Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[Kayxero]

????

"We" don't let them have a military? Japan is an honor-based society that was mentally and physically destroyed by WWII. The dishonor of being the aggressor, after centuries of really just being self-contained, is why Japan has had nothing but a defense force. And in return, they've gone from devastation after the war to one of, if not the, greatest economy on earth. Hmm.

As for Iraq, I have to say "that's what our parents taught us" is not ever really a justification for anything. If we had even the slightest chance of victory, I'd say you were right. But, right now, staying in Iraq is refereeing a civil war, one that is costing us billions of dollars we desperately need stateside.

We are arming both sides of the struggle hoping that somehow this will reach a stalemate, but it will never happen. When you don't understand your enemy (enemies?), you have no hope of understanding the respective struggles. We just don't have any hopes of victory, especially after we are forced to withdraw the Surge forces. And we have so many pressing needs domestically, and so many have died unnecessarily, that the situation is untenable.

On another note, this sucks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080529...clatchy/2952488

Post-World War II

After a period of U.S. occupation(1945-1952), Japan regained its independence. Japan was also forbidden to have a standing army or wage war by Article nine of its Constitution.

Although the Japanese constitution says "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained," the Jieitai (自衛隊), or Japan Self-Defense Forces were created shortly after the end of U.S. occupation. The Jieitai is one of the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world and Japanese military expenditures are the seventh highest in the world. Though the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, signed in 1960, allows for the continued presence of American military bases in Japan, most of them on Okinawa, no formal agreement was ever set by which Japan officially relies on the United States, United Nations, or another body for its defense.

In the aftermath of the Occupation, attempts were made by some administrations in Japan, particularly at the urging of the United States, to amend the Constitution and rearm. However, intense popular sentiment against this action, and against war in general, along with the attitudes and agendas of significant elements within the government, prevented this. In 1967, Prime Minister Eisaku SatÅ outlined the Three Non-Nuclear Principles by which Japan stands against its production, or possession of nuclear weaponry. Similar ideas were expressed several years later against the production and export of conventional arms.

The Diet of Japan is currently deliberating an amendment to the Constitution which would repeal Article Nine, and allow Japan to once again have projective military capacity.

For the time being, Japan has deployed the Jieitai to aid in a number of non-combat missions, especially those involving humanitarian aid, such as aiding the victims of the 1995 Kobe earthquake, providing administrative support to the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) Norwegian Battalion (NORBATT) in the 1990s, and helping rebuild Iraq.

Some Japanese state a desire to have their own military due to fear of the growing power of China and the hostility of North Korea. They claim that the U.S. has failed to properly address these issues, and therefore Japan must grant itself "the power to defend itself".

In 2004, then-United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan announced a plan to expand the number of permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, and Japan seeks to gain one of those seats. Despite Japan's economic power and political influence, however, it is debatable whether or not a country with no standing military can be considered a "world power" such that it would be granted a permanent seat on the Council. Recent disputes with neighboring countries like China, South Korea, and Russia over territories such as the Senkaku Islands, Liancourt Rocks, and the Kuril Islands, as well as accusations of Japanese whitewashing of history in various textbook controversies have also complicated this process.

So as i said we, as in the US, have basically said "no military for you"

And what now, our troops think they are missionaries now? Silly soldiers=/

[piratesmvp04]

????

"We" don't let them have a military? Japan is an honor-based society that was mentally and physically destroyed by WWII. The dishonor of being the aggressor, after centuries of really just being self-contained, is why Japan has had nothing but a defense force. And in return, they've gone from devastation after the war to one of, if not the, greatest economy on earth. Hmm.

As for Iraq, I have to say "that's what our parents taught us" is not ever really a justification for anything. If we had even the slightest chance of victory, I'd say you were right. But, right now, staying in Iraq is refereeing a civil war, one that is costing us billions of dollars we desperately need stateside.

We are arming both sides of the struggle hoping that somehow this will reach a stalemate, but it will never happen. When you don't understand your enemy (enemies?), you have no hope of understanding the respective struggles. We just don't have any hopes of victory, especially after we are forced to withdraw the Surge forces. And we have so many pressing needs domestically, and so many have died unnecessarily, that the situation is untenable.

On another note, this sucks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080529...clatchy/2952488

I understand your opinions about the Iraq war, but let me ask you this question: If the US leaves Iraq, will Hammas take the country over? And if Hammas does take over the country, will that put our country in more danger than before? Please answer these questions.

