Obama on Pakistan

I'll agree with you there.

Getting back on-topic... some thoughts:

I think the next person in the oval office will be required to address foreign policy more than any other in this nation's history. Why? America is losing (or has lost) it's self-sufficiency in (but not limited to) the following areas; manufacturing, financial stability, food production, energy needs, and structural social stature through lack of immigration controls plus ineffective law enforcement. There are others naturally, but those are ones that come to mind. While only a few areas, it's a broad enough brush stroke that encompasses many, if not most of America's virtues. We are therefore becoming a country that is not being ruled by ourselves, but by the dictates of others. In the grand scheme of globalization, we have to turn our attentions not only to domestic issues (of which we admittedly have plenty), but to outside entities, and their respective influences as well. We have to ensure our allies and supporters remain just that, encourage others 'on the fence' to participate, and to deal with our adversaries in such a manner that does not jeopardize those relationships. If we had 'sufficiency' reserves to 'try out' inexperience through new ideas, that would be great. But we don't. So our next leader is going to have to deal with this. The more experience in this field (therefore IMO), the better.

Another issue that faces voters is our individualism as a social whole, or rather- the lack of it. Many opinions I hear is what "I" want, versus what "we" need. I believe this is leading to severe divisions in our social struture, and if not checked- will ultimately lead to its breakdown. Then there will only be "I's", no "we's", and no combined social structure or power that it provides. A nation of individuals un-united is just that... and our country will suffer in no small measure as a result should it happen. I don't think our next candidate- whomever it is- will be able to completely repolarize this country. But a start would be nice, and this is where experience will be of benefit. It's also not a battle of red versus blue, but a nation's striving for the prosperity of the red, white and blue. That's why I'm a patriotic independent, and not a political one.

I could not agree with you more.

What makes you think Giuliani won't do exactly (or close) to what Bush has done all these years? What makes you think the entire Republican party won't choose to continue this ridiculous policy of pretending that America is Great, Damn The Rest Of The World?

What makes you think Hillary won't try to buy off al-Qaida?

I've said before and I'll say again that voters don't have the choice of the best candidate but the lesser evil. IMO- they're all crooks; we have to pick the one that we think will do the least amount of colateral damage, without sacrificing our sovereignty any more than it's already been damaged.

As for your last question, it seems rather obvious that the current crop of GOP candidates are trying to distance themselves at least in part from the current administration. This is one instance where the media op-'heads' and I are in agreement. However their further claims that the GOP is somehow weak or disillusioned because of this I find totally unfounded. No more than the Democratic lineup is, anyway...

To that end, I think it's getting to the point where our own political system is a major part of the problem. Conflicts 'across the isle' are sounding more like "Yank vs. Reb" rather than genial or even rational differences of opinion. If we started addressing the problems- instead of each other, we may find a whole lot more can get accomplished.

As an aside-

I was listening to Joe Biden on the Charlie Rose show. He referenced Barack's invasion comment as something not to do at a public speaking. Pressed on the matter however, Biden admitted he'd do the same thing- saying that if Pakistan knowingly harbored and falsely admitted the presence of al-Queda high value targets in their country, that would be paramount (in the US 'eyes') to resigning their country's sovereignty, allowing the US to take unilateral action. What action, Biden didn't say. It could be to shoot a million dollar missle at a tent- like Hillary's hubby did, send a bunch of troops in- like GW did, or drop a couple nukes, like Harry did...

But Biden wouldn't say that openly, and certainly not as a campaign topic. That's not something you talk about, he said. You just do it.

Obama Flubs Again on Foreign Policy

Heh- every time Barack opens his mouth like that, he loses another 10 pts in the polls to Hillary...

Maybe he's secretly reading George W's diary?!

...or trying to become a democratic Republican?

What an incompetent moron. Someone tell our troops to cease all air raiding the civilians.

His campaign manager made it even worse

Obama Gaffe Check

I guess his platform of uniquely not being supportive of the Iraq invasion from day 1 doesn't hold much credibility anymore... heh- 'ya think?

I used to think John Kerry was the king of 'flip'. He may have an aspiring successor. I wish Sen. Obama would tell us more of what he actually believes, and less of what he thinks we want to hear.