I am more interested in a candidates agenda and what he/she intends to do to help our country out of the morass it is in than what 'box' media puts her/his supporters fit in. Frankly - according to the media hype, the only qualified person to be a President is an elderly Christian rich black woman who served in Viet Nam. o.0

I am a combat vet from 2 tours in Afghanistan. My concern is less for thier combat experience and more for the fact that they volunteered at all. Robert Heinlein in his political novel "Starship Troopers" made the point that veterans have shown a personal resposability for the "state" that i think is very important. It shows that they have a greater view then thier own personal interest.

I believe the person your talking to right now is John Neuman. I wish you'd acutally make sure you guests get their facts right before letting them on the air. His slander of Obama was terrible. He trotted out a lot of talking points used by right wing raido that have been disproven. If he wants to talk about flip flopping in politics he needs to look no farther then John McCain.

Frosty talk of "flip flopping" can be dangerous. We have this idea that the people we elect should know everything from the very begining. But what about learning? What if someone comes to understand something in a different way should they hold to thier origional idea simply because they said one thing and they dont want to be caught "flip flopping" or do we want someone who is going to have thier opinions change as thier experiences change?

When I talk about flip floping in this case it's backed up by McCains voting record. For instance, claims to support veterans, yet refused for a long time to sign on to the new GI bill(i'm not sure if he's signed on yet). HAS BEEN torutured, and claims publicly to be opposed to the US using it. Yet voted aginst a bill to ban torture.
Too me flipfloping is when you say something and vote the other way. If you say something, Then admit you changed your mind, it's not flip flopping it's changing your mind. People do that sometimes and I don't have a problem with it. No one is right all the time. but when you tell me one thing and do something else it makes you not only a flip-flopper, but also a liar.

There is a difference between "presenting facts" and "talking smack." When your guest states that Barack Obama refuses to participate in the pledge of allegiance or the singing of the national anthem, this crosses that line, and it is your duty as an unbiased host to correct him. I'm very disappointed you just let that one go.

No it isn't! It is clearly a guest stating their opinion. All sides Clinton/McCain/Obama and their supporters repeatedly misstate information, including the candidates themselves. It isn't up to a host to decide who is correct; especially when the crux of the show is anecdotal and opinion.

No, he was NOT "stating an opinion" -- he was stating AS A FACT that Senator Obama does not say the pledge of allegiance or sing the national anthem. And that is simply FALSE. It is nothing but lying right-wing propaganda.

It's not the job of a host to challenge all potentially incorrect views by a guest; especially when they are on a show to give their opinion or slant on an issue and in this case a somewhat unrelated issue. There were clearly opinions by Mr. Neuman and Mr. McPeak that are factually incorrect and can be disproved.

I think the error lies in the guests short cutting, using one incident and a couple circumstances that cast Obama in a non-patriotic light, turning the one photographed incident into a case for evidence for a common practice.

Even so, the general idea is that Obama does appear to make traditional patriotism and the marks that go with it, and has shown a typical leftist distain for the flag and the usual marks of patriotism. (Even if they have been exploited by the Right). If the guest had phrased it more like that rather than projecting the one known incident into what is easily rebutted as a falsehood through an apparent claim for plural similar incidents, then these claims of lying would be less easy to make.

I have a far left friend who calls the U.S. Flag "The Republican Flag," while being ridiculously proud of the flag of her native country. The left has carried distain for the U.S. Flag since the time of the Viet Nam war (and the Beats in NYC long before that). That this is based on the subversive intentions of The American Communist Party (at least in the beginning) is now easy to document. Alan Gingsberg, Chomsky, MLK, just about all of the early players were frustrated and angry victims or reactionaries of the McCarthy Era. Some of that is understandable to be sure. HOWEVER.....

The beat just goes on, but it is disconcerting to see a candidate with what looks like a closet case (at least) of distain for the only real symbol of our democracy with a potential first lady who it seems must now be kept far from the public eye - poised to take the highest office in the land with such a short public service record behind him to compare with his choice in the church he has long attended and apparently the people who must have influenced his real thoughts by association.

+ Besides it being incorrect that Mr. Obama doesn't participate in the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem. What would be the problem if he didn't?

+ A flag is nothing more then a logo. There is absolutely nothing to suggest, lack of flag worship, means someone dislikes the country in which they live or doesn't care about its future. Are you suggesting Mr. Obama is trying to infiltrate the country with dislike? Why would he run for president if he didn't like America? It wouldn't make much sense.

+ Your friend, on the subject of flags, is irrational.

+ The flag is not "the only real symbol of our democracy," its just a flag! The meaning or lack of meaning is up to the individual and its potential symbolism should not be dictated in a democracy.

I'd be interested to know if Mr. Neuman voted for Senator Kerry?

With respect due Mr. Neuman for his service, but I wish he had more thinking and less out loud. The U.S. got into Vietnam initially to help the French retain a colony, not for Vietnamese freedom. John McCain has consistently voted against taking care of Veterans, eg. he currently opposes modernizing the GI Bill to actually cover tuition, because he fears it will lure soldiers out of the military.

