Obama 1, Clinton 0

I like Hillary's comment best. She didn't rule out talking with enemies, she just wants to know what's going on and she doesn't want to be used. Who knows what she was thinking about in particular when she said it, but there's no question she has LOTS of experience in these matters so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. And I bet the campaign will give both of them a lot of chances to explain what they mean.

Obama's answer sounds good but what does he really know? (at least compared to Hillary).

Diplomacy works all kinds of ways, at all kinds of levels. I certainly don't think Hillairy is signaling that she would be like Bush.

I love that line from the Godfather, too (keep your friends close and your enemies closer).

The only thing I really cringe at from Clinton's comment is the "leverage" or the feeling that meeting with us is some privilege afforded only to those that outline their intents and meet standards set by the president.

First, the pres shouldn't have supreme power of who they will and will not meet with. We should meet with anyone that wants to meet. It doesn't mean that we will agree or that we will like them at the end.... But, at least we're not giving the airs that we are superior to anyone (because we certainly are not).

Second, as a leader of a country (whether dictator or not), you should be able to meet with other leaders....

That being said, if Castro said, "I want to meet with the president so that I can put him/her under my mind control,' I would say, "ok, don't meet." But, if 5 leaders want to get together to talk about possible ways to compromise so that everyone will benefit, so be it.

The current Admin. broke off existing relations and dialogue with N. Korea among others and labeled countries it didn't like as "rogue nations."

Exactly. If the country or the intents of someone aren't exactly conducive to Bush's agenda, he writes them off. That's not the way it should be.

By the way, Eric Zorn's column was really about the fact that just meeting with someone doesn't mean that we're going to like them or that they will get what they want. It just means that we have a certain level of humanity.

"In the neighborhood, on the job, at school or in the home, talking to those with whom we're at odds is the way we seek common ground and understanding about our differences.

Dialogue often shatters stereotypes. Conversational give-and-take tends to lead to workable compromises.

It's why we have peace talks, not an exchange of peace memos. It's why the United Nations is a place, not just a Web site.

Personal interaction doesn't always work, of course. Sometimes sitting across a table from someone makes you hate him all the more.

But talking beats heck out of the silent treatment, particularly the punitive silent treatment -- a generally aggravating tactic used primarily in junior high school and in the stylized world of international diplomacy." - taken from http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/07/talk.html

Clinton happens to be right. A meeting with a US President is a BIG thing and can be used by people at home in their own countries. It is used for propaganda. So a meeting with NO chance of a result might be sought to only to give prestige . . . and bragging rights . . . and power . . . to people it does not earn.

Life just isn't that simple Obama.

MH

I urge you to think about this on a much smaller scale.

You are the owner of a business. Morale is low. Some of your managers are getting hostile because you refuse to talk to them.

As the owner of this business.... What do you do in order to keep your business running?

If it were me, I would give them what they want - they want to talk, we'll talk. That doesn't mean that they get what they want, after all, I am the boss, not them. But, I will listen. It doesn't mean we leave the meeting all chummy... It does mean that we've attempted to rectify the situation.

Perhaps what really appeals to me as an average American is the idealistic, normal approach. Too many people are under the opinions that America is too good for anyone else. And look where it is getting us. We need to in the very least pretend to come down to the level of others. By pretending to humor them, we give them the impression that they have some power - which is what all these "enemies" want after all. But, we really know who has the power, who holds the winning hand.

I think the people that don't want to sit with "enemies" are the people that are the ones that are really just afraid of admitting that we are losing control over the world.

What prolonged the Vietnam war was diplomacy. We would meet with the enemy, and they would agree to terms. Guess what? They'd lie. Our soldiers would abide and be slaughtered. War has no friends that why we are at war. We are losing control over the world because we no longer want to drop the big bomb. If we killed our enemies with the power we have instead of being nice policeman, we would win today. This is probably not your opinion, Lainie, but I have only one side: America's side. Our enemies have one goal: annililate America and Isreal. There is no conversation that will change that.

Diplomacy is the most effective and yet highly ignored tool a president has to promote national interests. Diplomacy can effectively prevent unnecessary war, furthermore. But more importantly, its a democratic feature because it gives the citizenry at home and abroad a chance to understand what is going on and therefore voice their opinion and challenge their elected officials.

There are basically two camps among our leaders, Obama seems committed to the first, while Hillary to the second--the popular method of carrying out foreign policy, the one Bush is so notable for: those who carry out foreign policies in closed rooms, secretive plans that prohibit democratic inclusion. The first stance, Obama's stance, is to have foreign policy discussions transparent and open, to meet and take issues head on with competing officials in front of the world, and ultimately those who prefer more democratic responses to critical issues.

We know where Bush-styled foreign policy takes us, so why we even consider Hillary's position to be anything more?

I agree with your article's position 100%.

Another columnist's take on the issues - very pro-Clinton - from a conservative.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/486563,CST-EDT-HUNT27.article

Carol,

I have no problem with annihilating the enemy - which you should read this article http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977071913 - if we could identify who the real enemy is. We want to end terrorism and get rid of Al Qieda.... Yet we are patrolling Baghdad. We're not even in the vicinity of the "enemy" in this war!

Gustavo,

Thank you. I really agree with your point about "closed rooms, secretive plans that prohibit democratic inclusion." In order for me to form an opinion on any matters, I need to be privy to the discussion. Obama doesn't want to keep everything tight-lipped, he wants to have people involved and do this the right way - he's not hiding anything (unlike some).

Carol,

"We are losing control over the world because we no longer want to drop the big bomb."

Thats the most frightening position I have ever heard. Do you really believe this? And why must the United States control the rest of the world?

You also wrote: "What prolonged the Vietnam war was diplomacy."

Thats a false statement. What started the war, we should remember, is the kind of foreign policy making that Bush and Hillary Clinton support, and that is the secretive, undemocratic way that usually leads to such tragic and unnecessary wars like Vietnam and Iraq.

The Vietnam war "required" massive American intervention following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but as Robert McNamara, who was Defense Secretary to President Johnson at the time, later admitted that this incident never happened. In other words, war with Vietnam became "inevitable" when foreign policy elites made diplomacy a closed-door, secretive affair that kept the American public out. They decided, without a real effort to engage the other side and seek resolution democratically, to simply declare war on Vietnam.

Open diplomacy could have prevented this war. Any efforts during the war were not legitimate attempts to end the war, Kissinger and Co could have negotiated a real peace whenever they wanted to. Simply put, American "interests" had to be taken in consideration first.

I do think that Obama won the war of words on this one. I have noticed that the news the past few days has been very much putting Clinton at the top of the heap. It seems that a Clinton/Obama ticket is what many are hoping for. You know I'm not, although I do think that Obama having a term or two as a vice president would give him more credibilty with those who complain about his lack of experience. I just don't want to see him as her vice president.

