Er, not quite.  The Lib Dems voted against the war but once it had started the Lib Dems gave their full support.  And even Charles Kennedy's speech at the Stop the War rally stopped some way short of outright condemnation. The only national party to oppose the war consistently was the Green party.

Of the three candidates, I'd say Obama is the least credible...and therefore, in the long run, probably the most dangerous.

Obama is just the latest in a long line of 'too good to be true' politicos that America seems to specialise in producing (for other examples of same, look at Henry Wallace, JFK, RFK, Eugene McCarthy, Jimmy Carter): they're impeccably liberal, seeingly decent and their stock in trade is a kind of other-worldly idealism, designed to lift the spirit -and, sometimes, it does. 

However, the American public is wise these people: when they vote, they tend to favour someone a bit more realistic, however flawed they might be.  Hence, Nixon over Humphry in '68, Nixon over McGovern in '72, and Bush over Kerry in '04.  If, by chance, one of these candidates actually gets into office (before they've been assassinated or exposed to public opprobrium), they almost always terrify the nation (JFK) or disappoint it (Carter). In short, their brand of politics doesn't sit too well with the real world. 

McCain, for all his faults, is a genuine war hero (which counts for a lot with certain sections of the voting public) and even liberals have to give him credit for having the guts to confront the religious right and its pernicious influence on his own party. And though he will probably turn out to be just another right-wing Republican president (I remember one Republican stating, with a straight face:'Our party does not have a left wing: it has a right-wing and a centre.'), he will almost certainly be a more competent chief executive than the present incumbent.

In other words, get used to the idea of McCain in the White House, directing the foreign policy of the western world; then when it actually comes to pass (as it surely will), it won't feel so bad.  Will it?

As I understand it, McCain's 'heroism' consisted of saving several of his colleagues from certain death.  I'm aware that he was also responsible for the deaths of several Vietnamese, but that's war for you. He was then captured by the Vietcong and spent several years as a POW.


Nader's candidacy in 2000 went a long way to denying Al Gore the Presidency and landing the U.S. with George W. Bush.

Al Gore of course still won more votes than Bush, so this is a non-argument.

In the monochrome manichean world of Chairman Barrett, any argument that challenges his own world view is automatically a 'non-argument'. 

Sadly (for him), Chairman Barrett's world is an increasingly circumscribed place, as the REAL world, in which he is only occasionally forced to live, has long since rejected his beliefs and his values: Socialism is a dead duck in Europe.  And it has always been a dead duck in the USA.

Still, Richard, I'm sure your entitled to your solipsistic fantasies.  They harm no one but yourself.

Some type of socialism is certainly not a dead duck outside of the Western world i.e. in the world that the West exploits in order to maintain its own standard of living. South America is a particular good example. The neo-cons would like to think that the rest of the world will willingly accept its own form of neo-liberalism; when the reality turns out to be different, then they have to send their forces to those countries who don't accept their neo-con idea of 'reality'.