Let's go back though this multi-color response and see where we can agree and disagree,
Military experience has some great attributes, but it does not teach diplomacy nor consensus building. It has very little equivalence to practical civilian management techniques. A Navy Captain (06) is the equivalent in other services of a full Colonel, so he never reached the Admiral/General level. For some reason the military powers that were in command at that time did not feel Capt McCain was suited for flag rank. Wonder why?

John McCain served his country bravely and to the very best of his ability. I salute the strength and determination it took for him to survive in the POW prison camp. He is to be commended and honored for that service.

I have commanded men (Army) in combat. I served for 25 months in a combat zone with an Infantry MOS and was twice wounded. I'm proud of that service and the military has a special place in my heart. I'm not going to vote for John McCain just because he served, as millions of us have served honorably and many with distinction and uncommon valor.

McCain-2000 was an interesting figure in the Republican party. I was very intrigued with his views on campaign finance reform in particular. When he was demonized in SC by Bush's machine I was incensed. We are all aware of his flirtation with switching parties after that debacle. Of course, and understandably ,that has been re-done so that it doesn't ring too true to the Republican faithful.

McCain-2004 was a different animal. He turned his back on his previous positions, pro-choice, immigration reform, etc. etc and embraced the right-wing views fBush/Cheney/Wolfowitz, et al. He worked hard for Bush's reelection. Claimed to be a Baptist (when his family, himself included, had been Episcopalians for generations) because it would appeal to the Evangelical wing of the party. To me that just proved that he was so desperate to be president he was willing to do or say whatever was needed. The end justifies the means to him.

I pride myself on listening to a variety of news sources both domestic and foreign to try and get as balanced a view as I can to help me make decisions and to understand what's going on. I look askance at those that quote Fox News as their only source as I do those that quote MSNBC as their only source.

Not to be a smart-ass but you're using "bipartisan" incorrectly. That means working with both parties. I believe you mean to use "partisan".

I agree that Obama was for the longest time much stronger in oratory than substance. However after his speech in Denver he laid out a detailed plan for what he planned to do. I was impressed.

Your statement that there's a"american aristocracy" dominating politics that won't let Obama make the changes but that by some magical formula McCain can institute changes when just earlier you point out how despised he was by the main-stream Republican powers doesn't make sense to me. If such a cabal exists please explain how we went from Clinton's type governance to Bush's type governance. They are diametrically opposite. I don't buy it.

If we are a country of Patricians and Plebeians (and I don't agree with that) wouldn't it be better for those of us in the great unwashed to elect a leader like Obama that is obviously not of a Patrician stature, instead of an obviously big-business connected McCain? I don't follow your logic.

I enjoy history as well although I shy away from including Latin phrases as I tend t get the verb form wrong too often. We've never been a pure democracy. We are a representative democracy and that design was based primarily on John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu (who used Polybius work with the development Roman Republic as a foundation).

As for me and mine, we are going to support Senator Obama as I believe that is our best hope to undo the evils (and I use that term purposefully) perpetuated by the 8 years of the current administration.