I agree, Sue. While I admit that they are the strongest candidates, I would rather the ticket was reversed and have her as the VP.

This is a great column on this topic: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762038/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Good article, Lainie. Good comments, Gustavo. I agree with you, with the caveat that there are steps through which diplomacy should proceed. There are instances in the past where dictators used meetings with foreign leaders in their own countries to further strengthen their positions.

But I don't think that the Bush way has worked at all. They are loosing face now with countries with whom they previously had refused to meet, but are now meeting with since they have no other option. The wisest way is to never shut doors, but keep them open to possibilities with intelligent parameters.

And, I agree, Gustavo, Carol's statement is scarey. This is the kind of viewpoint that has created hate for our nation throughout the world and will stop us from progressing in good faith towards just peace.

Sounds like Hillary is more concerned with how it will look. Gee, what a surprise. I'm suspicious of politicians who seem so obsessed with image.

My take on this diplomacy issue is this; There should be no limit on diplomatic efforts when it comes to preventing military involvement. But I believe that once we commit to a military solution, diplomacy should be suspended until the enemy is completely subdued. And I believe that if we are going to take military action, we should give it what I call the 150% effort. In other words, we should throw way more at our objective than is needed. I'm reminded of the methods and success of General Swartzkopf and the first Iraqi war. Overwhelm the enemy, and allow him no quarter.

Unfortunately, the current administration has ignored history's lessons.

Lainie, you made the front page with this one! Congrats on the feature!

Thanks : )

First, there is a reason that we do not negotiate with countries that we believe do not have the motivation to settle, or speak honestly - it is a waste of time and it is dangerous. Look at negotiations with Germany that gave away Czechoslovakia for a false peace. If the Allies had instead bombed Germany at that time until they stopped arming themselves for their "reich" how many people would be alive today - 60 million? How many resources would not have been squandered and historic buidling would still exist? This is a good example because surely it would have looked like many innocent people would have been killed. Many of them were to have died anyway, and many many people are going to die in this Islamic "reich" if the people who just want to "feel good" don't start using their heads and getting serious.

Lanie you say it was clear to you that Obama came out on top, I think the concensus is that he did not, and the desperation move afterward compounded that misstep on Obama's part by calling Clinton, "Bush-Cheney light".

The resort to name-calling on Obama's part proves to me two things. One is that Obama is not a loyal Democrat and team player - extremely important at this time for the Democrats. And second he did that shows that he does not know the first things about international politics.

That's understandable, he is a beginner getting experience, but you do not attack and undermine your whole party because you are trying to recover from what was YOUR real mistake. If Obama wanted to show a new style, he would thought very carefully about what to do about this gaff. Ultimately it will mean his withdrawal from the race, he just does not want to face that, or the more likely loss of the Democrats through infighting and disunity. His best play would have been to ignore it and hope people forgot.

> I'm suspicious of politicians who seem so obsessed with image.

Sorry Devin, was that statement supposed to not have any meaning? ;-)

Well Heck Lannie, I will add a link to it. And it will show up featured in Unified Individualists.

bruce,

I did not copy and paste this part of the article before.... But since you brought up name calling or accusations, I will put this in there for you:

<< New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the front-runner among Democratic presidential hopefuls in national polls, branded Obama's pledge "irresponsible and, frankly, naïve." >>

I hate to resort to "she did it first" but.... She did. She called him out on it rather than saying something about herself and how she would handle it instead, she attacked Obama and called him irresponsible and naive.

And, personally, I think Obama was right on the money calling her "bush-cheney lite." That's what she is. She has all the agendas and calculations of the Bush-Cheney administration just as a democrat (lite).

Devin, I go agree heartily with your 150% effort comment. Here is what I think is the corolary of that effort, the beauty of which would work in peacetime as well as war:

The real costs of this war, and in fact most of what our UPPER class does in this country is not ever paid for. Far from feeling what is going on the wealthy elite of our country are actually GAINING from war, a scary proposition if they get to like it too much.

If we were to force the country to pay for things like this, as well as medical care, education, and some other "externalities" brushed off by our economic elite, by raising their taxes and the progressivity of taxes in general - making the country a bit more fair, compensating regular citizens for their efforts, and paying off the budget deficit we might get some faster and better performance from our government.

The only ones who can do anything are these people in power, and they if feel nothing, no pain, no sacrifice, and do not even have to kick in more bucks - in fact they make money there is a disincentive to do the right thing for everyone.

It's always about money and making them pay more will send a message and force action fast when something doesn't work - unlike say giving CEOs raises when their profits are down and they are not paying taxes and shipping jobs overseas.

If economic incentives work for everyone else, let's get some in place for our leaders - of government and industry and watch the improvement happen, let's ALL give it that 150%.

Lainie, it's a bad day for the Democrats. That was a shrill comment by Clinton, unproductive for both of them. The result is that it is hard to have good feelings about either of them and to (in my opinion) draw the distinction that Clinton's comment was correct, while Obama's statement was a knee-jerk attack reaction once this kind of thing gets going.

We all knew it was going to happen bruce.... They both have EXTREMELY strong personalities and when it comes to two OBVIOUS poll leaders, they are going to start picking at each other. It was inevitable. It wouldn't be election festivities without this.

Unfortunately, in addition to weeding through the debate responses, articles about the candidates, sound bites, YouTube clips, etc, voters also have to weed through attacks and decide who they will side with and which is worse - starting it or finishing it.

Lainie, I suppose so. But looking past rhetoric, because most of this is words and nuance, just because Obama makes a hopeful statement that lifts viewer's emotions, it does not make him an international negotiator, or mean that these attempts would be productive - and just because Clinton's comment sounds the tinsiest bit like Bush's does not make her Bush-Cheney light, that's laughable unless your only issue is the war.

The emotion tapped by the whole debate question is in direct reaction to Bush's constant DISengagement from dipomacy and what looks like the consequent results of it, war. Promising NOT to do that is probably sufficient ... why do we have to invite them internationally for tea and crumpets as well? ;-)

These leaders and their country's issues are all different as well. The one-size-fits-all comment by Obama of talking for the sake of talking does not fly with all of them I think, whereas his sentiment does resonates with some people. Clinton's not-necessarily comment is more reasonable, but not as dramatic.

I think about it and what is making the difference is totally emotion and irrationality on the part of the voters over perceived/implied differences that may not even really exist.

> No one is beneath us - ESPECIALLY the leaders of the countries in question!

Gosh, I hope that isn't true and our self-image is not that bad.
Good article by the way.

bruce,

Thank you.

