I am so sick of Obama saying he did not vote for the war. Sorry Senator, that just does not fly with me. The senators who were faced with this very difficulty decision were not afforded the luxury of a "present" vote. They actually had to make a decision and go with it, no riding the fence for them and for that they have my respect. Many people were for the war at the beginning but are so quick to condem it now. 20/20 is a nice thing to have when you don't have to make the tough decisions. If Hillary does not get the nomination, this democrat is backing McCain. No wishy washy "present" leader for me.

Glad to see some GM workers are getting to hear Obama speak. This whole business that he's all rhetoric and no ideas is just a talking point by the Clinton and McCain camps. Take a look at his website and you can see his specific ideas. His plans make sense and he has the ability to get them done.

"His plans make sense and he has the ability to get them done."
That is leadership = version + ability!

Who isn't sick of hearing about Obama's speech about the war? It's the closest thing he has to foreign policy experience. Hey, maybe I should run for president. I was against giving Bush authority to use force too. Told everyone that would listen to me about it at the time too. Oh, but I wasn't in the Senate and I didn't actually have to vote, so maybe I should zip it.... If I were in the Senate, serving as chair of a Foreign Affairs committee, I can guarantee you that I would feel compelled to actually do some business, you know--maybe convene a hearing or two. Not Obama. No, that would be too much like actual work....

I do have as much national security experience as Obama does, which is none. And I actually have better cred when it comes to the economy--I have an undergraduate degree in economics--with honors no less. Thankfully, like Obama, I've never actually DONE anything related to the economy (other than go shopping), so no one can criticize me on my record.

Hey, if it works for him.....

Let's set the record straight. Intelligence reports stated there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so Obama voted AGAINST protecting America. There is no way he could have known that there were not weapons there--so- I think he SUCKS at national security. If you vote Obama, you are voting for the downfall of America.

Julia: Many were against the war from the gate. I was in shock and awe-- not at the superior US fire power but at the enormous gullibility of others for allowing Bush to sidetrack into Iraq when he began to fail in Afganistan, partly in thanks to his do-nothing but soak up US financial aid buddy in Pakistan. We had no business invading Iraq. Please feel sick all over again reading this. I can assure you it's not nearly as sick feeling as the many many people who oppose this war feel, particularly the ones both American and Iraqi, who came to understand that bombing for democracy is the method of a madman.

Nancy - if you have some catchy chants, hip catch phrases and slogans you just might be "The One!" Sounds like you have very competitive qualifications. I just might vote for you!

Well it's good to know I have good reason to support Hillary. She made the wrong choice on Iraq but at least she made a choice. She powerful in the Senate which the last I heard was renowned for accomplishing nothing. She is knowledgeable about governing. I guess in large part because of her time as first lady and her failed attempt at health care reform. I for one am ready for change. A continuation of past failures and misjudgments is not enough. Obama campaign has shown me anything is possible and Obama may be just the person to make it happen. Its time for change. Its time for a new vision. Its time to move beyond the politics of division. Its time for honesty. Obama has what it takes to make it happen. We cannot afford more of the same.

Barack Obama questioned the legitimacy of the intelligence on Iraq and was 100 percent correct in questioning it. What bothers me is not the fact that Hillary voted for the war, but that time after time she refuses to apoligize for it or admit that she made a mistake. As for John McCain, he's seen the great loss of life and the trillions of dollars we've spent (and why is the economy so bad?) yet he still is not opposed to committing our troops there for years to come. I do not question his experience but I do question his sanity.

Show me above where he EVER says he did "I did not vote against the war"! You can't because he never said that. He rightfully critized Hillary and MaCain for voting FOR the war - a war that is bankcrupting us. So if you weren't in the Senate to vote for the War you can't call them on this blunder?

I don't hate Hillary, but I realy am turned off by her suporters hate for Senator Obama.

