I think it is funny how many of you hate Bush, favor Obama to Ron Paul, simply because of the war.

I left Democrats because of the war.

It is unfortunately that no one goes back and reads the history of US involvement in the Persian Gulf. The movie, The Kingdom, reveals a lot but people still don't get it. Saddam had to go...........but this election is no more about the war than the last one.

Items to think about for Obama:

1. Will Rodgers was once quoted as saying " I belong to no organized political party; I am a Democrat"
Rogers made this quote in the 1930's. For those unfamiliar with this man, he was what could be called an "American folk hero" who made made good natured but meaningful jokes about the way the Government works. Websites about this man are numerous, check them out.

2. Obama clearly does not have the executive experience to run the Federal Government. In my view, only a person who has been re-elected as a Governor of a fairly large State has the experience to operate the huge Federal Government. ( I forgot to add that at one time the position of Mayor of New York City was considered the 2nd toughest political job in the country.)

3. Political tactics personified. Obama made a smart and sharply calculated
move by not voting for the war in Iraq. The reasons for this are clear: If the war was a success, no real issue could be made against Obama . The "success" would be the Big Story and Obama's position really a non-issue. The strategy if attacked for his vote against the war could be , "I believe that the US Supreme Court's decision, made for the Vietnam War, allowing a President to take military action without the Constitutions formal requirements for a large military action is wrong". The War powers Act is wrong and lets vote on a real Declaration of War"

3a. This makes perfect sense as President Bush clearly had enough Congressional support for the war. I have seen a tape of the then Democrat leader of the Senate say " we cannot take the chance that Iraq is not a WMD threat."

3b.If the war in Iraq was a disaster, well Obama now is seen as a man with "vision"...

4. People for or against the war Never predicted the "insurgency"
I have researched this extensively and stand by my statement.

5. That Iraq did have Al Qaida terrorist camps is well documented as US forces encountered and destroyed these terrorists.

6. In my opinion Obama knows he will never win the nomination, and is relying upon a well known tactic of placing himself in the following situations:

6a. Making himself "known" to the American people. Let's face it, did any large group of Americans ever know this man? Answer is no. He now has that attention, and any news conference in the future after the Presidential election will be well covered by the media. I have not checked, but Obama could possibly run for Governor of Illinois.

6b. Should a Democrat become President, he has a chance as Vice President; or a high profile cabinet position.

7. As a reminder to the supporters of any candidate, polls, debates, political ads are meaningless. Two examples: LBJ ran as the peace candidate, the result was the War Powers Act; the Bush Gore 2000 election was not at all focused on a "war with Iraq".

7a. for those not familiar with political science studies I will inform readers that for the past 50 plus years, about 50% of eligible voters do not vote. Why? Nothing really changes..

8. Obama and the other candidates cannot use inflation, unemployment, social security, as reasons to win the Presidency.
What they can do is attack the Bush record, however Bush is not running.

9. Global warming is not an issue at all. Let me explain this. If global warming is a "serious threat" well it has been going on for years. China, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, and so on will pay lip service to this but that's all they will do. Shanghai, in China produces more pollution than any city in the world. The USA
can do all we can do reduce our situation but it will not affect the atmosphere because developing nations will not do a thing.

9a. I have researched the scientific reports of the 1970's which predicted that by the year 2000, the world will run out of oil...
this has proved to be 100% wrong.

9b. As there was nothing to pollute the atmosphere before civilization existed as we now know it, then what produced the Ice Age? Also, as the glaciers receded, (earth was warming) it produced among other things the Great Lakes. No pollution from factories or SUV's.

When scientists can explain the coming and going of these two huge geographic events, I'll pay attention to "global warming". As an aside, if global warming is any factor at all it would greatly increase the manufacture and use of solar panels to create electricity.

10. before I am accused of being a republican or some other
"tag" let me say I believe that Saddam could have been "eliminated" as a threat as was the President of Panama, Mr. Noriega. When was the last leader of a sovereign nation "kidnapped" and tried as a drug dealer by another country?

11. Obama has been endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. This has become "big news". What has the news media come to when a celebrity's endorsement has weight at all?

12. My pet peeve on the media and politicians: since when has sending American soldiers to anywhere to kill terrorists been called "placing our young soldiers in harms way"? The so called surge was condemned by many people including well known terrorist groups and other enemies of the United States. When the "enemy" decries a policy that will result in the killing of more terrorists then I say this to myself: If they are against it, it must be a good policy... Why doesn't the media say: The Surge will place more insurgents and terrorists in harms way?

Again I say, I am not a war monger, but killing terrorists is a good idea. The argument that it will produce more terrorists is a false one. I contend that when a "could be" terrorist sees that nothing can be done to impede US policies, only a lunatic would become a terrorist. Lunatics make poor enemies. The fact is that the "terrorists" real enemies are the "Leaders" of the Arab countries. Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel as example and has the largest military in the middle east. I have not seen Egypt's Mr Mubarak say he wants to drive Israel into the sea...