When I wrote that comment about the leaders of those countries not being beneath us, I was thinking of the argument, "Hitler was a good leader." He was. He gave people something to believe in. He gave people a place to belong. Granted, his ideas and actions were anything but "good." But, even Saddam did some good - keeping terrorists at bay - even though he was "evil."

Lainie,

I believe this is a good example of Clinton's experience speaking and dramatizing the difference between the two of them in foreign relations experience. While I love Obama's attitude, it need to be tempered with the reason demonstrated by Hillary.

I disagree with Obama only in that I think that meeting for the sake of meeting is simply a photo op and a waste of time. There has to be diplomacy first. Diplomats discussing issues and laying the basis for the leaders to meet.

The reason I agree with Hillary on this one is that she doesn't rule out meeting with those people, she simply says there has to be a reason for the meetings. Also, I think a new President is going to have so much work to do even beginning to clean up the enormous mess Mr. Bush is leaving that it will take at least his/her first year to complete it. Just going through and removing thousands of signing statements and executive orders is going to take time. Dismantling the more illegal and intrusive domestic spying programs, closing the torture prisons, etc.

Let the world's rogues wait their turns. There's no need to put them into line ahead of our allies and our own people. There are enough huge problems to be dealt with that will benefit closer to home. It's not that the likes of Chavez or whatsisname in Iran are rational or likely to be amenable to reason anyway.

Carolyn,

I think that you might be either misunderstanding Clinton's comment or you are reading to much into it and putting words in her mouth. The question was flat out - would you or would you not meet with the enemies in the first year? There was no qualifications along with it such as: Would you or would you not meet with the enemies in the first year if they threatened you? Would you or would you not meet with the enemies for a tea party?

When asked flat out, would you or would you not - Obama said yeah, he would. He is not opposed to meeting with them. Clinton on the other hand will only meet with them if they outline the purpose and she felt comfortable that it was not a propaganda stint. Do you honestly believe that if Obama got a memo from Castro that said he wanted to smoke some Cuban cigars on the terrace, Obama would say, "yeah, sounds good. your terrace or mine?" No... Probably not.

I think that we need to worry about the world's "rogues" fairly soon. Otherwise we'll just have more enemies and more fighting. I expect the next president to be a good multi-tasker that will be able to deal with all the crap Bush has established and focus on keeping international relations amiable.

Clark Kent,

I agree with you. I don't think either of them were advantaged or disadvantaged at all by the little mudslinging. They played into the same argument that everyone is playing up in the media - he is inexperienced, she is uptight. The only people that were truly hurt by this little feud were the other democrats. : ) Apparently, Edwards came out with a tax reform platform on Thursday but I didn't hear anything about it because everyone was talking about Obama and Clinton. Poor Edwards. : )

I tend to agree with Clark on this one. Neither looks bad and, In my opinion, neither was wrong. Obama was making a statement formulated in his mind as Lainie sees it . . . that we need to talk. And we do. It's not his idea that he plans to attend meaningless meetings with no productive values at all.

Hillary simply recognized the legal ramifications and the likely weaker attack points from the GOP which, for all we know, will have a commercial out soon of Barak Hussein Obama playing chess with Saddam Hussein Osama (complete with turban and scimitar . . . Oh! and dynamite belt) and the voice-over "Yeah . . . HE'S concerned!"

It looks like she was a bit more nuanced them he was in this case . . . though the message seemed the same.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Doyle,

Thank you for the visual. : ) Definitely got a chuckle out of me.

Big hug to Carolyn G. here, I agree - and let's wish Clarke Kent a speedy recovery for what must be a nasty typing finger wound that is keeping him from filling up the page.

Lainie, you are on a roll and I see your point. I took the question to mean would you personally "touch base" with every leader where there is a hot-spot or political tension unconditionally.

This kind of question to me implies something like if only we had had a meeting with Saddam Hussein we could have worked something out. To be fair, there is ambiguity there, and people want to try to be hopeful, and I think now especially believe that Bush's fatalism was a aggravating factor in the war. In other words the question comes out of the negative emotions that people have about the way Bush handled his challenges. There is little doubt that either Obama or Clinton would get into a similiar situation so I think Carolyn's point about Obama's comment sounding good but being a real and practical distraction is right-on, and further it shows Obama's attempt to pander to the Democratic extreme.

I am sorry that Edwards tax plan something substantive and productive got overshadowed by the tempest in a teapot, or should I say cigar smoke?

I have a question for those who agree with Obama on this. I have seen Western journalists interview Amadhinejad asking him point blank about his statements on nuclear weapons and destroying Israel. I think the 60 Minutes video of Diane Sawyer talking to him is still online.

All he has to say to get the West off his back is, of course what kind of an insane person would use nuclear weapons against another country, or yes/no, Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons. Why do you think he does not answer?

What would make any of you, or Barak Obama, in that case think it would be a productive use of an American President's time to talk to this guy?

It was a joke Clarke, a joke, not kryptonite for God's sake.

Bruce:

"All he has to say to get the West off his back is, of course what kind of an insane person would use nuclear weapons against another country, or yes/no, Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons. Why do you think he does not answer?"

Hmmmm. Let's see . . . Saddam said he didn't have any WMD . . . I dunno . . . why do you suppose he thinks it might not help? I gather from the question alone that you feel if he made a strong statement condemning nuclear brinksmanship it would be reported here . . . oh . . . AND believed?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

It will be a moot point if another candidate prevails!

Again, I think that the point is being trivialized....

Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as president would not be getting a special phone call on the Nuclear Weapons Line in the cave. They would not be having late night chats with any of these people. They would have intelligence and memos before any conversation would take place.

Obviously they are not going to say, "oh, well, he said they wouldn't blow up another country so we believe him." But, we could say, "The intelligence tells us that he is/is not building these nuclear weapons and we need to talk to him in order to get a better sense of his intent."

And.... As a bunch of people on the freakin' web, we should realize more than anyone else that sitting down and talking to someone face to face is much more telling than a memo or an email or a blog for that matter. I'd rather confront one of these enemies face to face than keep my fingers crossed that they will keep their word.

The question that was asked involved committing to engage in direct talks with these leader during the first year in office.

If Obama were elected and he then decided it was not in the best interests of the United States to engage is such talks with one of them, that leader could then accuse him on going back on his words and use that for propaganda purposes. His apparent failure to realize that would be sign of naivety and if he did realize it, his saying what he did to pander to the far-left is a sign of irresponsibility.

We need a President who panders to neither the far-left or the far-right and so far Hillary is the only top tier candidate who has had courage to refuse to pander to the demands of either extreme.