I personally think that the war is winnable. Talk to any soldier who comes home from the war, and they will tell you a completely different story than what you hear in the media. To me, the media only reports stories for an agenda, and that agenda is to make money by making people buy their papers. So, they can tell half-truths just to make money. The parts of the Iraq story that they don't tell you is the success that we're having over there. The violence is dropping, and the insurgents are losing big time. It will just take a while to finish building the country. Considering the hundreds of years it took to build the US, we're actually making good progress in Iraq, and we should stay there to finish the job.

[piratesmvp04]

I know this has been mentioned before, but I enjoy it so much I'm posting it here. Read what Obama said a few weeks ago:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us..."-ap.google.com

Okay, so Obama doesn't think Iran is a threat...or does he? Because here's what he says later:

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust."-Chicago Tribune

This guy obviously is so insecure in his policies, and I don't think is a good man for the job. I'm personally a McCain supporter (because he's all I got left. Supported Huckabee previously), but if I had to choose between the Democrats, I might have to go with Hillary because at least she's experienced enough to stand firm on her beliefs and not flip-flop like Obama.

[Sean O]

I understand your opinions about the Iraq war, but let me ask you this question: If the US leaves Iraq, will Hammas take the country over? And if Hammas does take over the country, will that put our country in more danger than before? Please answer these questions.

Hamas, and Hamas Iraq, as far as I know, is of so little consequence to our occupation of Iraq that it's not even worth discussing. There is largely a balance of power with a bit more strength to the Shi'a in Iraq, so there is very little chance that another Sunni (or vaguely Sunni organizations like the Baath) taking over a predominantly Shiite country.

As it is, we are not making our nation any safer by continuing an occupation. No matter what the situation, citizens do not like having another country occupying it, as it leads to resentment. Especially when the soldiers are so dramatically different culturally, racially and spiritually.

I personally think that the war is winnable. Talk to any soldier who comes home from the war, and they will tell you a completely different story than what you hear in the media.

Unfortunately, even if this is true (i've heard the exact opposite from soldiers as well, that it's much worse than the media and Petreus says), we simply cannot keep up our Surge-level forces. Soldiers are already over-extended, and the government has done nothing to further the situation politically. Hell, even the october elections may have to be canceled because Muqtada Al-Sadr's forces will take too much control of the party.

To me, the media only reports stories for an agenda, and that agenda is to make money by making people buy their papers. So, they can tell half-truths just to make money. The parts of the Iraq story that they don't tell you is the success that we're having over there. The violence is dropping, and the insurgents are losing big time. It will just take a while to finish building the country. Considering the hundreds of years it took to build the US, we're actually making good progress in Iraq, and we should stay there to finish the job.

Unfortunately, none of this is true. Petreus has admitted that he had faulty intelligence on a number of the graphs and data sources from his last speech on Capitol Hill. Graphs showing that violence in Baghdad was down compared to a year ago ended up being faulty, and that several markets that congress members had walked in just a few months ago were now far too dangerous to enter.

So much of the surge's success is due to Al-Sadr's ceasefire, including the last one that Al-Maliki begged for. The point of the surge was to allow political mending to occur, and it hasn't. So what's left? The Iraqi government isn't helping, our American soldiers are being slaughtered, terrorism is only increasing, our budget is hemorrhaging... what's left?

It's time to cut bait and focus on winning Afghanistan, and to restock the military so we can actually have the might to conduct aggressive diplomacy against rogue nations. Do you really believe that the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad think we could invade their nation with our military overstretched?

[Sean O]

I know this has been mentioned before, but I enjoy it so much I'm posting it here. Read what Obama said a few weeks ago:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us..."-ap.google.com

Okay, so Obama doesn't think Iran is a threat...or does he? Because here's what he says later:

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust."-Chicago Tribune

This guy obviously is so insecure in his policies, and I don't think is a good man for the job. I'm personally a McCain supporter (because he's all I got left. Supported Huckabee previously), but if I had to choose between the Democrats, I might have to go with Hillary because at least she's experienced enough to stand firm on her beliefs and not flip-flop like Obama.

That isn't even close to a flip flop, come on. The Soviet Union, with a single press of a button, could have killed every single American. Plus, you, respectfully, completely misread what he was saying. In the first one, he says that Iran is not a grave threat to US, on the homefront, the way the soviet ICBMs had just a few decades ago.

