Yet again, the toxic political environment deprives the public of some of the most qualified people. First the Reps, now the Dems.

There was nothing wrong with Johnson's connections, just as there had been nothing wrong with Tom Loefler's on the other side. Acute partisans may spin otherwise, but the bottom line is that the people who are the most engaged are the ones who are reluctant to see the process through.

What do you get if all the best people drop out to avoid being "distractions?" Clement Haynsworth?

Au contraire, kool-aid drinkers, there WAS something wrong with the Johnson connection. Obama railed specifically against Countrywide, and now he has a guy who got sweetheart mortgage deals from Countrywide, through special connections. Obama has once again thrown mud on himself by saying one thing and then associating with people who are doing the things he claims to be against.
Another one under the bus.

Obama did the right thing.

It is proof that he stands by his word even in the face of removing a friend from high position.

Likewise, Johnson's good sense that he would be a distraction and so immediately resigned. Just goes to show the quality of people who are aligned with Barack.

Both show integrity that are a huge change from:

Bush (Rove, Gonzo, etc)

McCain (Charlie Black, mega-lobbyist still with McCain)

Mickey...Mickey...Mickey,

The most important question in all of these "under the bus" experiences is: Why do you (and people like you) derive so much pleasure in driving it?

The sound of the impact and the bump in the roll-over must be very exciting for you.

Ponder - Obama appointed Johnson, who is tainted (rightly or wrongly), by what look like sweetheart deals from a corporation that teh Obamateur™ criticized by name only a few weeks ago.

Defending him then firing him next day is a classic rookie error, from a rookie candidate, who is getting to look awful accident-prone each passing day.

He's got no judgment, because judgment comes from experience.

He's got a speech he made in 2004, to quote a wise woman I once heard.

>>>He's got no judgment, because judgment comes from experience.

The experience to say PERMANENT OCCUPATION is more important than bringing the troops home.

Nice argument Martin. I'll "ponder"...

Sorry, I don't recall which candidate spoke out for permanent occupation of any country.

While I have supported the war effort from the beginning, I willingly concede to anti-war folks the desirability of ending hostilities in Iraq. But I cannot take seriously this insistence on throwing around Senator McCain's statement about a "100-year presence" as meaning a 100-year war, when it is painfully obvious that he had in mind an arrangement such as we have with the former Axis powers from WWII and with South Korea.

If you must object even to a 100-year presence with relative safety, at least do so honestly.

>>>throwing around Senator McCain's statement about a "100-year presence" as meaning a 100-year war

I appreciate your efforts at ending hostilities and what you have said about conceding to the anti-war folks about hostilities.

But McCain has said NOTHING -- not a single word -- about ending hostilities.

People like you, Michael, need to press him on that issue. Write to him, ask him how and when he plans on ending hostilities.

And Bush is now "negotiating" 60 permanent bases in Iraq.... In a country that is ridden with terrorist tactics, guerilla tactics, and sectarian strife... what makes anybody think that these bases would NOT be a target? Just having them there is a slippery slope to endless combat.

Address the ending of the hostilities. Address the 60 permanent bases. Nobody who supports the war wants to address either issue in light of realities on the ground.

The only way to securely police Iraq is with: 1) a NO-FLY ZONE (remember that?) patrolled by USAF and 2) with a quick strike force in the Gulf to destroy terrorist bases if they develop.

Other than that, get out NOW. And get Bin Laden in Pakistan.

It's that easy.

Here is an article that all of us, be we Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, should read carefully and think long and hard about as to the individual by the name of Barack Hussein Obama that wants to be the next President of the United States!

“Barack Obama is a mile wide and an inch deep”

By Karl Day

Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker recently labeled Barack Obama for what he is in our narcissistic and celebrity-focused society – an empty suit. It astounds me that a platform of “hope” and “change,” whatever those terms mean in Obama’s mind, could catapult a man of such little experience to center stage in a quest for the most important job in the world – the presidency of the United States.

