The world has turned upside down!!! (Re: McCain vs. Obama for President)

The question on my mind is: Who can screw things up the least?Obama's has a couple of advantages. His biggest advantage is his ability as a public speaker. He is articulate and very intelligent and can sway an audience. His biggest disadvantage is obviously his lack of experience and the 'L' word that has been attached to him by Conservatives.Although I vote Democrat more often than not, I have had trouble getting excited either about Obama or Clinton. Obama is a Junior senator who has spent most of his career concentrating on social issues. He lacks any tangible experience in other very important areas. He's a gamble and seems to be something like a secular copy of Huccakbee, although a much better orator. He has shown that he is very good at saying the right things to the right people, but so far I haven't really heard anything of substance. So far, I have heard the obligatory sound bites and usual safe, generic answers to questions-- "We need to get out of Iraq", "We need better health care...". How and when do you plan on making such things happen?McCain doesn't have any answers either but he does possess experience, especially on foreign policy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the next President will likely be seriously tested by Iran and perhaps North Korea. I think Iran is waiting for Bush to depart and they will no doubt try to pull the strings of the new President as a test to see how the new administration responds.To me, this issue is utmost on my mind. I believe the next President is going to be tested and likely will be tested quickly, before the administration has time to settle in. McCain carries the bigger stick IMO, and he is more likely to have a "Don't *#$! with me attitude.."As far as race or age, both have absolutely no bearing on my opinion. I would not decline to vote for someone worried they might keel over and I would not vote for someone simply to make them the first black president. No way, no how. We have serious issues facing us and IMO this is not the time to be letting such things take center stage(although we all know the press will make them center stage).I am most concerned with foreign policy and the economy and at the present time I am more comfortable with McCain. I am thinking in terms of who can do the least amount of damage to Foreign Policy and the budget.Although I am not really enthusiastic about McCain, I do respect the experience he brings to the table. At this time, I simply have too many reservations about Obama in many areas.Regardless, my prediction is whomever gets the nod will be a one-termer. I sense a Carter-like Presidency in the making.

Diplomacy has changed a lot since Washington's day. With the introduction of the global economy, nuclear weapons, and international politcis, it is not sufficient to just have someone from a University educated in the affairs of state. IMO you also need someone who has had their feet in the fire and has practical experience in such things.

That would violate the constitution. The Presidency is a civilian office.You don't really need a General, however. The President surrounds himself with advisors, both military and civilian. The President should be able to understand when to say Yes and when to say No to these advisors. He/She also needs to take all things into consideration when he is getting information and question the advisors so he/she doesn't end up jumping the gun(Iraq WMD?)I am certainly not implying Obama is unqualified, just inexperienced. During these times, I am personally more comfortable knowing someone has been there and seen war first-hand and understands the consequences and results(unlike Bush.) This experience also helps one understand when your advisors are possibly giving you a load of horse ##*^#.I don't like a lot of things about McCain but I do respect his military service and knowledge and I do think he understands the gravity of warfare and does not seem to be the type that will take it lightly(unlike Bush). I see him as someone who would not go off helter skelter unless absolutely necessary(unlike Bush). I don't see him making the same type of mistakes Bush did with regards to foreign policy.Obama on the other hand, I just don't know. I have very little information to judge him on this. Perhaps the debates will tell us more on how he would handle certain situations when provoked(which is inevitable once the new President is sworn in).Usually, I place more importance on other aspects of the candidate. But for me personaly, my biggest concern this time around is definately foreign poilicy. I think the next few years are going to present very serious difficulties for any President. I really think Iran and North Korea are going to be a challenge for the next President. We need a cool head and someone who exudes firm confidence.Just my opinions.

Hi,You are making the assumption I would not want a hard-nosed leader on foreign policy and the military. I didn't really discuss my position on the use of military power and also on Iraq.Now that we are there, I really don't think a quick exit is prudent. Bush screwed up by going in under false pretenses but what's done is done. The next President has to clean up the mess made by Bush but I really don't think leaving is going to do anything but create an even more out-of-control zoo that we will eventually have to deal with later. I often find there is a lack of realism exhibited by both sides of the coin when discussing this issue.On this matter, I am worried that Obama, in effort to do too much too quickly, might be too hasty in our withdrawal.I also think we should not back down from Iran. That doesn't imply I think we should invade Iran, but we need to let them know we won't play games when it comes to the nuclear issue.This is not a position exclusive to conservatives. I do not consider myself a conservative. Many moderates and left-leaning pundits hold this view as well i.e. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens.Everyone has an opinion on the matter of who is in the best position to lead. It is interesting to discuss politics and share opinions but when it comes to arguing positions I don't think anyone is going to be swayed.I am not saying Obama cannot handle the situation. I just don't know anything about him. To me, he is an unknown quantity saying nice things but not saying how and when he will go about accomplishing such things without having the situation fall apart. As I said, perhaps the debates will give me more information but right now I am a little skeptical.McCain is certainly not exciting material; I dont think either candidate is to be honest. I just think he is going to be the lesser of two evils.