> Saddam said he didn't have any WMD

We had our president saying he did, and inspectors being kicked out of the country. I am not knocking your point or even trying to disagree with you Doyle, right or wrong, agree or disagree, people have different perception on this from you AND me that do not seem to be converging.

So what do we do about Iran. The alternatives I can see are that Iran opens up for inspection of their nuclear plants and allows Russia to reprocess the spent fuel, or they continue to appear to be building a bomb and the West is going to take some physical action.

Go Carol L.! - righ to the point.

Plus once this is started, where is it going to end ... does it mean our president has to fly to Venezuela to arm wrestle Hugo Chavez? (Sorry, couldn't resist that one)

Wait a second, let me get this straight.... You're telling me that Hillary does not "pander"? Probably not exactly the right word choice but... I think you are trying to tell me (and others) that Hillary acts on her own without trying to appease either side? If that is truly what you're saying, I must admit, I think you're nuts.

This article is not meant to be a "I support this person more" article. I think your comment is just trying to toot Clinton's horn although it is far from true. Clinton is the most calculating of all the candidates. She has changed her style and image and rehearses what she will say in order to win people over. She broke out with a one-liner at one of the forums to appeal to the crowd. She is probably the least genuine of all candidates........

I think your assessment is far-OFF. And.... To really think that one of these "enemies" will come back and say, "nuh uh, you said you would meet with me... liar liar pants on fire" is ridiculous. They don't want to meet with the free world just as much as we don't want to meet with the dictators.

Laine, George Bush had to appear the "Compassionate Conservative" to get close enough to get (s)elected, recall?

Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton had to be very careful not to alienate middle of the roaders and swing Republicans. It's called politics, and well, we can all feel unhappy about it, but there it is.

If Clinton is the most calculating of the candidates, then that is both a perception, but also probably a good thing. Comparing the calulatedness of George Bush, who flat out lied to get into office with Clinton who is pretty much playing politics as it HAS to be played in America these days and then equating one comment by Obama as somehow giving him the moral high ground and putting Clinton in the same class with Bush, to me, doesn't work.

Great comments! Of course Hillary panders. It's called politics. The job is politics. You get there by doing politics.

Obama has a much more enjoyable personality than Hillary, and that is important, but I just don't trust him yet to be president. If he were the vice president for 8 years he'd be a dream candidate. He'd be perfect, having JFK charisma and experience. Now he's just a "promise" - and that seems a lot like a feel good "gamble".

Hillary comes off as a scary shrill Mom, usually, to me at least, but I trust she knows politics - and it's about time we got somebody in the White House who knows what they're doing!

Maybe my negative ideas about Hillary are just sexism. I need to go sit in the corner and think about that one for awhile.

"Obama was asked if he would consider meeting with enemies of the USA. Obama quickly said that he would and then followed that with, "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

I think taking cues from a junior senator with very little international experience and all passion may seem very American. We all like a gamble. But that is just what it is with Obama.....a huge gamble.

Everyone wants something "different" i.e. not a while male for President. Everyone wants "young and passionate" but not someone with very little in ways of connections and or a framework to back up his ideals.

America is like Obama-a melting pot........young, a little naive......a little loud........full of hopes and dreams......

But the truth is:

Our system is broken. Our government and reputation are broken. We need someone who can garner respect and not just motivate and rejuvinate minority groups and the far-left.

Hillary has come under fire for trying to work within the broken system and Obama chastises her for that.... "Bush-Cheney Lite".

Well, what I want to see is Obama in 20 years trying to keep up his "whomever talks the loudest wins the argument" stance. Life does not work that way and neither does politics...even if you are the black version of JFK.

I know we need a new poster boy but his bravado and know how to fix it all attitude shows how dangerous he can be and how arrogant he really is.

Peter, we are not used to seeing women with "executive" power, and not having negative feelings about it. Oddly enough I find pictures of Hillary in websites, articles, influence my mood and feelings about her. So I do the best I can to remind myself of objective fact.

I think Hillary Clinton is loyal, and persevering in her beliefs. I think she cares about people. I think she wants to be the leader who implements health care for all Americans. I think she has the mindset and understanding, probably more than any president has ever had about what goes on in the White House and the country. I think she is NOT money hungry or she would be rich and ruthless like ... others. I think she carried with her many many positives in terms of job performance. If this were a job interview at a company she would get the job hands down, no contest.

Negatives. She is a Clinton, and this Bush-Bush-Clinton thing is something I wish that we never ever have to have again in this country, but it is an emotional and illogical argument if a person is right for the job. She is hated by the right wing, though I think there is some softening there as the objective truth of what has been happening in this country has started to penetrate even the thickest of right-wing skulls, and especially the wavering swing vote. And the sexism.

The emotional things I sense about Obama are, his middle name is "Hussein" and he went to a Muslim school. Ugh. But, that could work out to the a good thing too. He wrote some feel-good books, but lots of candidates do that. If book writing was going to get someone elected it would be big Al in my book. I do not trust Obama yet. I watch him, I see a a personal calculatedness and opportunist, like this statement he made is a gamble, and I do not like gamblers. Bush gambled on Iraq and lost the way I look at it. I do not see any vast arc to his life yet at this point, and I do not see his passion, I see Obama is kind of very cold and afraid to let loose with his "feelings" so to speak.

I probably like Clinton, Biden and Edwards the most, all for different reasons, but if I ask myself that question of who would get the job if this was a corporate thing, and not a popularity contest, Clinton stands out. I just hope people remember what the polularity contest mentality and our emotional reflexes got us last time.

Oooh, Eliza I think I was channeling your last post ... the gamble point is just too eerie.

Got it Clark.

Great article Lainie. I have some articles indicating Hillary got her hand slapped within the DNC, which is why Dollar Bill is backpeddling trying to make nice now.

Communication is always the answer -- talking it out.

African proverb: speak softly and carry a big stick.

Well, we have the biggest stick in the galaxy, now we SHOULD try talking about it, instead of cowboy tactics.

Hi-Ho Silver is gone. John Wayne is gone. Time to get back to reality and deal realistically in a real world where we communicate with one another.

Thanks again, Lainie!

Lainie, you go.

O'Bama's very adept follow-up retort [or tap on the chin] captured the essence of the real Hillary when he used the words: BUSH-CHENEY LITE! Those three little words sum up all Hillary's very careful and calculated efforts to "move to the middle" [presumably from the lefty loony fringe] as the talking heads are wont to say. They either forget, or don't know, that before Hillary was Mrs. Clinton she was a "Goldwater Girl" [not to say that was a particularly bad thing--at least it was honest].