Julia, you've convienently left out the fact that Obama made a speech against the war while Hillary et al were voting for it. He didn't 'later' with '20/20' hindsight say he was against it. At least be honest about the debate. Hillary later voted against an amendment to give inspectors more time and then recently voted to classify the Iranian Revolutional Guard as a terrorist organization (viewed by most Democrats including Biden as giving Bush/Cheney carte blanch in Iran -- thank God the NIE came out). This is clearly Hillaryland here. Stop the spin. Go read Obama's speech opposing the war. As Ted Kennedy said, "let now one deny the truth of that matter."

For those who think that his Iraq vote is his own foreign policy experience, I would just like to point out that he is actually on the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate and did extensive work on nuclear proliferation issues.

He must talk about the war because that is all he has. The media killed us with the WMD talk it was a day and night pep talk on that issue, no one in the world did not think something major was going down in Iraq. We had England, Aus and everyone else on this WMD cry. Obama must of not been listening or had first hand information as to what was there or not because he sure seems to know now that everyone that said yes to this war was wrong, maybe it would be good for him to let us know what that information was.

Intelligence reports stated there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so Obama voted AGAINST protecting America. There is no way he could have known that there were not weapons there. LOL

That's funny, I live in Canada and somehow knew, along with the rest of the world that you were being duped by a dumb President.

It really wasn't hard to figure out.

My American friends- Vote for the smart guy this time. You voted for the dumb one the last eight years.

Seriously? His campaign is justifying his sudden "presidential" appeal simply because he can read from a teleprompter? The man can deliver a line when it is prepared for him; but when he is in an unscripted situation, he cannot perform. If he would accept one of the debates and discuss the economy off the cuff, I would be impressed. My "hopes" are not up though.

If Obama is so against this war, how come he's voted for every funding bill submitted.

FYI, the economic proposals in Obama's speech today were were already put forward by Senator Clinton in '07.

The National Infrastructure Bank is a bill she has co-sponsord with Senator Hagel.

Who has the new ideas?

I'm really getting tired of everyone and their simple little catch phrases. "His plan makes sense and he has the ability to get it done." What? Really? He can solve all of the problems of this country with his plan and his vision and his happy speeches of hope and change? People need to wake up and realize that we are living in a country that has 50 percent liberals and 50 percent conservatives. And Obama claiming to be able to "unite" the different parts of this country sounds so much like George Bush and his "I'm a uniter, not a divider" it makes me cringe. If he and his supporters are so sensitive and unable to work with people like Clinton (who agrees with him on almost everything) how is he going to "bring together" the 50% of the country he disagrees with almost 100% of the time?

dk: Obama voted to feed the our soldiers that were there following a commanders orders-this commander-in-chef was himself disobeying orders given to him for Vietnam war. If he did not ,you the dk, will have called him callous unpatriotic.
OBAMA is the only present candidate beside DrRON Paul-who opposed IRAQ WAR.

It has taken Obama months to finally come up with any plans. He is only doing it now because his speeches are getting old. He not only didn't vote on the war, but when he did become Senator and actually had to attend a meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he quickly handed a staff member a note saying "Shoot me now"....not exactly what I want in a President. He loves the limelight but doesn't want to work.

Quote: "I am so sick of Obama saying he did not vote for the war. Sorry Senator, that just does not fly with me. The senators who were faced with this very difficulty decision were not afforded the luxury of a "present" vote. They actually had to make a decision and go with it, no riding the fence for them and for that they have my respect. Many people were for the war at the beginning but are so quick to condem it now. 20/20 is a nice thing to have when you don't have to make the tough decisions. If Hillary does not get the nomination, this democrat is backing McCain. No wishy washy "present" leader for me."

I for one applaud Sen. Obama for his opposition to the Iraq war at its outset. People forget he was running for the Senate at the time, and his was a courageous, nearly lone voice. It is not the case that he was sitting around playing pinochle between votes in the Illinois legislator and simply offered up casually: "I'm agin' it!"

And, if you don't know how present votes work in the Illinois legislature, you could of course find out. Sen. Obama has explained it. One suspects, though, that you do know but don't really care.

If you're against Obama, fine. But your half-baked rationale is laughable.

