialists now.

Posted by: Ace | September 18, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse


The set of folks with a larger stake in this election - Blue Star Families.

As military family members who support Barack Obama, we knew there was something different this election cycle. More interest in the Dem candidate, fewer Republican bumper stickers than we're used to seeing. But nothing prepared us for this. Our new Blue Star Families for Obama website went live yesterday ( We expected it to generate a little interest, but hey, we're volunteers, we've done no publicity about it, no press release, no ads, nothing. So we didn't expect over 3000 hits in the first few hours.

Blue Star Families for Obama was started by five Army and Marine Corps wives back in July. We have a budget of zero. You might otherwise know us as the casserole brigade. But in just two short months we have generated chapters in 23 states, helped host a care package service event at the convention in Denver attended by Michelle Obama, attended dozens of rallies and roundtables and hosted house parties across the country. And keep in mind - we admire John McCain's service to his country. What we do not admire is his vision for tomorrow and his long refusal to provide real support to the military community.

Military families are flocking to Senator Obama because we recognize real respect when we see it. The Senator's admiration and support of military families and veterans is clear in his record, his stump speeches and his constant reminders to the country that we should all be a part of the war on terror - and not just by going shopping.

If you need proof, look no further than the new GI Bill. Supported by every major veterans' group in this country. Passed by a veto-proof bipartisan majority (hello, Governor Palin?). A real chance for veterans who sweated it out for years defending this country without question to contribute to it once again, through a solid education and upward mobility. Senator McCain inexplicably and inexcusably opposed the bill for budgetary reasons. Military families have seen eight years of attempted cuts to our benefits by the current administration. Do they really think we are getting too much? We dare you to come and live our lives for a couple of years and make that argument.

On our website we'll be posting comparisons of Obama v McCain's voting record on defense and veterans issues. We'd compare McCain's plans for military families to Obama's, except that only Barack Obama has a plan that directly addresses our issues.

So we say to the many thousands who have checked out our site in the last day or so, and to the rest of you: Please come back. Keep reading. Decide for yourself. And join us in electing a president who will restore our respect and sense of community with our civilian brothers and sisters, not one who will continue to ask us to serve in silence.

Written by Laura Dempsey and Kathy Roth-Douquet

Posted by: SueMVetforOBAMA | September 18, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company