Rupert Murdoch [in an interview with Charlie Rose] said he hadn't decided whether to put his money on Hillary or on John McCain. Well, we see where McCain is -- so maybe Murdoch is using that money to seal the deal with the Wall Street Journal, since it isn't just falling in his lap. We know that Murdoch funded one of her first big campaign shindigs. So, follow the money trail. O'Bama is going to Hollywood [soon] to collect part of a pot [some of which has already gone to Hillary].


Bruce,

I wonder how O'Bama will handle the Palestine apartheid situation. I'm pretty sure Hillary will do Bush-Cheney Lite.

This was a cheap shot by Clinton, who is increasingly desperate to differentiate herself with Obama, and nothing more.

Devin Barber: "Sounds like Hillary is more concerned with how it will look..." Yes.

Peter Joseph Swanson: "Hillary panders." Yes.

There is only one lesson to be taken from this exchange, and that is that we, the people, must demand more from this campaign than "gotcha" sound bites that prove NOTHING.

I like both of these candidates. Let's hope that more substantive policy discussions will follow.

bruce k. - some of the most ignorant and unproductive comments I've ever seen on Gather.

Talking to our enemies, holding our enemies close and 'arm wrassling.' It should go without saying for any sane rational individual or government or head of state that there are times that we hold both our friends and enemies at arm's length and times when we lock horns, arm wrestle, etc.

Hillary's remark re being used for propaganda purposes is very revealing of the usual "us" and "them" paradigm; i.e., "we" decide or designate who "they" are and arbitrarily decide who will be granted an audience, while very often operating covertly towards other ends not stated [think Latin America in the '80's and think middle east in the past and now]. Of course we have enemies and many many more than we used to have thanks to Bush Co and Hillary's husband and those before him.

I will be looking for a candidate who understands that it is not now or ultimately in our best interests to perpetuate east-west and north-south divides. O'bama strikes me as being savvy enough too get it; to what degree he will give us a stronger brew than Bush-Cheney Lite remains to be seen. I will be watching for a clue as to how he would deal with Palestine and apartheid.

Dave A.:
> There is only one lesson to be taken from this exchange,
> and that is that we, the people, must demand more
> from this campaign than "gotcha" sound bites that prove
> NOTHING.

Pretty hypocritical comment coming from someone whose
own posts are 95% other people's words with short
insult replies and of epic proportion when they can finish
out a whole sentence, but never quite get to a complete
thought.

Some of this talk about Obama scares me a little. I think it shows even more of the damage the Republicans have done, to the minds of Americans who are so repulsed and disgusted by the Bush administration they are without thinking trying to find the most far out, different political product out there. That is what Barak Obama is. Our radicalized Democrats are going as far as equating Hillary Clinton with the President and Vice-President.

I keep hearing, "fresh and new", and I watch Barak and all of them in the debates with an open mind listening.

I hear, "I was against the war", "first", "most"; and that seems to carry a lot of weight with some people. I want to know why he was against the war? Was it because of his military experience, foreign policy experience, was it experts he talked to, innate knowledge, a lucky guess? It doesn't count if there was nothing behind it, are we going to run the country by lucky guess?

I hear Hillary Clinton talking about living in the actual White House in the middle of things for 8 years, 39 years of dedicated public service. I hear John Edwards talking of his expertise with unrelenting corporations having to fight them for justice, and in the Senate, and running for President and VP. I hear Joe Biden talking about being senior senator from Delaware since 1973 and coming out first - leadership - with a complex sensible detailed plan to handle Iraq, and I listened to him explain it on the Commonwealth Club radio show.

What has Barak Obama done and what does he stand for?

Believe me if he had new ideas I think I would remember, because I am as hungry as anyone else for new ideas. I am for single-payer/socialized medicine in this country, I have not heard anything special from Obama on that. I know Clinton and Edwards want to reform health care. I'm listening - where is Obama?

What it says on his website is:
> It's time to bring together businesses, the medical
> community, and members of both parties around a
> comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it's time to
> let the drug and insurance industries know that
> while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get
> to buy every chair."

Who is settling for these kinds of words equating to
fresh new ideas?

Read Obama's health care PDF file ... don't worry it is very
short, it says it is Obama's health care plan, but it is really
a bunch of quotes about how great the plan it ... but no plan??

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanOverview.pdf

I think someone who is the junior of everyone at the
table and who talks about having new ideas should let
loose with few of them, and just just talking and talking
and talking.

Barak Obama, you have to pay your dues. You have to have
some experience. You have to have a following ... of people
who have some credibility to me. I need convincing.

I have listened to all the good words and looked for the substance.
It has been quite a while since I heard of Obama, and 3 debates
now.

I want to hear specifics or I think he should get out before he does real damage to candidates that might win - he has already seriously damaged any chances he might have at VP.

First, thank you all for your extremely thoughtful comments. Whether we agree or disagree, I appreciate all of you for sharing your thoughts and perceptions. I've thoroughly enjoyed commenting with all of you. : )

Now, bruce, you intrigue me because you seem to be a little flimsy on some of your points. At the beginning, I got one impression from your posts, then in the middle, I got a different feeling and then towards the end, I got yet a third feeling. Maybe it's just that you're thinking about some of the opposing comments and accepting some truth from all sides. (I know that's what I'm doing.)

I agree with those of you who think of Clinton as a strong leader. She has tons of experience.... But, as an average American that will be voting, I know what I'm looking for in a candidate: Difference. Whether it's from this awful administration that has turned people into people hungry for anything different or my idealistic youth, I'm not sure. I think it might be a little bit of both. I'm not afraid of trying something new. I'm not afraid of taking a gamble and a little on the job training. I think that will be better in the long run than someone that has been a politician all his/her life. There are just certain things about politicians that I cannot respect or admire and most of it stems from being in that arena. I would rather have someone that takes the path less traveled. After all, we're all new at things at some point in our lives. We just have to work with others to learn how to do things and be successful. Which ties into this whole article. We need to talk with other people. We cannot keep appearing to be the closed-minded country that assumes we have all the power - when we don't. We need to start rebuilding relationships with all countries, not just the enemies or previous allies. We need to rebuild our name as the Super Power. We need to re-establish ourselves as a country worth respecting. I think we can do that with someone that is a great communicator and comes across as thoughtful and honest - Clinton is too calculating for that bill. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her.

Missy - "Hillary's remark re being used for propaganda purposes is very revealing of the usual "us" and "them" paradigm; i.e., "we" decide or designate who "they" are and arbitrarily decide who will be granted an audience, while very often operating covertly towards other ends not stated [think Latin America in the '80's and think middle east in the past and now]."
EXACTLY! I love the way you stated this. It's not us and them anymore. It's how we can succeed as a world.... How we can work together to abolish terrorism. How we can work together to abolish global poverty. Yes, there are a lot of issues on the homefront.... But, I believe that Obama will put people of great character and with the American people at the forefront of their minds into positions of power. Obama doesn't say he is going to handle the presidency as a dictator - like Bush - he wants to work with everyone - repubs, dems, libs, conservatives, everyone.... I like that. Because to fix all that Bush has ruined, it will take a team effort. Dems can't do it on their own (look at Congress).

