The thing I like about Obama (and trust me he is not my first choice but what else is there at his point?) is that he studied Constitutional law, excelled at it so much so that he became editor of the Harvard Review, and he taught it for a number of years. When was the last time we had a POTUS with expertise in the Constitution? President's are not sworn to do much outside of their primary function to protect and defend the Constitution. Bush has failed at this miserably and done damage that will take years to undo. McCain's coattail ride on Bush in recent years shows he is equally not up to the task of protecting the Constitution-and his miserable VP choice is even further proof. If we had the McCain of the 90's running I would be behind him but what we have now is nothing more than a partisan politician using smear tactics (aka Rove) to avoid dealing with real issues. Sad indeed.

is a heck of a lot better than what we have had. Bush looked into Putin's eyes...remember that bit of diplomacy? I, for one, would like a smart man in the White House. And, a man who can regain the respect of the industrialized west. Not that McCain is a dummy by any means, but he is reckless and has followed Bush all but 10% of the time. Palin makes me nervous. "God's will" sound way to much like "Allah's will", and I don't want to march on a road to Armageddon because some people see that as an affirmation of their beliefs. McCain as president with Palin as VP is palpable, but should McCain not make through, and he is not a well man, then we have potential disaster. I want a leadership that respects science (McCain did at one time, Palin doesn't at all). Palin is from the Alaska first mindset, and I don't really think she will ever be America first.

That's your answer, throw in the towel? I'm not talking about handing over the keys to the kingdom here, but realistically you cannot fight your way out of every situation. It's not intelligent, nor is it effective. And this is no WWII. The political situation is much different.

Yep, that diplomacy stuff is just a waist of time and any effort whatsoever. We can continue to use arrogant, insulting words directed at our adversary.....continue to make up lists of "evil" nations that won't cause them to immediately accelerate their nuke program.......better yet, use military force against Iran and Syria as we continue to stand by & watch Afghanistan blow up in our face for lack of boots on the ground......and all this as we continue our role as "the cork in the champaign bottle" in Iraq at a cost of only $10 billion a month. Oh, and our commitment to NATO in eastern Europe? Well, uh....uh....(fill in your own fantasy).

How dare Obama be so naive to think our entire middle east policy has been such a massive blunder that it has brought us to the point that we have no other choice but to at least attempt diplomacy.

Churchill said – “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.” I happen to believe that – especially since my son is finishing up his AIT, and may be heading over there soon…

If I gave the impression that I believe in war, rather than diplomacy, I do apologize. My remarks, I thought, were conveying my misgivings about Mr. Obama, and his “academic” view of the world, and his “textbook” solutions to the very real problems that he might face, as POTUS. I believe he will negotiate away, what little we have, in our favor. Gentlemen, “he ain’t the one.”

McCain – I believe I commended him for his choice of running mate (based on my “first twitch,” since I know little about her, beyond her 80% approval rate as Alaska’s governor), but otherwise compared him to Mr. Magoo. “He ain’t the one, either.”

So now you ask, “Well, John, what’s the answer?”

I don’t know, beyond, “never for a moment doubt, the efficacy of prayer.”

to political discourse is war. So who are we going to attack next, and, with what? Neville Chamberlain is a fallback for anyone who hates international negotiations. Iran is not Germany in the 1930's. But just because of a failure to understand Hitler then does not mean that we have to attack anyone who talks belligerently today. The armchair warriors, along with the lapel pin patriots talk big, but, thanks to Bush's War, we now have a little stick. Bin Laden's success in damaging the our country is much more than you think, keeping us bogged down in a small country of about 20 million or so to the tune of what will be a trillion dollar war. All the middle east dictators know we can't do much with our hands tied in Iraq, and it will be years before anyone takes us seriously again. So, yes, middle east peace will be elusive for a long time, but that doesn't mean we stop working on it.
It is just a lot tougher now thanks to a neo-con experiment that didn't work as planned.

Then what does McCain propose to do about the situation? History has already proven that military force accomplishes nothing with factionists and terrorists. Those groups do not give up their activities until they are involved in and part of a political solution. That is sound reasoning. Just throwing bombs and guns and humans as cannon fodder is not the way. It sounds as if you have given up on the chance of a higher degree of peace in that region because if McCain thinks the Bush way is going to produce anything he, and we, are in for more bitter pills to swallow.

Mr. Obama’s arrogance is his belief that he is competent to effect peace and stability in the Middle East thru political discourse – instability and war has continued apace and uninterrupted there, for at least 1200 years…

Mr. Obama’s naiveté is his belief that the Iranians and Syrians will honor any agreement he reaches with them – they are interested in the destruction of Israel, and Islamic “purity” in the region…

Instead of wasting your time quoting Kissinger, you should consider the same arrogance and naiveté, suffered by Neville Chamberlain…

You ask me, "Yet Obama and Ayers sticks and Palin and AIP does not. Why is that?"

I can not answer the question as I have made a similar argument against that nonsense as against the Palin/AIP nonseense.