Iran, however, does pose a grave threat to the other nations of the Middle East, specifically Israel as our greatest ally. If Iran is going to start something, there is very little chance that they will do so in our homefront. It will be against Israel, and that's why we have to handle them. That was the 2nd quote.

This shows a great subtlety in his foreign policy understanding. Essentially, Bush (mis)marketed the war by saying that Hussein was going to kill us by loading a bunch of suitcase bombs to bring over here. Obama, though, understands that Iran will always focus more on Israel than the US, and so is showing tremendous solidarity with Israel in taking a hard stand against Iran for our ally's benefit.

[piratesmvp04]

Hamas, and Hamas Iraq, as far as I know, is of so little consequence to our occupation of Iraq that it's not even worth discussing. There is largely a balance of power with a bit more strength to the Shi'a in Iraq, so there is very little chance that another Sunni (or vaguely Sunni organizations like the Baath) taking over a predominantly Shiite country.

As it is, we are not making our nation any safer by continuing an occupation. No matter what the situation, citizens do not like having another country occupying it, as it leads to resentment. Especially when the soldiers are so dramatically different culturally, racially and spiritually.

Unfortunately, even if this is true (i've heard the exact opposite from soldiers as well, that it's much worse than the media and Petreus says), we simply cannot keep up our Surge-level forces. Soldiers are already over-extended, and the government has done nothing to further the situation politically. Hell, even the october elections may have to be canceled because Muqtada Al-Sadr's forces will take too much control of the party.

Unfortunately, none of this is true. Petreus has admitted that he had faulty intelligence on a number of the graphs and data sources from his last speech on Capitol Hill. Graphs showing that violence in Baghdad was down compared to a year ago ended up being faulty, and that several markets that congress members had walked in just a few months ago were now far too dangerous to enter.

So much of the surge's success is due to Al-Sadr's ceasefire, including the last one that Al-Maliki begged for. The point of the surge was to allow political mending to occur, and it hasn't. So what's left? The Iraqi government isn't helping, our American soldiers are being slaughtered, terrorism is only increasing, our budget is hemorrhaging... what's left?

It's time to cut bait and focus on winning Afghanistan, and to restock the military so we can actually have the might to conduct aggressive diplomacy against rogue nations. Do you really believe that the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad think we could invade their nation with our military overstretched?

You've responded well to my points, though I still hold my beliefs. I personally think that we cannot leave Iraq if that will result in a collapse of its government. In that section of the world where dictatorship and oppression is common, and most of them hate America, Iraq will be a very important ally to us once it gets stronger. Israel will not be strong enough for us.

Also, if we do end this war and go to Afghanistan, we will run into the same problem that we have in Iraq, and everyone will soon enough start complaining about that. Just because we leave Iraq doesn't mean the insurgents there will disappear. They'll just follow us to Afghanistan and help the terrorists fight us. The ugly fact about this all is that we will probably have to maintain a permanent military presence of some size in the Middle East for the forseeable future. It's unfortunate the way this world has gone, but don't forget that George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton could have solved this problem during their terms, and they didn't.

[Sean O]

Kayx, you misread your own wikipedia article:

"In the aftermath of the Occupation, attempts were made by some administrations in Japan, particularly at the urging of the United States, to amend the Constitution and rearm. However, intense popular sentiment against this action, and against war in general, along with the attitudes and agendas of significant elements within the government, prevented this."

So the US wanted Japan to rearm to act as another proxy in a potential war with the neighboring Communist powers. In no way would our Cold War-obsessed (and, admittedly, rightfully so) military and political leaders NOT want the tremendous strategic value of a strong Japan on our side.

[Sean O]

Also, if we do end this war and go to Afghanistan, we will run into the same problem that we have in Iraq, and everyone will soon enough start complaining about that. Just because we leave Iraq doesn't mean the insurgents there will disappear. They'll just follow us to Afghanistan and help the terrorists fight us. The ugly fact about this all is that we will probably have to maintain a permanent military presence of some size in the Middle East for the forseeable future. It's unfortunate the way this world has gone, but don't forget that George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton could have solved this problem during their terms, and they didn't.

But, we never had adequate, total control over Iraq the way we did Afghanistan. We had the Taliban completely reduced to small pockets of resistance, while we don't even control all of the country anymore. Iraq is a far different story, where an organized force of rebellion sprung up nearly immediately following the cessation of military activity.

Plus, in Afghanistan, there is essentially one opposition force: The Taliban. In Iraq, we have 2 (or 3, depending on your view of the Kurds) different groups, each of which have deep religious and political hatred of the other, fighting against each other, the US, the police and the government at large. That is a huge strategic difference when it comes to handling an occupation.

