wow… Romney looks like such a good choice compared to Palin… come on, if you wanted a woman, why not Condoleeza Rice?? She's WAY more qualified!

To underestimate the American People, and think we're too dumb to see what an elitist he really is.

Son of an admiral, special favors in the military, and then dumping the wife who faithfully waited for him, for 5 years, for some rich heiress.

I didn't know that he was also responsible for blocking efforts of other Vietnam Vets to find fellow MIA soldiers and POWs. Seems he also got special favors, by having Vietnam records sealed permanently.

If that's not bad enough, he's following lockstep with Bush on most every important issue facing America. He's on board with the people who sent our brave soliders out there to fight for a war based on lies, with no body armor!
Halliburton and Blackwater got fat on our tax dollars, but our soldiers don't merit bullet proof vests or covered humvees?

He's on board with those who support torture, even though he suffered as a POW himself?

He's sitting shotgun with those who can't even catch Bin Laden, while our soldiers are being killed by Al Quada and the Taliban, in Afghanistan.

He used to be against drilling under the American Eagle's nest, but that was when he actually stood for something, other than perpetrating lies against the American People and figuring out new ways to bilk us for trillions of dollars, like pretending that giving Big Oil welfare for the next 20 years, so they can eke out 1 year's worth of oil, is going to solve our energy problems. While Exxon rakes in, according to CCNMoney "the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history…$138 billion in the second quarter. That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second."

Wanna stop sending our terrorist funding gas money to Saudi Arabia? Up fuel efficiency, even a little bit, and we could save millions of barrels of oil overnight.

There are so many better judgment calls a presidential candidate could make, than mocking Triple A's fuel efficiency tips.

We could be patriotic and sacrifice for our country, like they did during WWII, in the name of national security, for starters.

Conservation, fuel efficiency, plug in hybrids, could all be implemented in the name of becoming energy independent.

But, that would actually move The Grand Oil Party away from those obscene oil profits during a time of economic decline in America, wouldn't it?

No, better get Shorty and Fox News to get them all chanting, "drill now!" and never mind that it's just as much a lie as saying Iraq had something to do with those who attacked us on 9/11.

History is on Obama's side in this election. 8 long years of abuse by the Grand Oil Party has brought us not only high gas prices, but secret energy deals, manipulated markets, national security blunderings and sabotage of CIA and FBI terrorist intelligence, not to mention the treasonous outing of of one of our very own CIA agents, Valerie Plame. 8 years of polluter friendly policies that show asthma rates skyrocketing, mercury in our air, our water, our food. Smog particles visible to the human eye, in 5 midwest states.

Their contempt of our country's process is evident in their lack of oversight, hiring industry insiders to watch their own industries, and flouting our laws. Karl Rove thumbs his nose at America, while our own bought and paid for Attorney General is too wussy to bring him to justice.

Yes, history is on our side, this time. They cannot pretend it's just a conspiracy theory that Enron and the gang were a bunch of crooks. They cannot pretend that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

And let us not forget – 9/11 happened on Bush's Watch. Even after the memo came, that Bin Laden was determined to attack in the U.S. Either Bush was derelict in his duty to protect America, or something more sinister was at play, like letting it happen for an excuse to go to Iraq, which was already in the works even before we were attacked. I don't want to think Bush is that evil, so I'll just go with dereliction of duty. Either way, Clinton's CIA and FBI were able to foil Al Quada during the Y2K Times Square plot, why couldn't Bush? Ask Richard Clarke about it.

Maybe John O'Neill would know, but he's dead. He's was the Al Quada expert, who left Bush's FBI in disgust, to work for the World Trade Center's security, so certain was he, of an imminent attack by Bin Laden. He died there, on 9/11.

We need brains to defeat Al Quada, not just brawn. We need a president who knows how to Google. We need smarts, and good intelligence. We need someone who isn't afraid to put the full force of America into Afghanistan and Pakistan, to smoke Bin Laden out of his cave. Too bad Bush has been too inept to deal with Pakistan, and he's left Afghanistan to limp along with 35,000 troops, while skipping off to his oil war in Iraq with 100,000 troops. My cousin enlisted after 9/11, to go after those who attacked us. He came home broken, suffering from PTSD, and seriously disillusioned by our "leaders" after defending pipelines in Iraq, not fighting Al Quada.

My family history stretches back to the Mayflower. We fought in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. You don't have to love the blundering politicians who are running things, to love this country. All you have to do, is vote. Roughly 75 percent of you out there, are not voting. That is the only way, to fire these greedy crooks, who fatten Halliburton's no bid pockets in Iraq, while our soldiers die in Afghanistan, in recent attacks and raids on U.S. bases by the regrouped Taliban/Al Quada forces.

McCain questioning Obama's judgement about Iraq is like Bush questioning Bill Clinton's judgement about the economy. It's still the economy, stupid. And sorry Hillary, you need to learn to balance your campaign checkbook, before I'll let you touch America's.

America throttles toward double digit inflation and a $482 billion dollar deficit. With 400 million a DAY being poured into Iraq, while Al Quada is attacking U.S. bases in Afghanistan, and blowing up weapons factories in Pakistan, I'd say McCain's judgement is the one to question.