I am retired military. I am a conservative Republican. Nonetheless, I found the swift boating of John Kerry absolutely shameful in 2004, even though I had no intention of voting for him.

For the first time in my adult life, I am choosing not to vote. For the last two elections, I chose the "lesser of two evils" option. What I have learned is that when you choose the lesser of two evils, you keep getting more and more evil to choose from. I am done with that.

I am more angry with the Right than the Left. I am not one of those who is against McCain because he isn't hateful or bigoted enough. It isn't so much McCain I have a problem with, it is the influential elements within the Republican Party who I have a problem with. I feel the conservative movement has been hijacked by psychopaths and I refuse to have any part of the political process until they are weeded out. The Republican Party is going to have to earn my vote back, and if that means we end up with a liberal, inexperienced Democrat who talks pretty for President, so be it. Time to pay the devil.

I believe it's the responsibility of the moderator to correct the "facts" presented by Mr. Neuman. Barack Obama frequently LEADS his Senate colleagues in the Pledge of Allegiance. He has not only introduced but passed important legislation; for one, on ethics and campaign reform. If Mr. Neuman wishes to state that he will only vote for a veteran, that is a valid opinion-- which of course would mean that he certainly voted for Mr. Kerry in 2004 over Bush.

In my opinion, veteran status is not much of a factor.

Look at Eisenhower - he did wonderful things for our country, most of wish was non-partisan. He warned us of the military industrial complex, which we ignored.

US Grant was not only a lousy general, but the worst president (pre-2000) - extremely corrupt.

I have mixed feelings about Teddy Roosevelt's accomplishments.

PS - to respond to one of your guests: The President CANNOT DECLARE WAR. According to the constitution, it takes an act of congress to declare war. Of course the last time that happened was Dec 8th, 1941.....

PPS - It is proper that George W Bush isn't mentioned as a veteran, because he did not serve in the Texas Air Guard. He was signed up on paper, but never reported for duty. Greg Palast did an excellent piece on the matter. Look it up.

Kennedy and Eisenhower got us into Vietnam (both vets). G. H.W. Bush launched Iraq1 and the invasion of Panama. McKinley started the Spanish American war (a veteran of the civil war), and that's just what comes to mind for now... And if G.W. Bush is to be believed he's a vet, and he started this Iraq war.

John Neuman's criticisms of Obama and Clinton raise some interesting questions. Is he afraid their lack of military experience might lead them to invade a foreign country based on faulty intelligence? Or mismanage a pursuit and allow terrorists to get away? Or undermine our constitution in the name of national defense?
Perhaps if he would just explain how the maintenance of C130's gives him such a qualified opinion on the abilities of the candidates then maybe I could understand his analysis of them.

Why wasn't John Neuman challenged when he said Obama refuses to salute the flag or sing the national anthem? Obama has explained why he doesn't wear a flag pin. How many of us do?

I just got this off the BBC "Two aides to Republican John McCain resign over ties to lobbyists who represented Burma's military junta."

I have been educated in the military, but never served. War is a result of going over and past sane discussion, so now with his experience in killing and pain, the waste of it all, why does he continue to hang out with military politicians. It's gross, move on.

Using military experience as a criteria for president would rule out a segment of the population, folks who's idealogy direct them to not pick up arms and kill other.

While I was in the military, I considered myself a staunch republican, I was pro-Regan, and felt that the republican party knew how to "take care of" the military. This was up until we invaded Iraq and I couldn't find a rational reason as to why. The more digging I did, the bigger the disconnect and I eventually switched parties and now I vote democrat. I'd like to see senator McCain in the executive branch, but after the current administration's war to line the pockets of companies like Halyburton, I'm not willing to give them a second chance.

I consider myself a veteran of America's military involvement in Central America during the 1980s. It was a dangerous, tragic and secret time that certainly shapes my understanding of U.S. foreign policy. I was not a paid soldier in covert operations. Rather, I was an unarmed but active opponent of U.S. activity in Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.

My understanding of war is also shaped by my training as a historian, and as proud uncle of a marine killed in Iraq.

John McCain likes to criticize people who oppose his foreign policy ideas as "isolationist." The opposite word which he apparently uses to define his ideas is "engaged." My experience with war leads me to use a very different term. The idea that we should have bases, ships, missiles, and heavy troop activity all over the world is "imperialistic."

We don't just need a national discussion on race and class. We also need a national discussion on imperialism.

On a final note -to correct your first guest: George H.W. Bush, a decorated military veteran, did take the U.S. to war.

If you want the US Conservative Republicans to keep murdering Iraqis for their oil, vote for John McCain.

Blood Oil

I don’t trust McCain at all he simply cannot be trusted.

Seems to me that what is lacking in this discussion is talk about integrity -

The veterans I listen to are at ivaw.org

Thanks for mentioning IVAW. There was virtually zero coverage of the Winter Soldier hearings earlier this spring, including by our "public" radio stations. What is truly missing from this discussion is a representative from Veterans for Peace, a chapter of which is active in Portland. Too bad the staff of this show didn't think to include that point of view.