[piratesmvp04]

That isn't even close to a flip flop, come on. The Soviet Union, with a single press of a button, could have killed every single American. Plus, you, respectfully, completely misread what he was saying. In the first one, he says that Iran is not a grave threat to US, on the homefront, the way the soviet ICBMs had just a few decades ago.

Iran, however, does pose a grave threat to the other nations of the Middle East, specifically Israel as our greatest ally. If Iran is going to start something, there is very little chance that they will do so in our homefront. It will be against Israel, and that's why we have to handle them. That was the 2nd quote.

This shows a great subtlety in his foreign policy understanding. Essentially, Bush (mis)marketed the war by saying that Hussein was going to kill us by loading a bunch of suitcase bombs to bring over here. Obama, though, understands that Iran will always focus more on Israel than the US, and so is showing tremendous solidarity with Israel in taking a hard stand against Iran for our ally's benefit.

I disagree that Obama has a good foreign policy. The guy says he wants to sit down with foreign leaders under NO preconditions and try to talk them into compromising. All that will do is let them buy time to finish whatever war plans they're starting. I'm not saying that we shouldn't meet with these foreign leaders, but we must do so cautiously. I don't trust Obama to be cautious enough since he's friends with Bill Ehrs and didn't leave Rev. Wright's church after hearing the anti-white and anti-American statements from him.

[piratesmvp04]

But, we never had adequate, total control over Iraq the way we did Afghanistan. We had the Taliban completely reduced to small pockets of resistance, while we don't even control all of the country anymore. Iraq is a far different story, where an organized force of rebellion sprung up nearly immediately following the cessation of military activity.

Plus, in Afghanistan, there is essentially one opposition force: The Taliban. In Iraq, we have 2 (or 3, depending on your view of the Kurds) different groups, each of which have deep religious and political hatred of the other, fighting against each other, the US, the police and the government at large. That is a huge strategic difference when it comes to handling an occupation.

Okay, that's all true, but what if Iraq falls after we leave? And what if the insurgents there follow us to Afghanistan? If they're being funded by Iran (and we have proof that they are) they'll just get the plane tickets or whatever they need to move operations to Afghanistan, and we'll be fighting the same enemy.

[Sean O]

I disagree that Obama has a good foreign policy. The guy says he wants to sit down with foreign leaders under NO preconditions and try to talk them into compromising. All that will do is let them buy time to finish whatever war plans they're starting. I'm not saying that we shouldn't meet with these foreign leaders, but we must do so cautiously.

Didn't Bush do this with North Korea? Didn't Reagan/Bush I do this with Iraq and Iran? Didn't Nixon do this with China?

We are not in a position at this moment to engage in any other military action, so any stalling would benefit us more than any other nation on earth. Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong with meeting an opposition force, because you need to know your enemy. There is absolutely no connection between meeting and appeasement.

Unfortunately, and the late-1990s right wing think tankers that developed so much of Bush's policy don't want to believe it, but diplomacy is required in this day and age. Amongst other reasons (the chief one being that we lied about the reasons for war to begin with) that nobody else supported the invasion of Iraq is because our attempts at diplomacy were so comically ill-conceived. An opposing nation's citizenry (aka the ones to whom elected officials must eventually answer) is not going to be convinced that we need a war when absolutely nothing of value takes place prior to bombs dropping.

Diplomacy is more than meeting together expecting a mutual answer, it's about at least having an exchange of ideas that the greater community can then judge. We went into North Korea with no preconditions, and positive or not, we reached a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The SALT treaties were another successful step in a tense Cold War time. But If you at least attempt to reach a solution via words rather than bombs, then you're far more likely to convince EU nations that "we tried everything else, and we have no other choice", rather than "we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."

I don't trust Obama to be cautious enough since he's friends with Bill Ehrs and didn't leave Rev. Wright's church after hearing the anti-white and anti-American statements from him.

1). He went to a single fundraiser at William Ayers house, once, when he was just starting out his political career. Ayers' family is also affiliated with the college from which I graduated, and I can tell you, they have about the same in common.

2). None of those speeches that Wright gave, and I can guarantee you that those were the only inflammatory parts because otherwise youtube would've had the rest of them) took place when Obama was present. The first he heard about it was when everyone else heard about it.