HOPE and CHANGE that is the only words that Obama knows to spout. Is there HOPE in hope alone? NO! Not if there is no substance to back up that hope and Obama's speeches have no substance. CHANGE, will simply talking about change bring about change? NO! Not if there is no basis or ground work for change. Obama has not laid out any visions for hope or change. Obama is an empty vassle of his own ego-no substance. I suppose Obama really hopes Clinton miscues in Texas which really is not likely.

Obama is running a great campaign, but I think has made minor mistakes along the way. One was challenging New Hampshire voters to end the campaign there, when they seem to enjoy their habit of overturning Iowa results. Another, albeit even smaller, mistake is offering more detail on the stump.

It seems like he's answering the Clinton talking point that he has no substance. Only problem is that criticism isn't working. If anything, there's been something of a rejection of the Clinton technocrat approach.

I think Obama would be better off staying with the inspirational stump and leaving the wonkish ideas to his position papers.

I thought last night Clinton recognized the shortcoming, and was herself trying to offer more inspirational talk. And while she's no Obama, it wasn't bad. But today she slipped into even more detail on the stump. I wouldn't advise Obama to repeat her mistake.

Wonkishness is okay in Iowa and New Hampshire - more of the educational town hall setting, with an audience that's used to it. You get into the pace of these multi-state weeks, and its boring. People who have any interest in detail already know it - its not hard to find - and the rest will never care.

the senators that were faced with voting on the war did not read the documentation. They should have all been impeached. It is a flagrant incompetence on the part of any member of congress to cast a vote on legislation that they have not read or do not understand.

To the speech, where is the beef ABC, he gave the details, you report that he gave the details and then you do not report the details. Is this a news organization or not?

Lincoln Chaffee (Republican) voted against the war. Ted Kennedy (Democrat) voted against the war.

Why didn't Sen. Clinton vote against the war?

It's a pivotal question. The war is a moral issue, a feminist issue, an economic issue, a fiscal issue.

It's THE issue. "It's the war, stupid." Even those who say other issues are important, they're not that important, really. Everything else comes from the $9-12 billion (depending on whose estimates you believe) we are wasting in Iraq every month. You want to pay for health care incentives? Raises for teachers? Infrastructure improvements? It all could have been done several times over **had more members of Congress voted their convictions instead of their political fears**.

It was NOT a "hard choice". Read the NIE's available at the time -- there were no WMD, there was no link to Sept. 11, there was **NO** reason to go to war with Iraq. None.

Not a hard call, not a hard call at all.

Obama - who has always had detailed plans available on his website for anyone willing to read - has allowed Clinton to hoodwink voters into thinking he has no substance. He was tralking policy early and the critics complained he was talking "above people's heads". He stopped talking policy, and Clinton labelled him without substance. Now he is mixing the two, and at just right the time. I think more policy is needed on the stump now to breakdown the characterization Clinton has built.

Gee, Lonestar, maybe if you went to cspan video library or even you tube and listened to the policy speeches that Obama has made you may rethink your Clinton spin.
Yes hope and change are the key words in his campaign just like all campaigns use certain key words to define theirs. The problem is that Clinton has none because she is still searching for a reason for running other than that she someone thinks she is owed the presidency and it's her turn. How very royal of her.
You simply cannot be the president of the Harvard Law Review, graduate from Harvard with the top honors, teach constitutional law in a prestigeous university or write 2 bestselling books, one of which was discussing policy, and be as you contend a person without substance.
As for the teleprompter the poster above complained about, may i ask if you just wrote a speech that lasts 20 minutes, would you be able to memorize it in the space of an hour or two? Has Obama claimed to have a photographic memory? I don't think so.
Last. I live in Illinois. I would suggest people learn alittle about our state legislature and it's rules concerning the use of present in voting. It has a long tradition and is not a skip out. I would suggest you learn before you spout off about things you know little about. It's makes people look rather foolish and ill informed. More like little Clinton parrots.