Are we so guilt-ridden and desperate to exalt a man of color that we would ignore the paucity of experience and/or achievement in this man’s record? To be colorblind is a good thing, but in this time of world-wide conflict, we must be very careful in choosing our next president. I used to boat on the Potomac River, and Obama is like that river – a mile wide and an inch deep.

It is beyond belief that anyone would imply that this, the greatest nation ever conceived, is without hope. By the same token, it is naïve to the point of being ridiculous to think that in a world beset with huge economic problems, threatened with jihad by radical Islam, threatened with nuclear terror and the destruction of Israel by Iran, any intelligent person is satisfied with the status quo. Our self-absorbed national leadership on both sides of the aisle, consumed by a lust for partisan power, seems more interested in who will be wearing the gold braid when the ship of state sinks than in saving the ship and all hands on board.

We all want change. But change to what? Hope for what? How about some specifics, Obama?

You want national health care? Go visit a VA hospital or learn the facts about the Canadian or British systems. You think taxing the rich is the way to go? Let’s destroy the incentive to achieve by punishing them – those who create jobs – and redistributing their wealth to the less well-off, especially those who would rather live off the largess of the public dole than do the jobs now being taken by illegal immigrants.

America’s liberal elites believe the only reason their crackpot ideas have failed throughout the world is because “we” haven’t tried them yet. The youthful are enamored with Obama, but those who have never worked seriously, have never served in a meaningful way, have contributed little or nothing to the tax rolls, have never made a payroll or incurred responsibility for others, are not the ones who should choose our president or dominate the debate. They are our future but, lacking both wisdom, which comes with age and experience, and a historical perspective, they would do well to listen to their elders when making this crucial decision. These days, unfortunately, celebrity out-weighs common sense, partisanship outweighs both patriotism and principle, and glib speech is seen as an indication of or substitute for depth of thought.

I, for one, find it hard to imagine voting for a man who refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel. Unfortunately, his high-profile stance undermines our international stature and emboldens our enemies.

To add insult to injury, he has willingly sat for nearly 20 years under the teaching of a pastor who makes well-documented inflammatory anti-American and racist statements. Does this reflect ignorance, arrogance or tacit agreement with what is preached? Obama refuses to denounce Dr. Wright – he merely declares such statements as inappropriate and denies having heard them.

And what do we make of a presidential candidate whose wife declares that she has never been proud of the country that afforded her extraordinary educational and career opportunities? We have made mistakes in our foreign policy over the years, but there has never been a more benevolent nation in history when it comes to dealing with our enemies – before, during and after the conflict. If Obama can’t lead his own family to a patriotic understanding and acceptance of the country that has afforded him and his wife immense opportunities, what can we expect from him as president?

Glib, articulate, excellent campaigner? These are apt descriptions of Barrack Hussein Obama. A designer label on an empty suit, however, doesn’t mean it fits, and the ship of state cannot navigate in such shallow waters.

Sam, I challenge you to go to his website and then tell us that he has no specific plans.

You and this Karl person are liars.

I actually heard a man in Texas say a couple of days ago that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Yes, this idiot is an uneducated, ignorant redneck who wouldn't know a Muslim if he saw one; just believes everything he hears on TV and takes it as the gospel truth. He said, "Well, they showed him in Muslim dress!" He had no idea that Barack was dressed in African tribal attire.
Please, people, get educated if you're going to make such comments. The reality is that people here in this "southern mentality" state don't want to admit that they are actually racist. What a shame. And those are the very ones who show up for church every Sunday and you NEVER see them with an American Flag pin on. Give me a break!!!

I actually heard a man in Texas say a couple of days ago that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Yes, this idiot is an uneducated, ignorant redneck who wouldn't know a Muslim if he saw one; just believes everything he hears on TV and takes it as the gospel truth. He said, "Well, they showed him in Muslim dress!" He had no idea that Barack was dressed in African tribal attire.
Please, people, get educated if you're going to make such comments. The reality is that people here in this "southern mentality" state don't want to admit that they are actually racist. What a shame. And those are the very ones who show up for church every Sunday and you NEVER see them with an American Flag pin on. Give me a break!!!