Essentially, you're saying that because Obama has been in the same room as two disagreeable people, that he can't be trusted. Meanwhile, someone like McCain has been involved with Keating, countless lobbyists, and the Hagee/Parsley mess. What does all of this mean? Nothing at all. Look at their policies, look at their background, and you'll see everything. Barackobama.com has clearcut plans for fixing problems with exact numbers and timelines, while McCain's website has... nothing.

"JUST CHECK THE **** NUMBERS", as a friend of mine once said.

[Sean O]

Okay, that's all true, but what if Iraq falls after we leave? And what if the insurgents there follow us to Afghanistan? If they're being funded by Iran (and we have proof that they are) they'll just get the plane tickets or whatever they need to move operations to Afghanistan, and we'll be fighting the same enemy.

Well, I have a question for you, how many Iraqi insurgents hate us because they're "al qa'eda" and we're just America, and how many are angry that we blew up their country, killed their family members, and occupy their streets? There have been countless studies that in a place without jobs, electricity, healthy water etc, people are far more willing to die for some cause simply out of anger at the situation.

The bottom line is, our occupation there is not helping Iraq get back on its feat with its own government. While we were increasing American forces on the street corners of Baghdad, you know what the Iraqi government did? Took the summer off. I'm not making this up.

They need to know we aren't going to be there to referee any more. That's why Obama and noted sociopath Hillary Clinton want a phased withdrawal, so like it or not, the politicians realize that we're seriously leaving.

[piratesmvp04]

Essentially, you're saying that because Obama has been in the same room as two disagreeable people, that he can't be trusted. Meanwhile, someone like McCain has been involved with Keating, countless lobbyists, and the Hagee/Parsley mess. What does all of this mean? Nothing at all. Look at their policies, look at their background, and you'll see everything. Barackobama.com has clearcut plans for fixing problems with exact numbers and timelines, while McCain's website has... nothing.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like any of the candidates. I just support McCain because he wants to continue the Bush foreign policy. Other than that, I don't like him because he supports global warming and he supports abortion.

As for Obama's Iraq plan vs. McCain's, I looked at both pages and I think they both have solid plans for achieving their goals. Just because McCain didn't put his plan in bullets like Obama did doesn't mean his plan is not as comprehensive.

[piratesmvp04]

Well, I have a question for you, how many Iraqi insurgents hate us because they're "al qa'eda" and we're just America, and how many are angry that we blew up their country, killed their family members, and occupy their streets? There have been countless studies that in a place without jobs, electricity, healthy water etc, people are far more willing to die for some cause simply out of anger at the situation.

The bottom line is, our occupation there is not helping Iraq get back on its feat with its own government. While we were increasing American forces on the street corners of Baghdad, you know what the Iraqi government did? Took the summer off. I'm not making this up.

They need to know we aren't going to be there to referee any more. That's why Obama and noted sociopath Hillary Clinton want a phased withdrawal, so like it or not, the politicians realize that we're seriously leaving.

I don't have proof of what the Iraqis are thinking and neither do you. Nobody does except the soldiers and anyone else who has been over there. As for your point that the our presence is causing Iraq to be slack, I guess you could argue that. But if we do leave, they might be defeated. According to what you said, the surge has been successful because of a cease-fire by Al-Sadr. But do you think he'll keep that cease-fire going once we're gone and he sees a weak Iraqi government that could be defeated? I don't think so. If we stay there, Iraq is lazy. If we leave, Iraq is defeated. Things are definitely tough.

[Kayxero]

I look at it like this. If i had the choice between Obama and McCain.

Do i want the guy, Mc Cain, who openly used racial slurs against asians in public as my next president, even though he says they are reserved for his captors. Which is Bs because if he used a slur against latinos or blacks that would of been the end of McCains campaign right there a few years back.

Or do i want the guy who is in trouble for attending the church of a so called racist. Of which obama denounces all that which was said. And has strayed from this.

I never heard a hint of remorse from Mccain on waht he said really

I think I would go with the guy who does not openly spout racism.

Im voting obama, and if he somehow loses the democratic race, then im going with hillary, although some things about her i do not like.

[piratesmvp04]

Kayxero, I don't know where you read that McCain uses racial slurs, but I would certainly like to see where you read this. But while I don't believe that it is appropiate for him to use that, you have to have some level of compassion for the guy who was tortured and beaten every single day in his captivity. The guy now has a permanent injury that prevents him from raising his arms above his head! I have never been in that situation, so I can't relate to him, but it's possible I could end up hating everyone from the race of those who captured me. It wouldn't be right, but it would be the result of my human nature. So, I can be a little sympathetic towards McCain on this count.