Nalita - Your reference to the African proverb is true. We need to attempt to talk as well as show how big our stick is. I totally agree. Thank you for your comment.

Eliza - Obama inspires more than just minority groups and the far left. He has inspired 258,000 average Americans to donate to his campaign. I am neither a minority or on the far left. I am pretty middle of the road (with leanings toward the left) and white, middle class. He has inspired me. He has inspired housewives, lawyers, students, doctors, minorities, actors, people from every walk of life. I think it's because he comes across so thoughtful and honest. He appeals to the masses and I think that will come in handy when we're trying to rebuild our reputation (which you pointed out is damaged from Bush - and I agree).

Bruce, thank you for all your comments and ideas. I encourage you to keep listening and keep questioning. Also to keep an open mind and don't count him out just yet. : )

Shun P. has done his dummy awards. The only presidential candidate on there is Hillary

"Baroness of Dummy: Hillary Clinton, try as she might... She can't get that knockout punch in yet... How about those unfavorables?"

The article by Shun is The "You Big Dummy Awards: and the winners are...."
by Shun P.
August 01, 2007 01:18 AM EDT

My hope would be that any president hits the floor running opening diplomatic talks. The intensity can be built, but the door needs to be open. I'm sick of the mentality that asserts we're the biggest and the baddest. We are not. The war in Iraq has proven we can't win a war. Katrina has proven we can't take care of our own. What do people think we are so big and bad about. What do we lead in? Crime. We lead in crime. We pick our laws to pieces to the point good sense doesn't come into play. Our children are not protected from pedophiles. We are more concerned with esoteric laws that leave millions vulnerable for the rights of the few. Our thinking is flawed. We don't even stand as a great in protecting our own. We're in Iraq, supposedly saving people, but we're not doing a thing to stop the bloodshed in other countries. We can't even get food into some countries, there we go again, with rights. The rights always seem to go for the bad guys. I have to stop. I can't do this. One- upmansip in politics to me means someone is trying to win a game. I don't like it. Running this country is no game.

Why was he against the war?

How many times has he said something to the effect of wanting to know how they were going to get out of it before they actually got into it? There was no plan. It was just, "we need to be there because of WMD." But... There was never a strategy - there still isn't! Maybe that's one reason he was against it - in addition to Clark Kent's reason.

I think Clark Kent also raised an important check for the pro column under Obama - he is not afraid to do the unpopular thing. While everyone else was buckling and voting for the war, he stood on the minority side.

lynn,
Good points. I completely agree.

Bruce:

"> Saddam said he didn't have any WMD

We had our president saying he did, and inspectors being kicked out of the country. I am not knocking your point or even trying to disagree with you Doyle, right or wrong, agree or disagree"

My point exactly. So why would Iran bother to deny it when Saddam did and it did no good. Don't be so naive. By the way - I recommend you beef up on your research . . . Saddam did NOT kick out the inspectors . . . Bush did.

"and he went to a Muslim school."

Again - I keep hearing stuff but get nothing substantive. He went to school in Honolulu while living with his maternal grandparents. He attended Punahou School from 5th grade until his graduation in 1979 in Hawaii. It's NOT a Muslim school.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/08/news/story02.html

"Democrats are going as far as equating Hillary Clinton with the President and Vice-President."
Accurate statement . . . absurd allegation to make though.

"I want to hear specifics or I think he should get out before he does real damage to candidates that might win..."
Agreed.


Eliza:
"Our system is broken. Our government and reputation are broken. We need someone who can garner respect"
Completely agreed . . . the question people seem to debate, though, is who can do it.

Lainie:

First - you are not "an average American who will be voting." Sorry . . . just don't buy that one. Love the stimulating comments you garnered on this one though.
"I'm not afraid of trying something new. I'm not afraid of taking a gamble and a little on the job training. I think that will be better in the long run than someone that has been a politician all his/her life."
Neither am I fearful of new but I think we need experience to pass healthcare which will be extraordinarily well funded and attacked. You're about to try to take meat from a feeding frenzy of sharks . . . experience will be needed also . . . to begin to undo the damage already done. Failure to transition healthcare may well bankrupt this country.

"he wants to work with everyone - repubs, dems, libs, conservatives, everyone..."
Does he want to work with or against the pharmaceutical industry? Some things are idealogically polar opposites . . . huge profits for the medical and insurance industry or Universal healthcare. THIS is the issue . . . define the issue and recognize there ARE bad guys. ...and we WILL work AGAINST them.

Clark:
"They had a moral obligation to seek that truth..."
Agreed . . . and McCain who didn't even bother to read what he was handed to him by the DoD admits to not reading it before voting . . . they all have a miserable failure on the record in my opinion -- and have cheated the people by taking the jobs without fulfilling the obligations of that trust. . . . and, thankfully, their ignominious failures to act have been recorded into history as well. At this point I would rather have an effective President than one with my respect . . . getting my respect might be too much of a challenge . . . I suspect the challenge of 'winning' the coveted office would pale against the challenge of getting my respect.

Lynn:
"The war in Iraq has proven we can't win a war. "
Learned that in the 60s and 70s . . . some didn't. Remembering history was thought to be a way to save ourselves from having to repeat it. I'm not sure this is true.

Lainie:
> Now, bruce, you intrigue me because you seem to be a
> little flimsy on some of your points.

Which points would that be? I feel unrightfully attacked
to have my ideas called "flimsy" without the ability to
understand your points about my points Lainie.

What might be confusing you is that I am not so much trying
to make points as I am trying to explain and introspect about
what I feel and think about Obama.

My opinion on Obama is starting to crystalize during this
veruy productive conversation which I have to thank you
for Lanie. From the beginning of when I heard about
Barak Hussein Obama, until even past this point now I
have been trying to keep an open mind and get information.

Some of the information has been from Obama himself
and some has been inferential from listening to the way
the minds of Obama supporters is working. One thing
early on was that I found out that Obama was working
on a bill that would make government more transparent
and open, righting what I think is a wrong of the Bush
administrations trying to secretize everything for national
security purposes without any real reason, a consistant
characteristic of the Bush administration that really bothers
a lot of people including me. I thought that was good,
but I do not see the followthrough yet, and I do not see
much else. Before someone is president I think they need
something on their resume.

Do you remember during the Cheney/Edwards debate Dick
Cheney attacked John Kerry for being in the senate and never
having seen him and not being able to remember anything
that he had ever done? What do you think the next "Dick
Cheney" is going to do with Obama in real debates?