To the person who said that intelligence reports stated that they had weapons of mass destruction. You need to do a little more research. The weapons inspectors at the time said the had no evidence that the wmd's were still in Iraq...in fact they had far more evidence that they had been destroyed years earlier, right after the first gulf war. This opinion was shared by almost every other super power at the time...which is one of the reasons we had such little international support when we invaded. Not to mention that the idea of invading a country over wmd's is completely absurd anyway...most of the civilized world has them and a great many of those trade with terrorist sponsoring regimes. For instance the weapons that we were sure they had...you know the ones he used to gas the Kurds...he bought from us during the Reagen administration. Yet with all of these dangerous countries floating around out there we invade Iraq? Perhaps there were other reasons for that, but I'll leave that up to you to look and find out for yourself...

How did Obama know in 2002 that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Irak? Why say it now? Why didn´t you say it before during these 5 years?

He´s smarter that teh CIA?

Hillary -who has changed campaign managers, campaign slogans, positions on just about anything and, everything (war included) as the prevailing winds blow, boasts as her largest group of constituents, the less educated, lower middleclass -the key operative being, 'less educated' -as the posts on this thread so perfectly demonstrate.

One thing that surprises me in all of this back and forth about whether or not Obama has what it takes to actually 'do' something in the White House is the prevalence of this notion that the US President sits in the Oval Office and 'changes things.'

Let us all remember that it's not Obama or Hillary or McCain who will do the work over the next four years. The job of the President, primarily, is to supply the vision that will guide his/her hand-picked team of technocrats. Obama doesn't need to know nuts and bolts of policy. He needs to be able to recognize and employ those who do.

His hesitation to support Bush in Iraq demonstrates an ability to understand what motivates people. I knew without thinking that Bush was barking up the wrong tree, and I'm surprised all of these Senators and members of Congress were so easily duped.

Obama is going to blow this thing wide open.

What is critical is what Obama said during the lead up to the authorization to War... That the administration did not have an exit strategy nor did it take into account sectarian violence within the country, nor how we would be perceived by more moderate muslim nations.

Keep in mind, his fellow US Senator Durbin as well as 20 other US Senators voted against the authorization, not on WMD's none of which even if you believe Saddam had could reach the US Shores, but the strategic error of invading a Muslim nation without broad moderate Muslim support, the way Bush I had built..

Don't focus on McCain Vs Clinton.. MSM has the fix... When ABCNews TV ends with latest national Poll: Obama Beats McCain and Hillary doesn't... Its over.. Emotions been going to Obama since Hill's tears in Hampshire.. Strategic voters have no choice but go Obama now.. He has the money, the ground troops, and the mojo...

Let's see McCain slide back to Moderate he was in 2000 and really have a debate...

Is this ecomonic plan that Hillary already introduced last year.....hmmmmm.
Does Obama have an original thought?

Is this economic plan that Hillary already introduced last year.....hmmmmm.
Does Obama have an original thought?
Net he gets raked over the coals at the ddebate for this.

Hey hey hey, get a grip ya'll Obama haters. 1'st of all the man is putting himself on the level of the American people.2nd of all He understands what it is to be down, and he understand what it is to be
up. We should be happy we came this close to having someone so real who can represent us and reunite the world. Obama came on this earth for a purpose, and the time is now. One last thing, Barack Obama does not win the presidency at this particular time, we are all going to be very very sorry. I just want to be able to say that I saw it coming.

Oh--so bringing a bit of substance into his campaign is "taking it down a notch"---please. I can't remember when I've seen a politician with such an inflated sense of himself. Are we supposed to cheer when he drops altitude to talk to us about the issues that we care about? This guy makes me sick.

All these anti-Obama posts are just evidence that he is winning. Must be frustrating for you haters.

Hillary showed amazing leadership today by ostaining from voting on the telco immunity even though she was in the area.

She also rose above feigning outrage when a reported accurately questioned the pimping of her daughter (who the very next day was seen lunching and smoozing with a super delegate)

She laid a workable foundation that we have been building a health care program today.

She never waits till public opinion is known before voicing her own.