Hi,I take it you are not a McCain supporter. You might want to actually look at the bills and voting records and not just repeat what you read on CNN. The same applies to Republicans who get their info from Faux News. You are discussing packed Bills. There was no bill to "provide armor and equipment to the troops in Iraq" or a bill to "provide more funding to VA inpatient and outpatient services." etc..If one wants to fish, it is easy to listen to partisan soundbites that equate one line-item in a bill with the bill itself. This tactic is employed by both parties and usually is referred to as spin. Campaign staffers understand that the vast majority of voters have never actually looked at a bills contents and go by what the spin doctors and talking heads tell them.With regards to the issues, I am not sure which bills you are referring to. Please offer the date and number and inspect the line items before judging the intent of the vote. For Instance, Bill 1591 required US troops to complete a withdrawl from Iraq by March 1,2008. The bill also contained other non-related line items. It is dishonest to say someone voted against one line-item in a bill without knowing their reason for rejecting the entire bill. Specificaly, McCain refused to vote for the bill since it required a rapid withdrawl from Iraq.On the GI bill, McCain has offered his own version:http://www.vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfAPR08/nf042308-8.htmCertainly, this type of tactic makes for a good commercical: "Nasty John McCain voted against funding for the VA" or "Nasty Obama voted against support for the troops" because he voted against Bill 181. Like I said, the average voter has no clue what was in a bill so they believe what they are being told by the spin doctors. It is easy to spin a vote any way that is expedient. Too bad people can't really make up their own minds based on a truly informed opinion.In short, the political machine understands that the average voter is uninformed, gullible, and naive and prone to accepting whatever it is they wish to hear. Party loyalty turns otherwise rational people into uninformed hacks.http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...110/senate/1/votes/126McCain Voting Record:http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/McCain Key Votes :http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...bers/m000303/key-votesObama Key Votes:http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...bers/o000167/key-votesEdited by Grizz, : Added LinkEdited by Grizz, : No reason given.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Hi,You make some very good points. Although my preference is for McCain, I am using the 'lesser of two evils' approach to politics. I certainly do not have any information that would lead me to believe Obama cannot do a better job than McCain on foreign policy. I just have reservations about his experience and ability to handle Iran.I could be wrong about McCain. I am wrong on lots of things. Obama supporters could be wrong too. We all want to be right and make the correct decisions. How do you decide? Everyone has their own answer to this question. Unfortunately, we won't know if we were right or wrong until we are able to evaluate the Presidency in hindsight.When we talk about "Walk softly and carry a big stick", which one is more important?-- walking softly or carrying the big stick? These are complex issues. Perhaps after the debates I will know more, but right now I cannot honestly say Obama inspires more confidence in me than McCain on the issues of importance to me. The worse thing you could do with Iran is have them believe you are a "dove", even if you are not one.