After the nightmares of the past 8 years, it astounds me how Republicans continue to put party loyalty above common sense. It was apparent when watching the first day (Tues) of their convention, 99.99% of the delegates had never before seen Palin much less knew anything about her. In fact they weren't even fazed when a party official announced her using the name "Gov. Sarah Pawlenty" (confusing her with Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota?). The crowd roared in approval.

Now, according to the McCain campaign, the media will only be allowed access to Palin if it is beneficial to them. That is putting "Country First".....right? We certainly wouldn't want the American voters to be able to make their own assessment of her ability, qualifications and judgment to assume the presidency! After all, the McCain campaign has told us she is undeniably qualified, and they have told us 3 times, so therefor

the charge that "Mr. Obama wants to sit down with Iran and Syria, to work out the Iraq problem. He assumes that their motivation is the same as his - this is both arrogant and naïve…" is in and of itself arrogant and naive. In fact, if you listen to people such as Kissinger, they will tell you that you need to sit down with countries like Iran and Syria. To assert otherwise is arrogant and naive. And extremely dangerous.
As to the comments that dems are consistently bashing Palin's 17 year old, hogwash. The criticism has and is focused on her beliefs, actions and experience. Her hypocrisy was noted, however, which is justifiable in that respect. As for the experience issue, Rove opened that door for you when he claimed Tim Kaine lacked the experience to be VP. Bashing him for being a "small town mayor" -- when RVA has a population of 1.2 million, about twice the population of AK. What is good for the goose is good for the gander -- and guess what people, it is not sexist either...

I do look forward to the boxing match between Biden and Palin. As for Palin and the AIP this is what is known: husband Todd a member for a number of years until 2002; Sara attended the '94 and '06 conferences; Palin addressed the '08 conference and welcomed the attendees and told them to "keep up the good work"; Vice Chairman of AIP Dexter Clark in 10/07 stated and confirmed Sara's involvement. You see someone does not have to be a card carrying member to support a seccessionist group. This group's founder hates the US flag (called it that da-- flag). There is a direct tie here no doubt. Much more than Obama and Ayers. Obama never belonged to supported or attended or addressed Ayer's group. They only met in neighborhood groups on a handful of times to discuss poverty issues in their area several decades after the group's activities. Yet Obama and Ayers sticks and Palin and AIP does not. Why is that?

Please stop with the Palin AIP membership stuff. According to the Exec. of the AIP she has never been a member. I believe I did read that at one point her husband was a member, but so what?

My husband was a member of the Delaware Libertarian Party, but that never had any bearing on my holding office as a member of the Delaware GOP. Why should it, and why should Palin's spouse's party registration have any bering on her holding office as a member of the Alaska GOP?

I see it as a constitutionally established fund, which makes it a government entity. They get the money by charging a royalty, which is another form of a tax if the government takes the money. The send it to its citizens. Now, you can nuance all you want, but it is state government money realized from oil within the United States of America…unless, of course, the Alaska Independence Party, Palin's former party, succeeds in seceded from the union.

the McCain camp is not comfortable allowing Palin to be interviewed yet, and are offering bogus excuses as to why. That by itself is telling. And soundbites will only get you so far in a debate. I look forward to it...

I'm glad we agree on one thing, that comparisons should be made between the candidates for the same office. We do not agree on how Biden will make out in the debate against Palin. I first interviewed Biden 25 years ago, I have seen him debate, I have spoken with the man, my husband has known him even longer. Since we are talking experience hre, our combined 50+ years of personal and professional experience with joe Biden tells me you are going to be proven wrong. The hockey mom is going to full body check the bloviator from DE and do it with a smile on her face.

He won't know what hit him --- strong women are not his strong suit.

Someone may have suggested that I pay attention, back then – I don’t recall. Maybe, at the time, I wasn’t paying attention…
In those days, I usually had my nose buried in a book (making the best of the boredom…).

Forgive my asking the obvious, but if he believes in non-partisanship, why is he calling himself a Democrat?

To “compromise” would require that all involved parties sit down, in a, “mutual spirit of accord” to “work things out” thru discussion. (E.g. Carter, Begin and Sadat, at Camp David…).

Pointing out the obvious, again - this is Textbook Problem Solving 101…

Mr. Obama wants to sit down with Iran and Syria, to work out the Iraq problem. He assumes that their motivation is the same as his - this is both arrogant and naïve…

Yes, it was an excellent speech. But that’s all it was – a speech. I’m a practical person, i.e. “actions speak louder than words” -or- “I’m from Missouri - show me.”

JM's campaing MGR says Palin won't give any interviews until she feels "comfortable" giving one. Palin could be the President of the US in 4.5 months. We tend to think of this as an abstraction; but it's true. And yet today she's so unprepared & knows so little about the challenges and tasks facing the country that she can't even give a softball interview. That's really all we need to know. Yes, she's off being prepped at some undisclosed location. By the time her debate rolls around she'll be sufficiently pumped full of slogans & bromides to make a show of it. But now, this moment, is the one that tells us all we need to know. She's the darling of the hard-right. She pushes all their buttons. But she's such a lightweight, they can't risk letting her answer a few questions. Not even on Fox. They know she's not ready and probably never will be. But they think the politics might work for them.