Unlike Obama who's achievements are only to rise from nothing, inspire and motivate those around him and has a record of success in all his endeavors.

A key problem with the Clintons is their long track record of untrustworthiness. That's both in some part incompetence and lack of core integrity.

To Julia | Feb 13, 2008 3:48:08 PM,

You need to do a lot more homework. Obama made his comments about the war while HE WAS COMPETING IN A CONGRESSIONAL RACE in October 2002. He was running against a popular incumbent, Booby Rush. And he said it at a time when it was multo-unpopular to say it.

As for the "present" votes. You need to study the Illinois state system. Legislators can vote YES, NO, or PRESENT.

"In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.

State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the “present” vote “a no vote with an explanation.” Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected."

What is with the whiners complaining about Obama's opposition to "dumb wars" back in 2002? Senators had an opportunity to review the classified intelligence on Capitol Hill, in a secured room, but the registry that senators and congresspeople were required to sign show that Hillary Clinton never took the time to review the documents. I'm tired of her excuses. She supported the Iraq resolution for her political gain...she believes she has to appear tougher than the conservatives on foreign policy issues (see her recent Iran vote) to be considered presidential. This would continue if she were to become the president...she wants to prove she is tough enough, as tough or tougher than the men. Its about her ambitions, not the lives harmed or costs of Iraq, Iran, etc.

I loved this plan, and I think this is the right level of detail at this point. Too much detail and it is hard to get the bigger more important picture, but this has a nice outline of his plan.

I like the idea of investing in American infrastructure instead of investing in private companies that make bombs and hire non-Americans to service this disastrous war in Iraq (Halliburton)!

Those who say they will vote McCain in November if their favorite Democratic candidate doesn't win the nomination are doing nothing more than pulling a Nader.

In a stubborn act of self-righteousness Nader effectively ended up making sure we were all subjected to 7 years (and counting) of incompetence and irreperable damage to our nation.

Obama is not a Muslim, that hoax was debunked a long time ago. He is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. See this article for more details on the debunking from a nonpartisan source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011

Obama not only did not vote for the war and did not only have a "present" vote but gave a speech AGAINST it. I truly wish you clinton supporters would get your facts straight.

Obama not only did not vote for the war and did not only have a "present" vote but gave a speech AGAINST it. I truly wish you clinton supporters would get your facts straight.

"If Hillary does not get the nomination, this democrat is backing McCain. No wishy washy "present" leader for me."

McCain is the grand daddy of wishy washers. If your disdain for "O"08 makes you so blind then you deserve more Bush "peace and prosperity".

Senator Clinton was personally briefed by high ranking members in the Dept. of Defense in the run up to the Iraq war, thereby negating her need to read the NIE. Furthermore, she was privately assured by the administration that they would use the resolution for further weapons inspections and attack only if "necessary" - word from the resolution authorizing military force. Regardless on your character views on GWB, he is the Commander-in-Chief and Members of Congress can usually trust their Commander-in-Chief. I think it is safe to say that Iraq revoked that trust.

For the first time ever, today I entertained the notion of voting Republican. I really, really never thought that would ever happen, but if Hillary is not the nominee, I'm going with McCain to punish the far-left (i.e. far-unrealistic) who are no better than the far-right. 360 degrees right there.

The far-wrong (yes, I mean you far-left) who are so saddled to patriarchy, would rather feel good than actually SAVE the country. You are throwing Obama up against the right-wing machine, and you know exactly what will happen. Obama has been chortling that "purple America" line, which reflects his unwillingness to fight the Republicans OR to stand up for anything.

Guess you far-wrong prefer to reward good game talkers than earned capitalism (Hillary).

It's been an upsetting day- to read all the anti-Hillary rants online-- I actually thought I was reading far-right sites... well, now that the far-left and far-right have met in their sheer willingness to destroy the United States, I'm not gonna regret voting for McCain.

With Obamaniacs, who needs the Republicans to destroy our country?

I am one of the more cynical American citizens and not one who is prone to fall for political rhetoric but the fact is that OBAMA presents a historic opportunity to give AMERICA a new ruling majority. CLINTON POLITICS OF TRIANGULATION and demonizing opponents is far less necessary when as a leader you do not start out with nearly 60% of the people against you. CLINTON'S problem is that she has a limited coalition of CLINTON LOYALISTS, women and latino's on the LEFT SIDE of the BELL CURVE. The fact is that OBAMA has a significant volunteer and fundraising advantage because a greater cross section of AMERICANS are excited by the man's candidacy. Without a paycheck chances are the CLINTON CAMPAIGN would go dark.

I can't say it better than "Chris K", "Derby City Espresso", "Virginia Slim", "David", "vwcat", "Mary", "Mark" EXCELLENT posts you guys!

If I missed some of you other incredibly intelligent, good looking Obama supporters (who are the only ones making sense here, btw) my apologies. :)

The experienced one's campaign strategy two years in the making blew up in her face in Iowa...In New Hampshire she began spewing Barack Obama's long time campaign theme "Change" as though it had originated with her. She cried on cue and found her "voice". Odd, Whose voice was she using during that 35 years she was building her experience? Bill's voice? Her trusted staffer, Solis Doyle blew through $100 million dollars in the flash of an eye. The experienced ones' miscalculated their budget and Obama's staying power. They assumed they would take this in a walk. Experienced people don't ever underestimate their competition. So just how experienced is Hillary Clinton?

"For the first time ever, today I entertained the notion of voting Republican."

Posted by: DE | Feb 13, 2008 11:24:33 PM

I don't believe you. Not one bit (I mean the part about this being the "first time ever.")

Voting for McCain? 100 more years in Iraq, but that's OK, because your underwear are in a bunch over the politicking?

Using your vote to punish the far-left? You'll only be punishing American soldiers and American pocket books.

I don't believe you were ever the principled Democrat you seem to claim to be.

I know - the trolls are out in force. Clinton followers are desperate.

She's the wrong candidate - it's clear.

Reading the NIE was the only important thing to be done at that juncture - she didn't do it. The President never proved himself trustworthy - every decision wrongheaded - NOT intelligent, human, rational or calculated. The rest of the world knew this? Hillary agreed.

I would love to have a woman president, but it's not going to be Hillary.

Obama is sane, rational, logical and has incredibly sound ideas on US policy. He will be our next president.

I hope all you trolls/haters find some love, are able to let go of all that anger and negative emotion inside and feel some peace somehow. Sweet dreams.

She claims to be ready to run the country on day one, but from all accounts she can't run a campaign.

I have the utmost respect for Obama for speaking out against the war. To me it is one of the deciding factors of the election. It one of her only foreign policy tests and she failed it. Her experience as First Lady is not executive or legislative experience, and as some people have put it, she was not even ready on Day 1 after Super Tuesday. If she can't run her campaign, she can't run the country. I'm sure her campaign plans looked great on paper, but she hasn't been able to adapt them to the real world.

Obama has more issues outlined on his website, answers questions thoroughly and in-depth during his town hall q&a's and seems to understand that flexibility and open mindedness are the keys to getting things done in the real world.

Overall a lot of these comments make me sad. I hope we can unite and rally around whichever candidate is the nominee. I know in November I would happily vote for Clinton, and I hope that everyone will jump on the opportunity to steer us away from these horrible Bush years.

All I can say is that I knew the whole Iraq adventure was folly and I told my conservative friends that.

I heard the line about the inspectors being thrown out by Saddam, they weren't (that time). We took them out to bomb Iraq.

We knew there weren't WMD (only nukes are WMD, BTW) 'cause the inspectors couldn't find any.

What we did know was that France and Russia were signing oil deals with Iraq, and that just wouldn't do!

So easy to fool you believers. I worry for our future.

I don't care at all about what you say about who. It's as simple as you voting Republican Or Democrat. The candidates from one camp might slightly differ in principles and policies,it all narrows down to one resolution, If you've liked 'The Two Bushes' in the past and their associates, then Vote Republican and expect a dose of the same medicine. I'm voting Democrat Regardless of the Nominee coz that's Democracy and an appreciation of true competititon.