I know a good number of active military people. They tell me this: before I join the US military I am informed that I will be trained to kill and also to protect myself. Anyone who has second thoughts about this need not enroll in the US military. Deciding to leave this ceremony does in no way harm you or imply you are not a patriotic citizen.

The USA sent troops along with other NATO members and I never read the term "in harms way". The fact is NATO did not need US forces in Serbia. I am sure the UK and other NATO members could have handle Serbia. If not, then NATO members need to fix that. The idea that the United States is the policeman of the world needs to end. If President Clinton, after consulting with NATO powers like the UK, Germany,and Turkey announced that US forces were not necessary for this internal European "situation". Who would complain?

My thoughts are that a good campaign website should do the following;

1. Inform voters about the candidate.

2. Provide supporters a means on how to support the candidnate.

3. Rally supporters and keep them enthused enough to vote for the candidnate.

Most campaign websites have done excellent jobs on 2 and 3, but lackluster at best jobs at 1. This is partly because 1 is much more difficult, and because there is a lot of information people may want, and it would be difficult to do this on one page (although Hillary Clinton did do a good job of that).

To be honest I think the Clinton campaign has the best website for providing information. I especially like the "Hillary Hub" button which provides links to news articles about the candidate, and "The Fact Hub" which is where they refute allegations against the candidnate, which in Hillary's case, there is a lot to refute.

> 2. Obama clearly does not have the executive experience to run the Federal Government

experience hasn't worked for us recently. i would think experienced people tend to be more corrupt, too.

> 3. Obama made a smart and sharply calculated move by not voting for the war in Iraq.

It had better have been calculated. this is a democracy, after all. i agree that people are putting way too much stress on the past with this issue, though.

> 4. People for or against the war Never predicted the "insurgency"

most people didn't know what the f** they were talking about if they were making predictions in this regard. the people who should know this stuff failed us.

> 5. That Iraq did have Al Qaida terrorist camps is well documented as US forces encountered and destroyed these terrorists.

the washington post and the weekly standard don't qualify as sound documentation. you obviously didn't research this one as much as your others. if such evidence does exist it sure isn't plentiful or convincing.

> 6. In my opinion Obama knows he will never win the nomination, and is relying upon a well known tactic of placing himself...

placing oneself is a well-known tactic? i've never heard of it! sorry, couldn't help the sarcasm. anyway, you're probably right about the placing thing. that's true of everybody, though you've found examples pertinent to Obama here.

> 7. As a reminder to the supporters of any candidate, polls, debates, political ads are meaningless. Two examples...

two examples do not a theory make. and if all that is meaningless then you contradict yourself through your passion on these subjects.

> 7a. for those not familiar with political science studies I will inform readers that for the past 50 plus years, about 50% of eligible voters do not vote. Why? Nothing really changes..

why thank you for informing me. but you are completely right here.

> 8. ...What they can do is attack the Bush record, however Bush is not running.

and the republicans are often comparing themselves to hillary. i guess everyone needs a target to make them look good.

> 9. Global warming is not an issue at all. ...The USA
can do all we can do reduce our situation but it will not affect the atmosphere because developing nations will not do a thing.

what has changed is that we have recent evidence that something could be seriously screwed up. we can either risk that this is not so and maintain an industrial economic advantage, or risk economic stress and try and help to avert environmental catastrophe any way we can, with the intention of creating a more convincing argument for developing nations to follow suit. if you think of it as a worst-case risk-analysis (economic hardship or millions displaced/dead) then we can discuss our options more intelligently.

> 9a. I have researched the scientific reports of the 1970's which predicted that by the year 2000, the world will run out of oil...
this has proved to be 100% wrong.

and therefore...... we have all the oil we need? then why are we bullying people around? scarcity of resources inevitably leads to war.

> 9b. As there was nothing to pollute the atmosphere before civilization existed as we now know it, then what produced the Ice Age?

greenhouse gas emissions from thousands of active volcanoes? and fyi there were several ice ages.

> When scientists can explain the coming and going of these two huge geographic events, I'll pay attention to "global warming"

how are you going to hear their explanations if you are not paying attention?

> 10. before I am accused of being a republican or some other
"tag"...

conservative?

> 11. Obama has been endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. This has become "big news". What has the news media come to when a celebrity's endorsement has weight at all?

haha, go listen to ted nugent. now there is a presidential-canidate-supporting-celebrity who is known for his sound ideology. but seriously, would it be better if america's celebrity obsessions stayed out of politics and let your 50% stat from earlier shrink even more?

> 12. My pet peeve on the media and politicians: since when has sending American soldiers to anywhere to kill terrorists been called "placing our young soldiers in harms way"? ... Why doesn't the media say: The Surge will place more insurgents and terrorists in harms way?

i think they are implying you have to weigh the cost to the benefits, although it is a slanted statement. the thing is, the world is not made up of good guys and bad guys. the same people who say we have the right to kill or detain all suspected terrorists are the ones determining who is or is not a terrorist. this is a slippery slope (of red herrings).