Your newspaper has failed to report what Obama's **policies** are. You tell us about a few, Iraq for example, but what about a detailed analysis into his policies? Does he believe in universal health care for every man, woman, and child in our great, wealthy country? Does he believe in election reform so that money plays no role in choosing candidates?
Does he support keeping our military presence all over the world to maintain US political power around the world? Does he support debt relief for the third world? Does he support the democratic non-violent yet anti-corporate revolutions in South America? Does he support the Israeli occupation and use of force against the civilian population of Gaza? Does he support preemptive war against nations that have not attacked anybody for 250 years? Does he support labor laws that are tough on corporations and force them to pay decent wages to working Americans? Does he support NAFTA and similar agreements that allow American jobs to be taken by what amounts to slave labor in poor countries? Does he support world nuclear disarmament? Does he support radical measures to control environmental decay? Will he support dictatorships across the globe because they benefit US power and corporate interests? Will he support slashing taxes for the rich while a $250 paycheck turns into $197 after taxes? What does he support? We don't know, because the media hasn't told us.

So what are his **policies**, Wahington Post? Where's the news on WHAT this guy will DO? All we hear about is WHO he IS.
I don't care if he seems like a nice intelligent guy. What will he DO?

In the end it doesn't matter what person is signing and pushing legislation. It could be the devil himself, but as long as he votes your way he's representing your interests in public office.

WHO CARES what his personality is? WHO CARES what his background is? WHAT ARE HIS POLICIES??
THAT is relevant. THAT has an impact on the people of the United States and the world.
All this other discussion is akin to your average soap opera review.

Jeb Bush should run for president in '08
He would do perfect

Jeb Bush should run for president in '08
He would do perfect

Why does anyone read Arkinweasel...he is nothing but a puke...reread his screeds against the military and then try and figure out how any respectable newspaper can have him as a SECURITY ANALYST! He is obviously a hack...and every new article for the rest of his time will include one of these screeds against him...

This is coming from someone highly insulted...what thinks of as a Mercenary that should be spit on in his country coming back from his palace of amenities in a combat zone...

Bill Arkin should be terminated.

That the Washington Post pretends that a liberal activist is an ojective military analyst is a joke.

Your criticism is not hate. Criticism is an indication hope, of expectations. Hate is indifference. Having the courage of our convictions is who we are. We ARE NOT what others think of us.

If we are grounded in the traditions of our fathers and their honor codes we live righteously. The current administration has turned it's back on the tradition and honor code of our fathers. Being caught flat-footed on 9/11; engaging in pre-emptive war and allowing torture is in no way reflective of the traditions and honor code of our fathers.

We are condemned by these men for they have acted immorally in our name. The towering contradiction for those with the insight to face it, is that the traditions and honor code of our fathers have been violated by those whose sworn duty it is to defend it. Supporting the violators is without honor.

I have only recently become acquainted with your background. I understand a lot more now about why you hold the opinions you do.

We had a funeral in Spokane March 3 for a young man who had been killed in Iraq, and your words made me physically ill.

I can only pray that people such as you will one day decide to leave the US for some other country much more suited to your hate filled vitriol....how about Siberia? I'll even supply some "obscene amenities"
I will write to the Washington Post, NBC and GE about how you denigrated our brave troops. Maybe if enough of us do write, something will be done about the likes of you.

No matter who is president, we need to stop presidents from invading other nations like Bush did Iraq, because there is no justification for any war except self defense...how many lives will be lost, billions wasted till congress understands the need for govt reform, no declaration of war without an act of congress except self defense...the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified to prevent an attack on the west coast by Japan-that is an example of emergency action justified, but no others. The WW 11 widow of M/Sgt Rudy L. Vance, Payson, Arizona or willo701@msn.com

No matter who is president, we need to stop presidents from invading other nations like Bush did Iraq, because there is no justification for any war except self defense...how many lives will be lost, billions wasted till congress understands the need for govt reform, no declaration of war without an act of congress except self defense...the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified to prevent an attack on the west coast by Japan-that is an example of emergency action justified, but no others. The WW 11 widow of M/Sgt Rudy L. Vance, Payson, Arizona or willo701@msn.com

No matter who is president, we need to stop presidents from invading other nations like Bush did Iraq, because there is no justification for any war except self defense...how many lives will be lost, billions wasted till congress understands the need for govt reform, no declaration of war without an act of congress except self defense...the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified to prevent an attack on the west coast by Japan-that is an example of emergency action justified, but no others. The WW 11 widow of M/Sgt Rudy L. Vance, Payson, Arizona or willo701@msn.com