> At the beginning, I got one impression from your posts,
> then in the middle, I got a different feeling and then
> towards the end, I got yet a third feeling.

Since you do not mention what the feelings are that my
posts give you I am not sure how to reply other than to
say is there something wrong with that? I find a lot of
people, including myself sometimes, make assumptions
based on feelings that they do not declare and so continue
to carry on without basis based on a feeling.

>Maybe it's just that you're thinking about some of the
>opposing comments and accepting some truth from all
>sides. (I know that's what I'm doing.)

That is probably as close and as nice a way to put it as
I could think of if I had to. ;-)

Does anyone have any comments on Obama's Health
Care plan that I posted. Did anyone look to see what was
there ... it is one small page with large print.

Bruce,

In all honesty, I was just too lazy to scroll up through all the comments to cite examples. And I didn't mean your ideas were flimsy. I have enjoyed your ideas. I think a more accurate term would be wishy-washy based on that you seemed against the article in the beginning, in the middle, you warmed up to what I was saying and then towards the end of the comments, you were in disagreement again. But, I attributed it to maybe someone said something that made some sense and you warmed up to the idea a little. Then maybe someone else said something that really made sense about Clinton (or maybe it was your take on Obama's health care plan) that soured you to Obama again.... I'm not sure.

I know that I've taken every comment and thought about the point being made. I appreciate everyone's opinions.

And.... I've read through all of Obama's plans from his website. I think that his formal plans are what he really needs to work on (and I fully support him). I admit that they seem a little weak. But, I also believe that he wants what is good for all Americans and that those plans are going to get stronger the closer we come to the actual primaries/election. Because of my belief that he will do the right thing by Americans, I have decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. For me, the fact that he is a good person with good morals and integrity is more important than a 75% thought out plan. And, I also believe that he will surround himself with experience if he were in the White House. I believe he would put people into positions that help him to make the best decisions for everyone. If the outcome of the election was Pres Obama and VP Clinton, I could see him even accepting her plan as an outline.... I think he would be willing to work with her for the greater good.... I don't get that same impression from Clinton though.

Lainie, Obama definitely is behind everyone else in terms of
his plans and ideas at this point because he is:

1) Not willing to break the spell of being "new and fresh" to
people and open himself up for real debate and criticism.

2) Not quite the innovative leader or politician he imagines
himself to be.

I am not against your article. I think it was an outstanding article
that sparked a lot of good debate. Lainie, I do find I disagree with
you on Obama, but I like your style and what you have to say.

Obama's formal plans are non-existent Lainie and they have
to be for him to stay in the race and that dynamic scares me.
It scares me that it is enough for many Democrats.

If I was going to make a choice based on whether I thought
someone would do right by America and feel it was backed
up by some kind of logic, I would look for a track record, and
the evidence of leadership.

I don't see that in Obama yet. In fact the whole idea of
running for president when one does not have a track record
seems funny to me, in a way I don't like. I feel caught in the
politically correct mentality in a sense since Obama is so
different I do not want to react to him xenophobically,
but I am a bit irked at this point feeling like he is wasting
everyone's time.

I guess the farthest I would let me emotions and trust
go at this point would be to say that I know 100% that I
will not be voting for a Republican, and 99.9% that I will
be voting for a Democrat.

For the sake of victory and the party I hope that Democrat
will not be Barak Obama at this point.

* But you are right, I am so wishy-washy that if he were to say just exactly
the right thing and I had the feeling that he had the clout to push his agenda in the Congress I would reconsider.

Doyle, You are so right. For a moment ( a moment! ) I forgot about Viet Nam. And it was breathing down hard on me at the time. I remember, too, that many people likened going into Iraq as the same kind of mess as Viet Nam. And still, all we get is rhetoric. I'm so sick of rhetoric I could scream. Say what you mean and mean what you say should be THE STANDARD. Our legislators should really do a better job of informing us instead of deciding what we don't need to know. If they all didn't have their own personal agendas maybe they could successfully run this country. Really. If the Democrats were so against Iraq, they should have been digging out all the information they could and getting on t.v. every day. I know some of them did. I know there were debates, etc., in the news all the time, but if you say you are going to run the country better than the next guy, then you need to run your mouth so people don't get overwhelmed, outnumbered or snuckered into thinking there's something we might not know. And yes, why does Obama say he was against the war? It's time for straight answers.

Lynn:
Obama was against the war for the same reason I, and some others were: It was dumb. It was the most abusive use of power in the history of this country by a sitting President. He played on the emotions of a grieving country and got his little/rather I should say BIG WAR.

There was no evidence, no reason, no provocation for fighting against Iraq, except the Bully beating up on a virtually defenseless country. What? Did the country think Colin Powell and (gag)Rumsfeld did not know what they were doing the first time, so "let's correct our mistake."

COMMON SENSE was the reason some were against the war initially, but Bush did a dirty thing. He USED 911 to promote and get approval for that war; it is the definition of mentally DISTURBED, brilliant tactic, but cruel to the country and the Constitution he swore to defend and protect.

sickening.

Yes, the war has proven to be dumb. I agree with that. But why is it dumb to Obama, what were his reasons for saying no to the war" And, I totally agree that Bush played 9/11, and I could not believe people were falling for that. The need for revenge made a lot of people act ridiculous. We can't get revenge for something like that. Oh, we can strike out and hurt someone, but the problem with fighting back is that too often another innocent is the one hurt. Maybe what you said about the Bully beating up is the single, most believable answer to this war. I didn't agree with the war, I still don't agree with it, and I don't know what in the world we have gotten out of it except shame. But still, I want to know specifics. Why someone does or does not approve. Obama's reasons for the war being dumb could be different from my reasons for the war being dumb. And for me IMMORAL trumps dumb. I thought first it was immoral. And I sure don't see who we freed. I still don't see any electricity running freely through the country, food accessed easily, medical care on hand for the people. I see plenty of suffering, and I see people who have helped the American forces over there in dire straits, meaning their lives are at risk and they can't get out. So where are these people who were liberated? Where is the quality of life? And I still have not seen where we entered a "post-war" phase. It looks to me that we're still fighting a war over there. It's only getting nastier and deadlier. I'm beginning to think that the next time we decide to go to war it should be based on it being an immediate war here. And liberation for suffering people. Ha. We haven't liberated anyone. Not in Iraq. Not in countries where it is clear who is doing the killing and who is not. I can believe in liberating people. I can believe in stopping the killing, but we haven't done any of that. We've got a war going on in Iraq and keeping it going.