Hi.First, let me point out that my preference for McCain does not equate to enthusiasm. It's not like I am saying, "Yee Haw ! McCain's the man!" There are things about him I don't like -- mainly, his waffling on issues. I really am not overly excited about either candidate. As already stated, my evaluation is based on 'Who can screw things up the least?"At this point, I personally find that McCain inspires more confidence in me when it comes to dealing with foreign policy and Iran. I certainly have not negated the possibility that I might change my opinion once I take in more information over the next 6 months and listen to all the debates.Other issues:Iraq:This is the tough one. We really need to have a cool head on this one and not do something we might regret in the long-term. For good or for bad, we are there and we need to really consider benefits and consequences before making any big moves. What is in the best interest of Iraq and our nation? Is just pulling out prudent? Will we be going back and cleaning up another mess when another lunatic takes power after a civil war? This is a complex issue. We can't just stay there forever but IMO we can't just have a rapid withdrawal either. There are loonies and sectarians waiting to swoop in once we leave and the Iraqis fear civil war more than anything elseOn a side note, My brother is a West Point grad on his third tour in Iraq. Our family doesn't like the fact he is there. His wife certainly doesn't like the fact he's there. But he is there and that's what he trained to do. I have had a few candid discussions with him on the issue of Iraq. I have also have talked with a couple of his Army buddies. Although they are just a few voices, they do paint a different picture than most of the info you get in the press.He never really discusses his opinions on whether we should have went in to begin with, but what everyone seems to agree on is that at the current time the US presence is the only thing keeping things from falling to pieces. They are also frustrated that the Iraqi government doesn't seem to be able to get things together. They spend a whole bunch of time and effort working with the Iraqi militia only to find half of them don't show up when their supposed to, run away from conflict, or just don't seem to want to take responsibility. He told me one story about an incident where they had trained with a militia unit for a month on patrol procedures. The day the Iraqi unit was supposed to go active and join up with my brother's company, they were left alone. They were pretty upset and when they went back to the camp they found the Iraqi platoon lying around and the leader sitting on a crate eating a sandwich. This is the kind of stuff they are dealing with. The Iraqi government and military is going to have to take charge and that's what they are training them to do. It appears this is the biggest obstacle and what is most frustrating for those troops involved in Iraq. In some cases, it appears that they don't want to take the responsibility.The Economy:The economy weighs in for me as the number two concern. Bush has spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse and I think it might be prudent to have someone with more of a fiscal conservative mind set to step up to the plate. I really need to hear more from each candidate on this. I also need to look at McCain's record a bit more. We also need to consider the recession and mortgage crisis.Energy:I believe Obama would be the better candidate when it comes to getting some type of regulations and programs in place. I think McCain might have more clout with OPEC when it comes to negotiating supply and production issues. I definitely need to hear more on this.Taxation:I would be lying if I said I was not a bit concerned that an Obama presidency will result in higher taxes. This is usually down on the list, however, and it did not stop me from voting for Kerry.Social Issues:I have to say these issues are low on my list this time around. That is not to say I think these issues are unimportant. Obama certainly gets the nod here. If we were not at war in Iraq and if Iran was not a pressing issue, I would probably be sitting here with a different opinion. But we are at war and we do face serious foreign policy issues. For me, these issues are number one on my mind. I think it depends on what issues we are discussing. Again, I must defer to my number-one concerns, which are Iran, Iraq, and Foreign policy. I respect the military experience McCain brings to the table. McCain has seen war and has faced personal danger. He is aware of the stakes, both personally and for the nation. As such, I do not see him as someone to take this lightly. McCain has seen firsthand the effects Vietnam had on a nation. Although he has expressed concerns about a withdrawal from Iraq, I do not see him as a carbon copy of Bush. I see him as someone who is much more in tune with the reality of war. I see him less likely to do something hastily.We are at war and we are likely going to face a showdown with Iran in the next two years. I see us being on the brink of a very serious situation with Iran, one that is much more serious than the problem Bush perceived with Iraq. This issue has the potential to tear the Middle East apart and lead to a very serious confrontation involving Israel. I see things coming to a head in the next two years and we will inevitably be drawn in. This overrides all other concerns and this is why I am basing my decisions on this. This is an interesting topic that probably would be a discussion in it's own right. The real issue is not whether they have the right to defend themselves. As a sovereign nation, they certainly do. The fact is, however, the international community would never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Such a situation not only presents a danger to the entire Middle East but also to the rest of the world. The problem is Iran holds extreme positions that are irrational. The leaders speak and act in irrational ways. Their stated goal is not to live peacefully, but to destroy Israel.The Middle East is a powder keg. You have Israel and it's allies, Iran and its allies, and then Russia, China, and the US who are dependant on the oil next door in Arabia. If Israel is attacked all hell is going to break loose and everyone is going to be drawn in. We will eventually be drawn in. Every Western nation agrees it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Naturally, one could argue that they should be allowed to defend themselves with their weapon of choice. This is this is not going to happen, that's just the way it is. It is too destabilizing and has the potential to bring everyone else down.I believe a confrontation between Israel and Iran is extremely likely in the next two years. I would go as far as saying it is inevitable. In some way, we will be drawn in. It is also possible we may use limited preemptive strikes on their nuclear facilities. If this happens, they are likely to attack Israel to get other Middle East nations into the fray.There are any number of scenarios, the least likely of which is nothing happens over the next for years. I believe either President is going to face serious decisions on the use of military force -- when to use it, how to use it, and to what degree. The President is going to listen to his military advisors and the chief of staff. This is where I believe personal experience comes in.