No matter who is president, we need to stop presidents from invading other nations like Bush did Iraq, because there is no justification for any war except self defense...how many lives will be lost, billions wasted till congress understands the need for govt reform, no declaration of war without an act of congress except self defense...the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified to prevent an attack on the west coast by Japan-that is an example of emergency action justified, but no others. The WW 11 widow of M/Sgt Rudy L. Vance, Payson, Arizona or willo701@msn.com

No matter who is president, we need to stop presidents from invading other nations like Bush did Iraq, because there is no justification for any war except self defense...how many lives will be lost, billions wasted till congress understands the need for govt reform, no declaration of war without an act of congress except self defense...the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified to prevent an attack on the west coast by Japan-that is an example of emergency action justified, but no others. The WW 11 widow of M/Sgt Rudy L. Vance, Payson, Arizona or willo701@msn.com

No matter who is president, we need to stop presidents from invading other nations like Bush did Iraq, because there is no justification for any war except self defense...how many lives will be lost, billions wasted till congress understands the need for govt reform, no declaration of war without an act of congress except self defense...the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified to prevent an attack on the west coast by Japan-that is an example of emergency action justified, but no others. The WW 11 widow of M/Sgt Rudy L. Vance, Payson, Arizona or willo701@msn.com

No matter who is president, we need to stop presidents from invading other nations like Bush did Iraq, because there is no justification for any war except self defense...how many lives will be lost, billions wasted till congress understands the need for govt reform, no declaration of war without an act of congress except self defense...the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified to prevent an attack on the west coast by Japan-that is an example of emergency action justified, but no others. The WW 11 widow of M/Sgt Rudy L. Vance, Payson, Arizona or willo701@msn.com

America has but one major enemy:

Arrogance.

Dear Senator Obama,

upset by Hillary's early idiotic and dirty tricks questioning your early school days
I am writing to you with empathy and genuine wishes for your continued success.

While Hillary plans the next punch, she is so jealous of your superior intellect,
maybe you have one of your staff members research the not so glorious past
of the Clintons. Did you know that Governor Bill C. and George Bush Sr. used
to go hunting together in California? Do you know for what?
Not Ducks, not deer, guess...you will figure it out.
They are nasty! Sir! Please be aware.

I hope the Bears win the Superball.

I think you may only have one serious democratic challenge down the road:
your esteemed colleague Sen. Dodd. After the dirt is out about the Clintons!
Then I would think you may run against Romney - not bad a fair fight. Good luck!

PS You may save this one for a public debate?

1) TranceFormation of America: The True Life Story of a CIA Mind Control Slave.
(September 1995) ISBN 0-9660165-4-8

2) http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:FnJ2J6c1TI0J:prorev.com/connex.htm+Clinton+Coke+Lines&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

3) http://www.trance-formation.com/

4) http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com/2006/09/ostroy-report-exclusive-iger.html

These things you should know about your opponent.

PS What ever became of the money from the Bush-Clinton Tsunami Relief Fund?
The people in Indonesia as dumbfound and hungry as the folks in New Orleans!!

Peace.
With very best wishes, Helmut, Chicago, IL

THE Ultimate Nightmare:
Hillary, the mind-control freak, in the that capacity would sweep away the few crumbs of Democracy that Trojan- Bush White House left behind along with its new and improved Corptocracy.

Bill MacLeod
"...I don*t remember voting for Bush to be head of the free world."
You vote for head of the free world whenever you vote for US president.

The Rev,
Faulty AI analysis aside, time will show what "damage", if any, the current president has done. When i voted for Bush, i did it because i thought he was the best person to lead us in the war on terror. I voted for him specifically because he was not "flexible". I did not want (and still don't) a chameleon like John Kerry (John Edwards comes to mind here). I am not outraged at the president. I am not sorry that i voted for him. Much like Clinton struggled with what to do with the "Peace Dividend" given to him by Reagan, Bush has struggled with the "War on Terrorism". Its a new fight and more importantly a new kind of fight. That does not excuse him from his mistakes or problems with execution. It does not mean that he was unqualified although his inability to communicate effectively has made his job a lot harder. We won't know how Bush has impacted things really for years. He could wind up being the catalyst that forces the rest of world to start dealing with their problems and issues. He could wind up going down as the worst of all time. Or somewhere in the middle like most presidents. You can sugar coat it all you want, but there is a war going on and America, whether we want to or not, is and will be leading the charge and dragging the rest of the civilized world with us. People that want to get us will not stop if a Democrat gets elected. They won't stop if a woman is elected. They won't stop if Obama gets elected. Whoever gets it will deal with it the best way they can. Americans have a habit of electing the right person at critical times - Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Reagan. All of those presidents were flawed but perfect for their time. How many were "qualified"? It could very easily be that Obama is that right person.

Hey Rev I don*t remember voting for Bush to be head of the free world.

Posted by: Bill MacLeod

Bill, if Bush gets his way much longer you will not have to worry about the world being free anyway. The way things are going, the rest of the world will be free only to do what America permits the other nation to do.

For example, if America does not like your weapons systems (Iraq) real or convoluted, we will simply come in and destroy those systems. We won't make the mistakes that we did this time in the future. Instead we will probably use technology like (UAVs or something); we will not risk the political or American human capital in the future.

All Americans should be outraged at the President of the United States; and those who voted for him should be asking themselves, what was I thinking? Having said that we should not all go out and vote for replacement neophytes, as a result our antipathy and in reaction to the current neophyte that is currently holding the office of President'; we should all consider the damage that he has done.

If either, or both Iran or Syria were to assume power in the Middle-East, it will be because of his short-sightedness, narrow-mindedness, arrogance, ignoring of counsel, reckless support(ers) and incompetence!

Love the country...?

If any of these, in the current gaggle of politicians who have elected to jump in lately to run for the office of President of the United States truly cares about this nation, many of them would reconsider their presumptuous decisions and get out of the race.

This is not the American Idol TV show, where anyone who believes that he can be the American Idol, simply shows up and auditions for the job. Unfortunately, like the TV show, many of these contestants only have the minimum qualifications, they are of age!

All of these would-be Presidents should ask themselves, what does the country need; then they should step aside and allow those who are best equipped to meet that need to pursue the office of President?

The Republicans clearly do not have a viable candidate, and those who would vote for any of the Republicans who are running (all should drop out), will do so because they are all that the Republican Party has to offer them, again!

Several candidates on the Democratic side, need to immediately drop out and support the candidates on their side who are best qualified to meet the needs of the nation - some who are not even in the running yet.

And all voters should pretend to be Independents during this election run and forget about Party affiliationm. They should in turn support the individuals who will do what is best for America over the next decade.

America does not need anymore of what we are having now, a Taylor Hicks Presidency and Bush is about as qualified to be a President as Taylor Hicks was to win the American Idol television show, both are sub-standard talent!

You yanks, sure never learn. You've already blown it twice with 'Guantanmo George'. This time please get it RIGHT.
There is only one sensible choice for the next election.
'AL GORE' for President and MR OBAMA as Vice-President.

I keep seeing a reference to the *middle class*, I can guess who the upper class are but who are the *lower class*?

"I think Barack Obama was sent here by Bin Laden to get inside this government and do Al Qaeda will on the population."

- Fred Dawes (comment on this article)

This cat is probably trolling, but the wingnut propaganda machine has already been pushing the "Obama = Osama" crap. When wingnuts try to play the "political opponent = terrorist" card, remember this: they are trying to play us. Bush has provided far more aid and comfort to OBL than any Democrat. Just one example:

CNN, Jan. 2001

"[OBL] said the ongoing U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia is an 'occupation of the land of the holy places....' [in 1998, OBL] issued a 'fatwa,' a religious ruling, calling for Muslims to kill Americans and their allies. (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/legacy/bin.laden/index.html). Bush pulled US troops out of Saudi Arabia, April 29, 2003. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm). Two days later Bush staged his "Mission Accomplished" event on the USS Abraham Lincoln. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished). The irony is not missed by those who are informed and honest about it (thus excluding virtually all mainstream reporters, pundits, and pro-Bush Ideologues).

One could detail aspects of Bush policy that have been a windfall to al Qaeda (and vice-versa). The point here is that the Bush administration, emboldened by our non-functioning congress, cynically exploited the terrorist threat to political and personal advantage. Indeed, this administration has made America and the world less safe, either by cynical design or mind-boggling incompetence. I know not which. In our fear, we have sacrificed our constitutional liberties, institutionalized torture, and given dictatorial powers to our executive branch of government. With the exception of our troops, families, and a few special civilians, that is all we as Americans have been called upon to sacrifice in our "War against Terror." How easily we abandon our decency; how easily we deceive ourselves into thinking us noble for it.

In 2004, Republican Dirty Tricks strategists employed the "Democrat = Terrorist" fabrication to political victory. Now they are trying the same tactic with Obama. Out of context it is nothing more than a time-honored dimension of a tough campaign battle. But in the context of our current state of the nation, the implication runs far deeper than a sleazy campaign tactic. We have been silent since 9/11, while our nation has changed. Our silence in this one instance of character assassination is but an echo of our broader acquiescence to a group of authoritarian thugs with dictatorial aspirations. We have collectively allowed ourselves to be manipulated through the time-tested mass-control technique of appealing to the basest of human nature: fear, bigotry, hatred, cruelty, unquestioning submission to authority, and/or indifference. It worked for Hitler and Stalin (for a while).

As a nation we had better take a long, hard look at what we have become since 9/11 and ask ourselves, does it square with the kind of nation we want to be? If you find it doesn't, now is the time to be very vocal. Congress won't change things, Obama won't change things. Obama and a few honest politicians openly admit they can not do it with the help of the people. If we want to become the nation we should be, it is up to we, the people. Now is not the time to be silent.

can Obama win? I don't think so, I think Barack Obama was sent here by Bin Laden to get inside this government and do Al Qaeda will on the population. he was part of a Indonesia Madrassa his heritage is Muslim he loves Bin Laden his Policies are well understood by any who can see. he is a jihadist and wants one thing and we all know what that is.

Hey Rev I don*t remember voting for Bush to be head of the free world.

JEP

Abraham Lincoln would not be qualified to run for the office of President today either, if he were here.

This notion of OJT for President's need to be thrown out the window. The Doomsday clock has edged a bit closer to midnight; have you heard.

I do agree with your sentiments about Edwards or Obama bringing a fresh face to politics, however, the world has been in a very precarious place given the leadership of President Bush. I do not believe that most Americans will be able to trust in their abilities to be President!

I really do not believe that we have time to wait for any of the well-intentioned novice candidates to come up to speed, even Giuliani. Consider Bush, he has been in office for 6 years now and he still is not up to speed.

And consider our allies in terms of your decision;, I am certain that America's allies (even old Europe), would prefer that Americans put a seasoned and experienced individual in place. The world is like a volcano that is just about ready to explode.

Consider this, the next President will also be the one to decide whether to use the bomb or not. These fellas, like Bush, are not ready for that kind of responsibility!

I liked Edwards until I learned he spent two days before the Bilderburg ELITE of Europe - possibly being reviewed and approved - and then was "OK'ed" to be Kerry's running mate on his return to this country. I fear he is now an "insider" elite - like Bush and Kerry - and if "elected" to the white house would follow their orders - their globalization and war plans. Sorry situation in the world of ours.... I do hope Obama is clean and untouchable, meaning he has no chance to be president.

PS Rev.

History will prove Al Gore to be a world-class leader whether he ever runs for President again or not.

It is hard for me to say this, but Bush has brought the office down in both world and domestic opinion, to the point that Al could continue on with his very meaningful environmental activism and accomplish a great deal more as a private citizen than he ever could as President, where he would be constrained by the politics of politics.

But, I do agreee with you, Gore is currently the frontrunner in terms of real experience, even if he's not running for the office.

You are also right in noting that he won in 2000, and he has grown even more wise and savvy since then, so he probably does represent the most experienced elder-statesman on the Democratic Party scene.

This may sound odd, but in many ways, I think the office of the Presidency might only hinder Al Gore's potential influence.

I realize that to suggest that ANY statesman has risen ABOVE the US Prez office, to achieve a higher calling, might be trivializing what many consider the most important job in the world.

But following this "Bush disaster" era, respect for America's President is sorely missing from the world's wounded psyche. After what Bush has done to the office of President, it will take a very fresh new approach and a team of "outsiders" like Edwards/Obama to restore what we have lost or misplaced.

Strange article...M.Arkin will not let us know if his for or against OBAMA.
He wants Sen.Obama to be perfect - as if that were possible and then if he was perfect he still doesn't tell if he would vote for him.
Hedging yours bets ,Bill ??

Rev.

If we start putting experience requirements on presidential candidates, we won't get any more Abraham Lincolns.

But we will see a lot more W's, whose political experience was handed to them on a silver platter, along with the silver spoons.

Obama, like Edwards, is a refreshing change of pace, from the politics of big family money to the politics of populism.

In this age of billion-dollar political seasons, with a media that is hopelessly addicted to that easy money, the only real qualification a candidate seems to need is a self-interested collection of the wealthiest corporate supporters they can find, and a crew of ambitious campaign staffers willing to do any sleazy thing to (1)advance their personal careers and (2)get their candidate elected.

It would be very refreshing to see a team like Edwards/Obama stand up and put an end to this sorry state of affairs. The naysayers can cry all day about Edwards earning millionaire status as a trial lawyer, but at least he knows what it means to have to work for the change in his pocket, and not just wait on his family inheritance.

And I have as yet seen any evidence that Obama has some "old-money" or rich-daddy connections to guarantee his campaign finances. His support starts at the grassroots, not in some corporate boardroom.

While they (Edwards/Obama)would surely get some wealthy backers to support them, the bulk of their contributions will come from "We, The people" in smaller, personal donations of time and money. And, most important, in that very basic act of voting itself.

Those multi-millionaires and billionaires may have more money, but they still have only one vote.

Maybe that is what they meant when they wrote the words "created equal," that my vote matters just as much as any one of The Waltons, (and I don't mean John Boy.)

I am very much interested in hearing the facts and informed opinion about Obama.
That is why I appreciate articles like this one.
Ruth Beazer

I am very much interested in hearing the facts and informed opinion about Obama.
That is why I appreciate articles like this one.
Ruth Beazer

P.S. Dave

Americans politics, especially of late, remind me a lot of the television show, 'The American Idol'.

It would appear that those who vote do not vote for the most qualified to be the American Idol, they appear to vote for the people who they like.

And in many instances the ones that they like do not have stage presence, neither are the best of the lot!

The office of President? It is way too serious of an undertaking to be reduced to an American Idol type television show, where Americans appear to be simply voting for 'their American Idol', and not for a good President!

And rumor has it that the TV show, collectively, has a higher vote count!

Dave,

We are not in total disagreement, all I know is that if these individuals suborn (sorry) the office of President of the United States, Giuliani included, each one of them needs to go and do more to get prepared. In my mind, none of them are qualified to either be President at this time, or to run for the office of President, just as George Bush was not qualified to do either in the late 1990's. But the country and the constitution are also responsible; most Americans wouldn't qualify for their current jobs, not even as dogcatcher, if all they had is what is required to be President of the U.S.A...

You mentioned convictions; however, having convictions can be overrated. What and call convictions can also be construed as ideology and stubbornness; and we have seen what a group of stubborn misguided ideologues can do to a nation and to the world. Just imagine if John McCain were President, like Ross Perot of old, this hard-headed curmudgeon is totally inflexible in terms of his positions-we don't need that again.

We need people who are capable of thinking and listening, so that they will know when it is time to alter a course. They should also be responsive to the will of the American people who they are supposed to represent.

I was thinking last night about the combined failure of leadership in the world, at this present moment in time. I wondered whether the world has at any other period in history has had so many weak leaders. Why? The 21st century with its paucity of good leaders is off to a horrendous start. The first 7-years have been a dismal failure, and consider what leaders were in as the new century got off to its rocky start!

Just consider the head of the free world (80% of Americans are either not supporting him or they really do not have any confidence in him). And when you couple that with what is taking place in Iraq right now, which is the number one problem affecting the whole world right now, it would appear, that gives me great pause.

Why? Consider the other leaders, who are working in tandem with George Bush, Mr. Maliki and company. Could there be a weaker combination than Maliki and company and George Bush, particularly, when you consider the size of the problems that these men are expected to confront and resolve. Is it any wonder that things have only got worse?

Like George Bush, Maliki does not have the approval of his own people, and George Bush is asking him to do what no American President would allow any outsider to do, tell him to take sides against a significant portion of the American people and kill them if necessary!

And on top of that Bush and his staff really do not have any confidence in Maliki and his team; and Maliki and the Iraqi people are not enamored with George Bush or American foreign policy in Iraq.

The reason for the Iraqi problem and the reason that we have not seen a resolution to the problem have to do with who is at the helm of the ship, and who is driving the policies. We cannot repeat this kind of error again by having novice politicians like Bush in place again. .

Although at times, most of the present wave of Presidential candidates show signs of brilliance at times, I can only see one individual who is truly qualified to run for the office and is ready to be the President of the USA, at this time in history; there are others, but they are not pursuing the job.

If we are not careful, we are going to go back to the future, and we have already been there with George Bush, and all of us know that it is not an ideal place to be!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Bush administration gets secret court's sanction for illegal spying operation

By Bill Van Auken

Faced with imminent Congressional and judicial review of an illegal warrantless wiretapping operation conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) for more than five years, the Bush administration has sought and received approval from a secret court for continued eavesdropping.

The legal maneuver was revealed in a letter sent Wednesday by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter announced that the Justice Department had obtained from a single unnamed judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) orders allowing the continuation of the government's domestic spying operation.

"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Federal Intelligence Court," Gonzales wrote.

Gonzales's letter came on the eve of his appearance at an oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. Moreover, in just two weeks a federal appeals court in Cleveland, Ohio is set to hear the government's appeal of a federal judge's ruling that its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated fundamental constitutional rights, represented an arrogation of unconstitutional powers by the president and was flatly illegal.

In announcing the FISC orders sanctioning the spying program, Gonzales reiterated the government's position that its previous warrantless wiretapping was perfectly legal.

The attorney general described the court's orders as "innovative" and "complex," while providing the "speed and agility that was provided by the Terrorist Surveillance Program."

During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Gonzales refused to divulge any further information about these orders. And, while the chief judge of the secret intelligence court said that she was willing to provide Congress with copies of the orders, Gonzales told the Senate panel that he would block any such disclosure in the name of national security.

"There is going to be information about operational details about how we're doing this that we want keep confidential," he said. He refused to

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/spy-j19.shtml

Obama is interesting. He does have a certain flair about him and does not seem, at least at this this point, to be too far left to be elected. With little foreign affair experience, he seems to be looking to position himself between the brute force approach of Conservatives and the peace at all costs liberals. How else to reconcile the statement "And for those who our government suspects of terror, I support whatever tools are necessary to try them and uncover their plot" with the "betrayal of American values" inherent in the administration's approach to detainees. Are not the detainees suspects of terror?

A lot of his positions and statements seem to be just trying to get him to "middle" ground. His statements about wanting more dialog with Iran and Syria are popular. After all, how could anyone not be willing to talk to Syria? During the Cold War, we talked to Russia (not that that did anything for us until we found a person will to talk in return)! Implement all the 911 commissions recommendations. I agree with you not all should be implemented. They are, after all, just recommendations. But these things sound good and poll well.

Until we get to the meat of the race and he is involved in some debate so that we can hear some of his thoughts in detail, it will be hard to tell if Obama is ready for the presidency from a foreign policy point of view.

The Rev,
John Edwards sounds great but as a lawyer, he would sue his mother if it would get him elected. Reagan was not a member of the Washington establishment and did not hold any special positions to prepare him for foreign affairs. For all intents and purposes, he was a novice when he got to DC despite his age. What he did have was conviction of his ideas. That is what we need in a president - not a policy wonk or someone that is so ingrained in the way things work in DC. I would argue that being a cabinet member would not make you a better president. All a president needs is political common sense, conviction in their ideas and the ability to communicate them to the nation. Obama appears to have the ability to communicate. It's too early to know if he has the rest.

It is impossible to consider any candidate unless they answer the question. What is your plan for Iraq? How would you accomplish the plan the plan?

Words spill out of his mouth like the inexperienced politian that he is.

Reactionary voting...?

The stakes are too high for that.

Didn't we learn anything from the Republicans during the past two general elections? In 2000, Clinton was going anyway, however, Republicans were so full of hatred that they could neither see nor think straight.

So they, in effect went and found George Bush, given his name recognition; and he passed their litmus test given that he could spell potato, unlike a former Republican Vice President. And what happened afterwards? Bush and the Republicans took a couple of steps forward and now, with Bush, they have all taken about ten steps backwards; and they are still backpedaling.

And it looks like they are going to make the same mistake all over again by supporting another name recognition candidate, Republican front-runner, Rudy Giuliani. Like George Bush then and now, what qualifies this man to be President of the United States of America?

Before Americans, on the other side, behave in a similar reactionary manner as the Republicans did in 1999, I believe that everyone needs to take a deep breath. We don't need up and coming individuals to assume the office of the President at this moment in time. And we don't need to run someone, just because they might have the potential to defeat Republicans, we need a long-term qualified person to assume the office of President.

Obama is sharp and so are some other of the other candidates who may or not throw their hats into the ring. However, how many of these individuals are seasoned, and that is who we need to take over the reigns of power! I am an Independent voter, and I say let's do our homework first and find out who is the most viable candidates to have run for the office, and then we should scrutinize them and if they pass the smell test, vote for them.

Obama and the others can be working to prepare to be the great leaders that they are destined to be in the future, that is if they do not act too prematurely. What happened to the good old days when, executives, were placed in executive training programs and groomed to assume the top positions in firms?

