I'm not going to get involved in any of the vitriol that has come
up in the comments, I just want to address what Drag originally said.
The revelations that Obama's paster is a rabidly anti-American who clearly hates this country
The man served for six years in the military. I'm sure we each have our own opinions of him, and I'm sure we can both agree that he's nuts, but I think it's stepping over the line to call a veteran a rabid anti-American who hate the country he served. Obama has denounced him several times, as well.
John Hagee, on the other hand, has claimed that New Orleans was punished by God with hurricane Katrina due to their vast amounts of sin. He has said that Hitler did nothing the Romans did not do to the Jews. McCain has said that he is "proud" to have his pastor's endorsement. Why is this not even on the radar when speaking of Jeremiah Wright?
Obama's wife's statements that she has never been proud of this country until recently
Out of context, and the woman made a point to clarify that she meant she has never been so proud as she has been recently. Rejecting that clarification is nothing but quibbling over the word "as". I, for one, think that it is telling of the candidate's overall strength if his wife leaving the word "as" out of a sentence one of two times she made a passing statement is really going to be one of the cudgels used to fight him with.
Obama's own issues with the pledge of allegiance, flag pin wearing, etc.
Once again, it seems a truly trivial thing to uphold as a reason to reject a candidate for president. "Well, on one occasion Senator Obama failed to state the pledge" sounds like a rather weak argument against the man should it come up in debate.
John McCain has frequently granted interviews, made speeches, etc. without a flag pin. I cannot fathom a reason to chastize Obama, and not McCain, for this. It's a pin. It's an issue of non-patriotism only if you already feel at some level that the man is not a patriot.
I would like to see what lies beneath the "etc." in this sentence.
I think he is like a significant percentage of the Democratic left that
thinks the US is fundamentally flawed and wants to "Change" it to
reflect the values they think it should have.
A few points here. First, the notion that the left wants to change the country to their views implies that the country right now excludes them in order to serve your views. This is not your country, your party's country, or your sect of your party's country. It is ours. That's the whole point.
Second, what do you think these mythical liberal values are, and how in the world do you think they differ from conservative ones? Family values, as if no liberal cares for his own family? Jobs, as if no liberal needs one? The notion that there is some vast rift in values between liberals and conservatives is simply false. The difference is not in values, it's in how to go about acting on them. There are not liberal values and conservative values, there are american values - human values. Denying this serves a very simple political purpose: if all these values are exclusive of liberals, then there is no platform for liberals to stand on; thus, liberals stand for nothing. It is a political stance to speak of values as if liberals and conservatives don't share them.
Third, the notion that you can think the US is fundamentally flawed puzzles me. The country is flawed? Do you mean the soil? The people? The government? Obviously you do not mean that liberals think the soil is corrupt somehow, but it serves the larger point. No politician runs to change people, they run for the people to change their government. It is not that the US is fundamentally flawed, it's that the status quo standard operating procedure in our government is fundamentally flawed. Translation: it's that the administration is flawed, not the country. This is a view that Republicans hold of Democratic presidencies as well as Democrats of Republican ones.