With regard to McCain's militarism, versus the allegation that Obama would take the same tack: I have yet to find, and I have looked, any instance where McCain had objected to the use of military force by the United States when it was a Republican-led operation. The only time I have found he has ever complained is when it was politically convenient to do so (i.e., when Bill Clinton was President). In Somalia he was for it - until Clinton was elected. THE U.S. AND U.N. IN SOMALIA - adm, 1993. He approved of Grenada and Panama, but not Haiti, and he didn't think Clinton was aggressive enough in Kosovo. McCain: Life shaped judgment on use of force USA Today.

I think, pretty clearly, the same cannot be said of Senator Obama, and indeed the criticism of him usually comes from the other side. What we have, instead, is a mindset, by Mr. Lind and others, that either "every politician is the same," or more commonly, that "anything Senator Obama does is wrong," although it would be right if "another candidate" did the same thing. These are political, not analytical, judgments, and therefore there is not basis for distinction. Obviously, there is, but once one's mind is made up, any fact that is inconsistent with the conclusion is either ignored or dismissed. That, I think, is disingenuous and not reasoned debate.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich