I am supporting Mitt Romney 100%

bulletpoint #2 isn't very compelling. Obama's quote could mean just about anything. i don't have any problems with America "leading the world" in many aspects, as long as war, the knack for alienating the entire planet, and abstention from protecting the environment aren't among those aspects. if that's the most incriminating comment Obama made on the topic i'm not concerned. call me a sell-out, but let's get the guy elected before we ask him to begin taking too many political risks over iraq.

I am tired of political games being played about this bloody immoral war.

If Obama is truly against the war, he needs to be very clear that this means actually pulling all of the troops out. Period.

If he wants to leave wiggle room to leave a signficant presnce there, his policy is not that much different from George Bush.

Primary voters need to hold their preferred candidates' feet to the fire on this issue. If Obama (and Hillary) continue to say they are against the war but define leaving Iraq in ways that allow the United States leave a significant presence their for years to come, primary voters need to make it VERY clear that this is a morally untenable position and look elsewhere to other candidates.

Nothing else morally justifiable. We have committed a huge atrocity in Iraq and nothing less than a complete withdrawal is acceptable. It is also abundantly clear that major factions of the Iraqi people are united on this one thing and will not stop fomenting violence until we completely end our unwanted meddling in their country.

I am very excited about Dodd, who has been very clear where he stands on the war, and has very intelligent positions on a whole range of other issues. Edwards is also very clear about his stands, but I still have a hard time forgiving his original vote for the war, even though he has come a lot further than Hillary in renouncing it.

Right on! I was starry-eyed about Obama for a while. I even volunteered in the early days to help get his campaign going. Then his position papers started coming out, and the sad reality set in, that he talks about big change, but promises very little. Missing from the above analysis is Obama’s stand on the environment. His best buddies seem to be republican representatives from the corn belt, with whom he writes pro-ethanol legislation. And now he has come out as a big supporter of liquid coal – yuk! He makes no mention of solar, wind, or other renewable sources of clean power. No mention of conservation, either. Romney is in the same camp, but also promises to drill for oil under every doorstep and nature preserve known to man. For a environmental policy that makes sense, check out Kucinich - he’s the real deal.

I liked Obama 'til I heard his bit about coal. I'm a firm believer that the real crisis of our time is environmental, with heavy emphasis on climate change. Coal and nuclear are not going to get us out of this.

I would love to hear a single candidate express the real importance of both climate change and the limited resources on our planet.

Dean Halpern, what's Kucinich's take on nukes? I vaguely remember that he may be strongly in favor of them. I haven't heard any of the candidates talk strongly about wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal power. Nor have I heard any real mention of support for electric cars, which, when powered by renewably generated electricity, are a huge win.

I have no problem with what Obama says in the second bullett point, on its own. Was getting involved in the Balkans a good idea, would going into Darfur be a good idea? If you think that is a valid use for the military, then we need to expand the Army and Marines, I am talking about extra infantry, military police and civil affairs soldiers, the type of people that can stabilize and rebuild a country. If we don't lead those sort of missions, nothing will be done. We are the only military force in the world that can send troops anywhere at anytime. The Europeans were straining their logistics just to keep the Balkan operations running. If you are oppossed to these sort of interventions anywhere and under any circumstances, then we can cut back or leave the number of troops the same.
And yes, America should lead the world. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation. It is our responsibility to lead, not bully, browbeat or dictate. We have the most to lose if things go wrong.

As for the last statement, staying on the "offensive" doesn't necesarily mean going into every country and bombing them back to the stone age. It could also mean, creating alliances with states to set up rules regarding fighting terrorism, creating economic alliances to help create jobs in those countries, and training their militaries and police forces to track, arrest, and when necesary kill terrorists.

jon wrote: "I am talking about extra infantry, military police... America should lead the world. ... It is our responsibility to lead, not bully, browbeat or dictate. We have the most to lose if things go wrong."

You want to deploy armed soldiers and marines into foreign countries where the people will generally resent their presence if they stay more than 2 weeks, and yet you don't want to "bully, browbeat or dictate"?
How would you feel about armed soldiers from, oh, let's say Russia, roaming the streets of your town, and asking to see your papers?

"We have the most to lose"?
Tell that one to the Iraqis who are dying in carload lots every f'ing day, as a result of our interference.

I am not that fond of Obama's rhetoric about gay rights either because it appears to be based on a lie. He says he cannnot support gay marriage because of his religion, only his religion supports gay marriage. No one ever challenges him on this.

I find the rest of Obama's rhetoric to be mostly empty calories.

America is the most warlike nation on earth. The rest of us are patiently waiting for your empire to tear itself apart from it's own internal contradictions, so that you mature as a culture and become civilised. Vote for anybody who will 1) leave Iraq 2) take serious action on climate change.

On the Dems side, Obama, and to a greater degree Hillary, are so financially smothered in corporate funding and other powerful influences, that a vote for either is a vote for no change in the political process as we now experience it. Oh sure, there may a philosophical twist here or there, BUT voters, BEWARE, our government needs an over haul! The environment, our healthcare, what we ask of our military, our foreign policy and aid, the way campaigns are financed, the DOJ, all these and many other issues need fixing. America's Emperialistic attitude is wrong! We need leadership with integrity that recognizes the needs of ALL Americans and the important area of diplomacy with other countries. PLEASE - don't be fooled by physical appearance or cleaver promotional content, and mostly don't be fooled by popularity polls and the media. RESEARCH who funds a candidate. This says more than anything the candidate may say to the public in a debate or a campaign speech. Who is behind them is far more telling that what a candidate says they will or will not do. It all changes when the election is over, and the "man comes calling for his favors!"

Last year, I saw Obama appear on a Seattle Afternoon television talk show on KOMOTV4, Northwest Afternoon. It especially caters to women, i.e., chick talk including soap opera reviews.
The host presented series of names for Obama's comment. When the host said, "George Bush", Obama's eyes shut, he squirmed in his chair, and could not answer. Not one word came out of his mouth. The host waited an inordinate amount of time for an answer, but, Obama was completely mute. When he finally opened his eyes, he looked like the proverbial "deer caught in the headlights". He never answered. His chance to directly challenge any part of the Bush policies and character was gone forever.

He is running a "Jimmy Carter" campaign where he offends no one and stands for nothing and uses his Christian religion to justify his qualification to be president. He is just another Republican-lite attempting to parlay his race and religion into a successful campaign. He, literally, stands for nothing except any position which will secure a few more votes. Ethics and morality take a back seat to practicality.

Just what this country needs, another manipulative corporate toady to keep the military/industrial complex healthy.

I'm not sure Kucinich can make much headway in the presidential race. It seems his physical stature makes him the brunt of giggly little jokes from the likes of David Letterman et al. But recently he was featured on NPR giving his views and I wasn't aware it was him until he was finished and identified by the announcer. I was deeply impressed, as I listened, by his directness and his unequivocal insistance on right action for the pressing problems of our times.

Obama is perhaps one of the most dangerous of all the major candidates because he is a cypher. He relies on his good looks and increasingly his "faith" to attract supporters. But he is evasive when it comes to answering hard questions with direct, honest answers. Corporate interests love him because he is a cypher, who they believe they can mold and manipulate.

Al Gore still remains the best Democratic possibility. I hope he runs again.

All that is wrong with our voting habits is summed up by Bill Adams' post. We let late night comedy shows, reinforced by wing nut commentary, and big campaign spending (who favor the "pretty" candidate that will do as they're told) dictate to us who to vote for. It is NEVER really based on who will do the best job. Every year we get what we deserve, based on our gullibility and, to put it in plain-speak, our stupidity!

I'm voting for Kucinich in the primaries, second choice would be Gravel. If Clinto or Obama win the primaries I'm switching teams and Voting for Ron Paul in the General Election. Whatever it takes to change course and put this nation back on track with the constition is where I'm going. I don't think any of the other candidates have even read or understood the Constitution upon which our Democracy was founded. I also have to express my disgust with the mainstream media for actively marginalizing the candidates that aren't supported by big business. It's shameful.

Sean, and others, if we really hope for change it will take millions like us to make it happen.

Please repeat, on every blog you read, and to anyone you engage in political conversation, the importance of voting for change and the utmost importance of choosing a candidate based on itegrity, not popularity.

If we take anything positive from the "machine" we march to now, it is to remain stedfast, repeating the desire or position or advocation, over and over. They have proven the persuasive tactic of repetition as the tool for getting what you what to happen to become a reality. Hope is quiet. Kucinich needs voices. We need his honesty and compassionate, humanistic approach to governence.

Well finally Mother Jones is at least beginning to allow some of the truth to be told about Barack Hussein Obama — sadly it's no where the Truth one should expect from a 'liberal' San Francisco publication. Indeed this article is red-herring that begs the essential questions anyone should be asking a so-called civil rights lawyer.

So far, aside from one San Francisco writer, only Christopher Hitchens (in an interview at Powells books) has called out Obama on his "appalling religiosity" and asked us to "take look at the crap church he is involved with in Chicago. Sinister, ethnic-based, cult thing. And this guru he's got. If it was a Republican doing this we'd all be absolutely surging to and fro. They [the black Democrats] get a free pass. ..."

The truth, as a few comments on this article finally demonstrate is that some folks are finally getting it (no thanks to liberal publishers like mother Jones). The big difference between Obama and Romney, indeed between Obama and EVERY other candidate, is that Barack Hussein Obama is the ONLY (let me spell that out, the O.N.L.Y.) candidate who has repeatedly, openly, and unequivocally, promised that he would deny an entire class of his fellow Americans their 'fundamental' civil right to marry for NO reason other than his religious beliefs. This is nothing more than a promise to violate the First Amendment (separation of church and state) for the illicit and explicit purpose of denying a 'fundamental' civil (secular) right guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment ('due process' and 'equal protection of the law'). And this from a so-called civil rights lawyer!? Affirmative action! Oh well, win some loose some I guess.

This from a so-called civil rights lawyer who's black father and white mother were deemed felons in over 17 states the day they married. And please note that the stated reason for anti-miscegenation Jim Crow laws was religion. Therefore, in denying gays the right to marry, Barack Obama uses the exact same religious sword against gays that was used against his own parents and ancestors. Shame! Shame! Shame on Barack Hussein Obama! Let's hope that, in the future, he at least has the decency to not give us smarmy phoney sermons about separation of church and state.

As proof of Hitchens accusation of a "free pass" for black Democrats one need only look at the facts re Romney: please notice that liberal publishers make a big brouhaha about Romeny's Mormonism even though he has never even suggested this religious beliefs would dictate his civil rights public policy while Barack Obama has repeatedly and unequivocally promised he would deny 'fundamental' civil rights for NO other reason than his personal religious beliefs even though this own Christian denomination openly approves of marriage equality. Ergo as both a civil rights lawyer and member of the UCC Obama has violated and betrayed BOTH his own denomination's first religious principals as well as his profession's first legal principals; but no one in the press (especially publications like Mother Jones) has the guts to call him out because he is black and a Democrat. There is not even so much as a bubble of protest in the liberal press!

What a sad, sorry, despicable excuse for a civil rights lawyer. Give me a break! With this failure of nerve to tell the truth publications like Mother Jones look less like watch dogs for civil rights than they do Barack Obama's lap dog.

Talk about raw and blatant prejudice! Romney provides no indication he'd allow his religious beliefs to violate bedrock constitutional principals and the press is all over his Mormonism; but Obama openly, repeatedly, and unequivocally, promises to do so and the liberal press simply marches in lock-step! Welcome to gutless Weimar America!

Aside from Christopher Hitchens, who only hints at the insidious underbelly of Obama's religious, political, and legal, hypocrisies only retired attorney John P. Mortimer has spelled out the dynamic in irrefutable detail in his essay "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo." See http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73 .

This is a no-brainer folks: if Obama's only reason for denying the civil (secular) right of marriage is religion then he has violated BOTH the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U. S. Constitution. There are only two ways a politician can get away with such an astounding promise: (1) by appealing to and relying on insidious prejudice and invidious discrimination and/or (2) by relying on the encyclopedic ignorance of an electorate and press that has nary even a thimble full of legal knowledge. In this case Barack Obama relies on both. The terrifying part is that even 'liberal' and 'educated' Americans appear to be so ossified by orthodoxy, so prejudiced, and so abysmally ignorant of bedrock core legal principals, that Obama not only gets away with it but is cheered as a hard-left liberal and civil rights lawyer (this might be a good place to vomit)!

And shame, shame, shame on Mother Jones, a so-called hard left publication out of San Francisco no less, that has consistently failed to tell the truth when it has been repeatedly presented to them. Failing to tell the indisputable truth where that is your journalistic duty is no less reprehensible then peddling insidious lies.