Both Clinton and Obama are rallying for the nomination,whoever wins I'm absolutely sure they'll still work together as Democrats, Real Change and a real break from the Republican Regime. Cheers

Obama has written a book on his policies, his website has all his policy details. Almost everyone in the media agrees that there is very little policy difference between Clinton and Obama, yet she has managed to paint this picture of him as someone with no substance. He's drawing the crowds with his inspirational speeches because that's what people are looking for now, not the dull policy speeches that Clinton is doling out. People who really care should take the time to find out more about the candidates in the race.

Obama doesn't know what he is talking about, period. His campaign finance person wrote the 2 billion dollar plan on the economy, not Obama.t He's not going to do anything with republicans and the conservative Democrats. But first of all he has to end the occupation of Iraq. GM is moving their plants overseas, because their cars are not selling. 74,000 jobs will end, that's just annouced, what can Obama do about that, please, he's full of it.

"Those who say they will vote McCain in November if their favorite Democratic candidate doesn't win the nomination are doing nothing more than pulling a Nader.

In a stubborn act of self-righteousness Nader effectively ended up making sure we were all subjected to 7 years (and counting) of incompetence and irreperable damage to our nation."

Gore lost because his campaign was too centrist that year. He also lost two states that should have been his - Arkansas and Tennessee. Either one would have given him the presidency.

And if you're going to blame Nader, blame Monica Moorehead of the Worker's World Party, who took roughly 1,800 votes in Florida, 3 times the gap between Gore and Bush in that state.

People voted for Ralph Nader because they wanted someone who truly represented something different, and that he might have gained the needed 5% for matching funds the following election.

Personally, I am not a person of politics, however, I lost three people close to me, "World Trade Center"....I also worried about my nephew, being recalled to the Marines....I personally think about getting our girls and boys out of a war zone...most of this children went into the military to find a way to get into a college that their family could not afford...fortuantly for us my nephew could afford this sort of thing without government help....my point being if whomever can get these children out of this war zone, with a minimum death rate, on both sides will be president they have my vote

I would like to see someone, in the President's family, or in a candidates family send one of theirs over....

Maybe, I am old, but the last I remember was the Kennedy's.....

The fact that the administration was lying about WMD's in Iraq was so blatant I could never see how this country could possibly believe him. I was so grateful for the few lawmakers who voted against this war, it didn't make us seem completely stupid. I have no idea what happened to this country. Sure 9/11 was terrible but more people are killed by guns in this country every year, no 8 years of national tears for them. The worse of itis how we continue to support every theft of our liberties, our money and our respect.

Me, I have had it with the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton dynasty. Hillary is running on her husband's coattails, she's run her campaign awful and you want to put her in the WH with Bill once again. Please.

John McCains son just returned from Iraq.

I think we should all face the reality that no politician will fulfill all of his/her promises, and it is common to speak in broad strokes. There is very little policy difference between Clinton&Obama (and both have been very specific if anyone is interested to look and hear). There is however a big difference in approach to change, and who can deliver on unity and coalition building. Being able to actually speak and move people is a huge asset and one we havent seen since the 60's. Gergen says that the most important quality a voter should look for in this election is leadership and the ability to bring people together......due to the enormous challenges that the new president will face. A candidate that is clearly divisive (and also accepts lobbyist money) cannot bring people together or effect agendas that are opposed to their donors.

Obama has the greatest foreign policy quality available on planet Earth: good judgement. Experience is more than just spending a certain number of years doing something. It's got to amount to something, like greater wisdom, if it's going to be meaningful. You're supposed to learn something. All of Clinton and McCain's years of so-called experience didn't teach them how miscalculated the Iraq War was; it didn't teach them that they should stand up for what's right instead of making expedient political decisions to protect their future electability status. Obama didn't make that anti-war speech so he could say he did years later. No! He wanted his political colleagues to listen to reason and be smarter about dealing with terrorism. Give me judgement over experience anytime--whether it involves running my family, my business, or my country.