Bruce,

I followed the link and looked at Obama's health care plan. There was no plan but statements about what it would accomplish. However, there was a clear clue that it involved buying insurance and the government would help those in need pay the premiums. I object to this method as it will cost more money by at least 30% and will wind up being another hodge podge such as Medicare Part D, written by the insurance companies!

I think Obama's heart is in the right place and of course, he is playing the political game in everything he does or says but I haven't seen the kind of programs that will tell me that he has a plan I can back, as yet.

You stated that Barack had blown his chance of VP with any candidate. There I don't agree. Kennedy and Johnson fought tooth and nail in the primaries but when choosing a VP Kennedy wanted anyone who would bring the most votes. He had no intention of using him line a Dick Cheney and figured the actual power would be his and his brother. He chose Johnson for vote getting capability and Obama could conceivably be chosen by any of the candidates for the same reason.

Lynn,

We've got a war going on in Iraq and we're keeping it going because Bush seems to be incapable of admitting he made a mistake.

As for why we did or did not support the initial invasion of Iraq I admit to a mistake. I believed our President of the United States when he assured us that Saddam was on the verge of obtaining nukes. Being as mentally unbalanced as Saddam was that really scared me, and I suspect it scared a lot of other people.

Perhaps Bush's claims of that Saddam allowing Al Qaeda within Iraq's borders should have tipped me off. Knowing what I knew about Saddam I never bought that one. Saddam was not about let an armed force he could not control inside Iraq and he was intelligent enough not trust Bin Laden or anyone else who sought to increase his own power in the Middle East or the Islamic World. But I am looking at thinks in retrospect, In 2002 we did not know that Bush was either capable of intentionally misleading the American people to obtain support for a war or insecure enough to allow himself be misled into believing a war could not be avoided. I still am not sure which it was.

Hillary will toss us a health care bone, and rob Peter and Paul to do it.

O'bama made some comments [can't remember where or specifically what now] that made me think he has already done some deals with the insurance companies. Yes, it would be nice for them to have to SHARE the chairs. As it is now, they OWN the chairs and the table and the space they are all sitting in.

Better yet, since we the little shlump taxpayers are going to pay for it in the end, let's just call it whatever it's called in every other developed [or undeveloped] country in the world and get on with it. Will O'Bama be able to do that? I doubt it -- nor will anyone else right now but--with a little help from craven and bought congress--he could sure shake up the chairs around the table and put a clamp on the never ending war budget AND make a dent in the good ole boy and girl pork! [side bar: Trent Lott was doing his smarmy southern gentleman thing deriding the very idea that a family of four earning 75K a year needs any help at all with medical expenses.] O'Bama gets a LOT of support from those 'kind of folk' [the kind Lott hates--working poor and middle class].

O'bama and experience: Do you suppose he learned a thing or two about the history of empire when he attended Harvard -- or did he just do the required reading list? Do you suppose his experiences as a child in Indonesia gave him an up close and personal idea as to how the IMF and the World Bank operate? [Is your 'other side' coming out yet, Bruce?

Missy, do you think O'bama is Irish as well as the savior?

I understand he fires you up and you like him, and I guess by now you know what I think. You and I have a disconnect from the posts I have read of yours and what you have said about me, like what is that comment about my other side coming out yet mean?

What did you think of his hardline comments, speaking of bombing high-value targets in Pakistan if Musharraf does not start acting against Al-Qaida, today? Do you think he has strategized about the long term effects of this on the Middle East and thinks it is wise, or is this a popularity contest trying to appear more macho than Bush.

You see, I think it is not that Obama does not have ideas, or even good ideas, or ideas that make sense. What I am not getting is a coherent view of this man. I see him delivering line after line that I feel like he knows the calculated effects they will have, but I do not see a consistant coherent human being behind them, I see a man with very little experience who want to be president, and his ambition shows up more than he does. Obama seems to think this is a war of clever words when it is a war of character, or perceived character - as we all know better.

I do see a positive effect of this new Obama, which I do like very much (as a Senator) - and that is that it may just pump up support for doing something about Islamic Terrorism. But talk about Bush-Cheney light ... was Obama trying for Bush-Cheney dark? I mean he is trying to out macho the macho man, maybe he should have tried on a flight suit.

I had a long comment typed out... And I lost it. Sonofa....

Why was Obama against the war? Because he didn't have enough verified intelligence for going into it. He also wanted to know how we were going to get out.

Others that are dwelling on the Obama comment about invading Pakistan. Key words: "ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE." If we have verified, justified, substantiated reason to believe we know exactly where Al Qieda is and that they are a threat to us and our country, Obama will attack. He is not going to let anyone take advantage of him or us.

Now that my long comment was erased, I don't have much time to retype and rethink everything... So, I am sorry!

Thanks again for all the comments.

I can't believe it, but I just did the same thing. I accidentally hit refresh all on another tab and blew away what I was writing here ... I hate it when that happens.

I think this is the moment of truth, not so much for the candidates, but for the Democrats, particularly the pacifistic and extreme left, I don't know what else to call it, and the fringe.

Somehow the discussion has to stop tip-toeing around trying to avoid this military confrontation that is going to happen - and it is not because of us that this is going to happen.

We have to talk about winning it. We have to see what has been wrong with what we have been doing.

We have to move from drawing the war out while Halliburton, defense contractors, Oil companies made lots of money, went on vacation, and have generally been enjoying themselves to feeling the pain, making the sacrifice as a nation, and doing the job the quickest, cheapest and best way possible, and then moving on.

I think it is good that Obama spoke like this to slap some people in the face and get them to wake up. Now, what does he think would happen if he invaded another Mulsim country, another country on the border of Iran, and where is he prepared for this to lead, because it is going to lead there sooner or later.

Clark:
"Not all blindly signed onto everything that Bush wanted. "

True enough. In one aspect not ALL did anything . . . but in another aspect, my comment was not intended to be limited to signing on to Geo. II's agenda. "...ignominious failures to act..." . . . I'm not particularly pleased with the continued failure to hold these corrupt and anti-American people to account for their actions. Which candidate do you suppose would take that task on?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Oh, how quickly the world turns. Now we're rooting out the terrorists massed on the border in Pakistan.

Bruce,

You have no idea what fires me up or whether I like O'Bama because you think in stereotypes. Goodness knows what you mean when you say, "I think this is the moment of truth, not so much for the candidates, but for the Democrats, particularly the pacifistic and extreme left, I don't know what else to call it, and the fringe."

Missy you are so busy trying to insult you me you are not putting enough coherence into your posts for me to even figure out what it is that you are trying to insult.

I agree with you 100%.

We tried to negotiate with Japan, they secretly bombed us. That brought on World War II.

And how would you have us meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran? He has called for the destruction of Israel. How should we open those discussions?