As for Obama, he has handled the Rev. Wright case very miserably, and the results are showing in the recent primaries.

All-in-all, though, I think it all comes down to the policies of the candidate. I don't want higher taxes for universal healthcare, I don't want to leave Iraq, I don't want to compromise our security by not wiretapping, and I don't want my gas prices to skyrocket due to a Democrat oil company tax. So, I have to pick the candidate who is closest to that category, and McCain, as imperfect as he is, is the closest.

[Kayxero]

Its from back in 2000 actually but none the less http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

Even though he went thru many things you cannot be that careless as to say such things. As i said, if he used this against latinos or blacks it wouldnt have blown over like this has. You know itd been a firestorm and hed never had a chance to run, its just a shame most people either dont know about this or dont care. I feel for him and the fact he was tortured in captivity but you have to be smart when you are a public figure.

Btw if you do a search for that certain g word and Mccain you will find other articles.

And Obama i do not think has handled wright poorly. Its more so that, who can really have such a good defense against what this idiot has to say. It would hurt any campaign badly and make recovery hard. Wright is an obvious racist and then tries to say hes taken out of context or that hes being attacked by the media. If god should damn america then wright needs to go somewhere else imo. I love Obama but i dont know how he can win after this whole fiasco.

I have many friends who are very confused by this whole thing, but they def dont wanna vote McCain but I dont know what people will do with all this come November.

[piratesmvp04]

Well, I respect your opinion, and I appreciate the fact that we can have a peaceful debate without throwing f-bombs or whatever at each other. I've debated with some people over Facebook before who just spit all the worst words you can imagine. At least we can respect each other.

But nevertheless, I can't really blame McCain considering what he's been through. Is it wrong to say those things? Sure. But who am I to criticize him for saying those statements when I've never been in a similar situation that he's been in? That's just my personal opinion.

About the Obama thing, I think he could have been a little tougher on Wright instead of appearing a little flustered/confused. Sometimes, the right tone can make people forget. Hillary was crafty enough to make people forget his little Bosnia blunder, so Obama could have gotten tougher on his pastor at the start.

[Sean O]

About the Obama thing, I think he could have been a little tougher on Wright instead of appearing a little flustered/confused. Sometimes, the right tone can make people forget. Hillary was crafty enough to make people forget his little Bosnia blunder, so Obama could have gotten tougher on his pastor at the start.

Obama decided to take a very mature take on someone who, in his finer moments, had been a positive guide in his life. He showed that he was able to separate the good from the bad from everyone in his life, instead of blindly accepting everything said. I know there are good and bad traits in even those people I respect the most, but I'm able to see more of a positive in spite of the negative attributes.

The fact that Wright decided to later go insane on TV showed a total lack of respect for Obama, and so he was able to cut it off completely. I can only hope that McCain was able to see more good in Hagee after calling Catholicism "the great *****", and in Parsley after stating that America was destined to destroy the "false religion" of Islam.

Meanwhile, you actually respect Clinton's handling of the Bosnia situation? She repeatedly lied about an event she took part in, even after she was corrected to the contrary by her staffers. When she was caught personally lying (i.e., unlike The Three Pastors, it was her doing the insane talk), she launched a passive-aggressive attack on those calling her a liar, and then tried to pass it off as a joke.

I don't see much to respect in that.

[RaysFTW]

He won the Democratic nomination.

Obama the Great

[TheSabathiaEra]

looks like Obama really is committed to...CHANGE

[Sean O]

www.barackobama.com. I just donated, and there's a massive Money Bomb going down right now. Take part; the more we dump in, the more impact this has.

Anything, $5, $15, $500, anything you can give. Get this started quick.

[catzrthecoolest]

uh oh.

[wrigleyville33]

It's funny how Hilary just basically burned billions of dollars towards her campaigning and look where it got her. lol

[Pirate]

Reason 7,134 why politics angers me to no end... Hillary spends how many hundreds of thousand (maybe millions) since it was determined she had very little chance of beating Obama, but instead of conceding she draws things out and wastes the cash. That money could have been used to purchase medical equipment in Darfur or gone towards protecting hardwood forests or been used toward cancer treatment or helped New Orleans rebuild or hlped the many ravaged souls across the midwest after the tornados... So many better uses for her money.

I am pleased that Obama is going to win this, but disappointed someone didn't step in for the Dems and shut Hillary down.