We need to run, and seek to elect people who are best suited for running the country during this moment in time. And the people who I believe are the very best to run this country at this moment in time, most of them are not even running yet. Al Gore is one candidate who should not be overlooked; after all he won in 2000, and since that time, he has grown even more, and he is not the only one!

Obama is shapr, but he is still a junior, we need some top-notch senior statesman running this country.

There is a cool scripture in the bible that reads: "Better is the end of a thing than the beginning, and be not hasty...". America needs to slow down, there is a lot at stake, and America needs solid leadership to that can help lead the country and the world once Bush and his compadres are out of sight and out of mind!

Why don't we spend the next 12 mos leading from Capitol Hill? There is a lot of work to do and the cream will rise to the top.

He is the only choice for two reasons :hhe is not a spineless politican,like McCain and Clinton(fence sitters) and he has an IQ higher than the collective IQ of the House, Senate and president combined.

Go Barack Go!!!

I look forward to hearing what concrete ideas/proposals both John Edwards and Barack Obama bring to the table for the 2008 election cycle. Both appear to me to be intelligent, capable individuals who possess that increasingly elusive character trait called integrity. In politics, sad to say, experience certainly is desirable, but not necessarily the most critical component. The world we now face is unlike any we've faced before and fresh ideas, honestly and intelligently developed and presented to America and the World is what I'll be voting for in the next President of the United States. Both Edwards and Obama appear to me to be worthy of consideration.

As an independant I've voted for Bush, SR; PEROT; PEROT; W; W.

I've painted my dog blue and contributed to OBAMA, which I see as a COMMUNICATOR, UNITE-er [not a divider], not a NAFTA/free-trader [Clinton/Bush] and someone with strategic vision that can move the middle class forward rather than chase dogs and cats.

Hopefully, he can bring some good manufactoring jobs with legacy / benefit costs back to US rather the continued replacement of service sector jobs with no benefits and low pay.

I am on board the OBAMA train.

I have been around for 70 some odd years and Barak Obama has me going ga ga. I have marched to help achieve integration and Obam is one of the great results. Remember JFK's first European trip around the world he was greeted with great crowds convinced he was a man of peace. Obama first trip I believe will be greeted greatly. One he is not another white protestant. I believe that he alone would bring Indonesia , africa and europe to trust in America. He does not come from a family of priviledge and has no ties to the mega corporations. We will feel good about ourselves again and the American Dream is not one of greed but one who knows that "out of many one people arise. Name another politician who would make you feel good about ourselves in saying anyone can be President.

This is the most refreshing dialogue on the net! Hopefully, we can continue to engage in thoughtful discourse that encourages candidates to debate the "real" issues that Americans are interested in.

The economy for the masses is an important issue that Obama seems to get while other politicians tend to spin and whirl and talk about how good it is! And it is for some. Obama understands the trickle down effect and knows that people don't thrive well in an economy where the masses aren't able to take care of their family's basic needs of food, shelter, and health with dignity. Jobs that provide a living wage in this nation are needed to drive a healthy economy. I remember the 1960s and 70s. The cost of living was affordable and our economy was stable. Working class families today have a hard time finding an affordable home in a safe community in some parts of the country. To complicate the development of affordable homes for workers some communities have said NIMBY! One such community was in Virginia last year and is near the Nation's Capitol. Even Washington laborers have a hard time finding affordable and safe shelter! It's shameful.

I'll vote for Obama. He understands the magnitude of our national issues and would develop, with Congress, policies that could rebuild America. I trust him and believe that his administration would have a positive impact on a new and needed foreign policy. He has no baggage and offers us a fresh start after eight years in the wilderness. He is a man for ALL AMERICANS.

Well, you have about convinced me to vote for Obama. I hadn't really looked at him that hard yet. He is on the right track, and foreign policy "experts" might spoil him. In fact, you need to watch out for the "experts" who have grand plans for a world that is too "nuanced" for grand plans. I used this particular "n" word just to irritate Conservatives. I have heard Generals say (on Television) that you may have the perfect plan for a battle, but it may all go out the window once the battle starts. The same can be said of politics and foreign policy. It can be said of all these activities, that you plan for the worse case situation and maybe you will be surprised by success. You have to listen and read what people say to really understand a situation. you have to relate their experience and views to what you have experienced. Being an American is very valuable for listening, because when we do it right we approach our multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious society with sensitivity. You must understand other viewpoints, experiences, enviornments, and situations. Analyze this information and, based on that information, foreign policy goals are formulated.

Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Folks,

Now where we really need to be looking at amending the Constitution is with regard to what makes one eligible to even consider being the President of the United States of America.

In an age goneby where the country had only 13 colonies, a calvary and a musket bearing militia, I suppose that the above qualifications were sufficient to be President; it was apparently a part-time job at the time.

However, in a sophisticated nuclear-technological, supersonic age, where the population of the world and the USA has grown exponentially, along with the nation's and the world's problems (including space over us) we need individuals who are highly and verifiably, before they would be permitted to even think about running for the highest office in the land.

How any of us can sleep at night knowing that anyone with the competency and qualifications of a George Bush, is the one who will decide whether or not America's vast nuclear arsenal will be used or not, over the next couple of yers, is beyond me.

I like Obama and Edwards, and they still have a few years to get up to speed. But having said that, Congress needs to do something and help us to begin amending the Constitution; we need a more sophisticated test than the one that we lack now!

Muhammad Ali once said, 'not just anyone can be the President of the U.S.A., and he was 'the Greatest'(-:

Today's selectees learn the art of discourse and they practice kinesics, so what? Does that qualify one to occupy a position, in which we might as well say it, he or she will have an effect on the lives of about 6.5b people?

He's a leader, a man of great integrity, a man with common since, Hes Barack Obama... And I hope he will be the next President to lead this great nation!!!

Respectfully,
Independant Voter

Good article. Obama would automatically elevate the discourse in this country. That can only be good.

While I agree that some of the suggestions of the 9/11 commission are poorly thought out, I believe you misread Senator Obama's thoughts on the issue. It is my understanding that what Senator Obama is really saying is that the content of the report offered some better solutions that what President Bush is actually doing. I am quite sure if you were to sit down with Senator Obama, he would admit to you that indeed there are parts of the report that he would take issue with but would approve of portions of it.

As far as his statement regarding "more international support in Iraq" he is correct. If "stubbon" Bush, Jr. would have secured committments of many more troops from other countries and a committment for them to stay longer, perhaps we would not be in the mess it is now. I also believe he is saying that President Bush should have engaged in talks one on one with countries that are currently affected by what is going on in Iraq. Just as talking helped bring down the "wall" in Germany, and reconciliation with Russia, it IS possible if approached properly, talks with neighboring countries to Iraq could help resolve some of the issues in the Iraq civil war. I believe this is what Senator Obama is trying to convey. As a supporter of Senator Obama, I must admit I hope he can "flesh" out his approach in a clearer way for the citizens during his campaign.

All in all, an interesting article.

http://www.citizensforbarackobama.com
http://www.citizensforbarackobama.blogspot.com

'The Boy Will Do You Good'...?

Those were the famous last words of Bush 41 with regard to his son when he was running during the Presidential Primaries in 1999. I have the highest regard for both John Edwards and Barack Obama, and I am an Independent voter. From my point of view, both men have their hearts in the right place and they would both attempt to do what is best for America.

Frankly, however, we are going to need someone with not only a good heart, skills and good intentions, but experience(s) to undo the damage that has been done to America, by 'the boy will do you good George Bush 43'. That individual(s) will have to be ready to hit the ground running, and to lead a dynamic nation with 300M disparate citizens both at home and abroad.

Let us not forget that they will be dealing with other world Leaders, some who have been in office for decades; they want to see an America Leader with more than a good resume.

Edwards, Obama, Guliani and others need to serve in some high Cabinet posts within the next Administration, depending on which sides wins out. There they should learn all of the inner workings of governing, and at the same time hone their skills and learn what it takes to meet the needs of ALL Americans - Bush was in office to serve 'his Base'.

We have already wasted 6 years with a novice at the helm, and he may have had good intentions, but given his limitations, and the fact that he was woefully unqualified and unprepared for the office, look where we are today. Barney, the television character, could not have done any worse.

If you love something enough, and you really want to do well by the person or thing that you say that you love, you ought to prepare yourselves to be the best that you can be.

So to all of the skilled and talented individuals who want to be President (Has Taylor Hicks from the American-Idol applied yet?), go and get ready for the job. And for some of the old fossils who have the experience, but who lack the skills or a heart for all of the people and the nation(other than the wealthy), you should retire right along with Bush and Cheney!

The majority of the current pool of would-be candidates could serve the nation better by getting better prepared. Then when its their turn, they will be ready to step up to the plate.

Forgive the Rev: But as a bumper stick that I once read indicated; NO MORE BUSH 'T. We don't have time for any more of that from anyone!