Please tell me what McCain plans to do. I have read what both have proposed you have not because you continually say he proposes nothing. You obviously have a great bias against him and that is ok, but at least put to record what specifically Obama has not articulated in some way. I find McCains proposals much more vague, more of the same, and frankly just too simple minded in scope.

"It was a great speech. You should have listened."

His speeches are what everyone cites. Everything that is said about him starts with "he proposes." Many of ask what has he done? How can he achieve what "he proposes?" Nobody can answer these questions. His supporters seem to have plenty of time to pick on a 17 year old girl but not enough time to convince Obama's ctitics he is a feasible candidate.

Just talking in circles is all I see from the this side of the argument.

The world is going into some very dangerous times. McCain is not for any change, evidenced by aliening with the same Neo-con war hawks now in the defense department that were responsible for the false propaganda and deceit that lead this country into a bogus war. Not to mention the blundering of the war after the invasion. Further proof is his chief national security advisor, the AIPAC funded war hawk Joe Lieberman. The utterly stupid act of choosing Palin as Vice President does not say much for American concern for a future leader of the the free world.The idea that half this country would choose such a leader that they had not even heard of the week before and had listened to only two prepared speeches is totally irresponsible,impulsive and very dangerous. It is insane! What has happened to a country that is watching men come home in body bags daily, a escalating war in Afghanistan,the risin

Mr. Wilburn, you need to pay attention. Sen. Obama has not suggested textbook solutions to our problems. He has suggested the possibility of compromise solutions. He is the only candidate who actually believes in non-partisanship.

The next president in his own words:

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. ... This, too, is part of America's promise -- the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

It was a great speech. You should have listened.

You are avoiding the fact that Palin has no, zip, nada, nothing in her resume on foreign policy. And yes I agree with Gabrielle that this is inane, the comparison needs to be vp to vp choice and if you want to start comparing Biden to Palin, well that one is a no-brainer. He could rip her to shreds and I hope he does. Not by personal attacks (as he stated he will not do) but by knowledge gained by years of actually doing what he will be involved with as vp-and that is working on policies of national interest. People are sheepishly supporting her without even knowing where she stands on the economy, Iraq, education, energy policy, etc. She has never been put to the test in the media or in debates like Biden and Obama have been. I would call that faith-based politics because it seemingly requires more belief and less fact.

Mary, please google Rick Davis and Nichole Wallace, both of them clearly suggest that Palin will not be answering any tough questions regarding foreign policy. They work for McCain, so I assume you would find them reputable. Ira, I agree that all governors try to eke out as much money as they can from the federal government, and I certainly find no fault with Palin's pursuit of fed money for her state, I think that any state's constituents would demand that of their governor. Where her problem comes in with the bridge to nowhere is her being dishonest about her opposition to it. She was in favor of it until Alaska was going to have to pay more for it. That is a matter of public record. She has floated this myth to build a false narrative regarding her opposition to earmarks. As I said, I don't fault her for trying to get the money, I fault her for her lying about it now to paint herself in the mold of McCain.

But if you haven't realized it yet, Sen. Obama is running for President against Sen. McCain -- NOT against Gov. Palin. She is running for the number 2 slot, as is Sen. Biden.

How about sticking with apples and apples and not mixing in the oranges.

Your point is well taken. You did, of course, ease past the fact that Mr. Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years – and that, Tim, DOES finger him as an academic…

He did, for a time, work as a civil rights attorney, in conjunction with the “community organizer” thing, but that was laying the foundation for the, “man of the people” image that he was/is cultivating, for his trip into the White House.

The fundamental problem I have with him is that he strikes me as the type that believes that there is a textbook solution for every situation. I’ve encountered a number of people of similar mind in my travels, and in crisis situations, where there is no textbook, they often come unglued. I don’t trust his, “crisis management” skills.

I may be wrong about him, but to this point, he has given me no reason to think so…

Real journalists will not have access to Palin. That’s the clear message by Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign in this video encounter with Jay Carney of Time Magazine:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/no-questions-palin-wont-t_n_124256.html

What does this tell us about Pailin's knowledge and readiness?

The bridge to nowhere keeps getting brought up and it is out of context. That is what govenors do. ALL of them. You take every penny you can get. Especially after the federal goverment cuts your funding and puts you in a political noose to raise their taxes to maintain services. If the partisans must attack her, let's find something real. Your baiting the uninformed, nothing more.

Where is the reference to Sarah Palin being muzzled by the McCain campaign? I need to see that one from a reputable source before I'll believe it. Thanks, MGM

Must respectfully disagree regarding your assessment that Obama could not have had a career in the private sector. He was President of the Harvard Law Review, and that body has had quite a storied group of alumni, including almost half of the current Supreme Court. These are folks who are intensely sought after by private law firms, if for nothing more than boosting the pedigree of their organizations. Getting your law degree from Harvard doesn't finger you as an academic; it fingers you as someone who has an outstanding legal mind. I do not disagree with you that Obama had always had a bigger plan, because it is obvious he did, but I for one would not make his intelligence a disqualifier.