Had Barack Obama been in the Senate he would have been the junior senator from Illinois. The senior senator, Dick Durbin, voted against authorizing Bush to use force and, given Obama's sentiments at the time, it is clear to me that he would have voted against also. That said, I think it rational and honest of Obama to acknowledge that he can't say for certain what he would have done, since he was not "actually there." If he said otherwise it would be thoughtless bluster. I sure do hope he wins. He seems to be intelligent, honest and thoughtful. Those are the qualifications for office I'm looking for.

Obama copied Hillary's plans. Look at the dates.

A follower not a leader.
A talker not a doer.
A showhorse not a workhorse.
An ordinary politician not a uniter.

He stays 'above the fray' only when he knows he has the advantage.

This thread is amusing.

I have two observations.

First--who cares about what Obama said concerning the authorization to use force in Iraq before he joined the Senate? He didn't have a vote, so his pontificating was done without any obligation or responsibility. Since joining the Senate, his record on Iraq has been unremarkable and evidences no singular capacity for leadership that separates him from the pack.

Obama keeps talking about the past on Iraq because he doesn't have the credibility or authority to actually forge a path for getting us out of Iraq. He has a platform on the Senate, and has done less than Senator Clinton with it. The guy has NO defense cred (unless you count his speech; I don't).

Second--Obama has indeed taken his campaign down a notch--in that he has plagerized Clinton's (and Edwards') plans to slap together his own. McCain noted Obama's plagerism with some relish yesterday. Some voters (those not chanting O--BAAAA-MA like a flock of sheep) actually care about substance. We are the ones that can see through the Obama hype--he's about as substantive and satisfying as a swirl of cotton candy---but hey, his pretty speeches give a good sugar high and the kids like it.

Obama is a clueless Messiah. A Sunday morning quarter back, hind sight is 20/20. Knows nothing about the economy, nothing about national security, nothing about international affairs.

Being a Community Organizer and having a Law Degree from Harvard doesn't make one understand any of the issues.

As someone mentioned, I have read through every single of policy statements on his web. All of it is nothing but hyperbole, and pandering would not get single thing done.

Yep, you are the change and change we can believe in. It is fallacy to think you can make changes by preaching, Tele-Evangelists have been doing that every day for years.

It is great to be independent because you don't have to be ruminant.

Are the people who support Obama on drugs? His speeches have become redundant. When you ask for policy they direct you to his website. Fine, I go to the website I see the policies but they seem abbreviated at best. I have a big problem with him not actually talking about those policies at his "tent revivals". I am sick of the same speeches about the donut maker he met in whatever state.

Now he is going against McCain and he is morphing McCain into Bush and Cheney which is a real cheap shot and saying that the guy's values are compromised. You are going against McCain leave the lame ducks out of it. In my opinion the meat of Obama's campaign is about empty Change, false Hope and maligning others. Yesterday in a speech he spent way too much time bragging about his Potomac sweep, then more "Change Rhetoric". Now he comes at McCain by saying he's of the old regime. If you are not for Obama, his supporters call you a "racist" or a "hater" or "fearful of change". I am African American and I don't support Obama... I find him very troubling. I find his supporters to be very angry people.

I'm sick and tired of people saying "how were we to know we wouldn't find any WMD in Iraq?" Don't you remember how GW Bush tried to link Iraq to 9/11? Then when he couldn't convince Americans of a connection, he changed gears and started talking about the WMD they had. Anybody with half a brain could see through his stupid strategy. And it's funny how so many people still think that Iraq is somehow related to 9/11. I opposed this war from the very beginning- as did Obama. And don't try to take that away from us-

It does not matter if Obama voiced opposition to the war in Iraq because he has voted to fund the war in every bill before him. That is his real stance.

Nettie's quote:
"It does not matter if Obama voiced opposition to the war in Iraq because he has voted to fund the war in every bill before him. That is his real stance."

Nettie, just open your mind a little bit. Of course Barack voted to fund the war after others got us into this mess bec