Anything is possible. Unfortunately, we base our opinions on what we are fed by the media. In most cases, they know as much about the situation as you or I can get from government sources. Obviously, we cannot really get a first-hand account and we have no way of knowing what is really going on in the minds of Iraqis. Most editorials and news bits are highly selective and often editorialized -- from both sides of the issue. Most of our ideas are formed after we have taken a stance on the issue and it becomes easy to shrug off anything that does not fit this mold.The truth is, we haven't the slightest idea what the average Iraqi really thinks. One can listen to Fox News editorials were we learn that Iraq welcomed us with open arms or you can read depressing CNN accounts that detail only the negative aspects of the US presence. We need to remember that specific groups with political agendas are going to feed us sound bites and selective news bits that reinforce their positions. This applies to both the left and the right.So, how do we really form an opinion? I don't think we can make a truly informed opinion to be honest. We do not have access to classified intelligence briefings or reports from inside Iraq. None of us are there, none of us have ever been there. We are limited to forming our opinions based on a few minutes worth of selective news bits on CNN or Fox News.I have no idea what is going on inside Iraq. IMO, anyone who is not there and claims to know is just guessing. It seems rational to conclude that the Iraqi government has to take control of the situation before a full departure takes place. If the Iraqi government issues a proclamation tomorrow telling the US they are no longer welcome then it is rational to conclude they don't want us there. Until then, a premature departure might very well spell deep trouble that creates another mess we may have to get involved with in the future.I am not saying we should not work on leaving Iraq as soon as possible. I am simply cautious about a quick exit. I believe Obama might be too hasty in a withdrawal. Perhaps he won't. If he gets elected, we shall see. Thanks. We are always expecting to hear bad news. This is his last tour before he moves into a command role at a training regiment in Italy. The obvious question then is, why not just let in the inspectors to do their job? Nobody is saying Iran cannot have reactors. When they took on the material they agreed to the terms of the deal which states they could not use the facilities to generate weapons-grade plutonium. All the UN wants to do is check a few things, take a few samples back to the lab. This will tell the UN if Iran is on the road to creating weapons-grade Plutonium. Iran will not allow this. Why? I really am not troubled by this. From a military perspective, I think McCain was expressing what most soldiers in Vietnam probably thought.

Sorry, I overlooked this one. That nobody from the Iranian government condemns or recants his insane diatribes indicates either covert support for his words or indicates a government out of touch.Did you by chance get to listen or read Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia when he was in the US? If you haven't, I suggest you check it out -- if for anything, a good laugh. Every other thing he said was totally irrational and absurd. The audience was literally laughing at him. At one point, they were rolling in their chairs."We don't have any gays in Iran. Only the US has those evil things."If this man believes all the insane things he says, he is out of touch with reality and borderline insane. If he does not believe them but is doing this to simply appease those back home, this indicates a nation out of touch with reality. Either way, a lot of things he says in his speeches are quite insane and someone is out of touch with reality. That the Iranian government does nothing to condemn or recant his insane quotes indicates, at minimum, a serious credibility problem.

I consider myself an independent and am pretty moderate on most issues. I am not a party hack and really am not trying to convince anyone they should vote for McCain. I am supplying the reason why I currently support McCain and am doing so on the basis of his record on the major issues of importance to me. As stated, foreign policy and the handling of Iraq and Iran are most important in my decision. The budget and economy come in as a close second. Major key votes and sponsored bills tell me more about how one is likely to proceed with foreign policy than how one votes on budget appropriations or amendments to existing bills.As already stated, McCain's record shows he is a fiscal conservative. He does not seem the type to spend taxpayer funds unless it can be shown that the funds are going to be used with efficiency and accountability. Bush has been anything but fiscally conservative. He has spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse and I believe it necessary that someone with a more fiscally conservative approach try to get the budget back to the condition it was in during the pre-Bush era. I did read it and it is not "my" source. It is a relatively unbiased source that deals with issues important to veterans. In fact, it's about as unbiased as you will get on the issue from the perspective of veterans. Obviously, not everyone agrees with McCain's approach and this is clear in the article. If you read VA news, McCain has always made it clear from the beginning that he opposes the current structure of the VA system and has worked to sponsor and introduce a new GI bill that in his view would be more efficient and productive. McCain has always fought hard for an overhaul of the VA system and has always opposed the current status quo. This is nothing new. He has also been constantly opposed in this efforts.I myself am a veteran and part of my undergraduate education was paid for using the GI Bill. I can use the VA facilities for medical care but why don't I? To be quite frank, because they suck. Talk to veterans and 90% of them will likely tell you the same thing -- they use their employers/wife's/school/family medical policy even though the VA benefits are available. Ask a veteran when and if they use VA facilities and they will likely say, "Only if I have to." Also, nearly every veteran will be puzzled by the fact that more and more money goes into the system but it never gets any better.I am not really disturbed by Mcain's opposition to the status quo because I understand his intentions and he realizes his vote will have no effect. He understands very well his opposition is in the minority. I don't think his goal is to screw anyone over. Although many Veterans would disagree with McCains position against the status quo, they will mostly agree with McCain's reasoning --the system sucks and needs an overhaul and nobody is paying attention. We keep throwing more money into a system that doesn't appear to do anything at all to address its shortcomings. Most would agree that the VA system is not getting better, it is getting worse. How can this be when we keep throwing more money into the VA system? This has been McCain's gripe all along.Accountability is an issue in the system. None of the policy makers seem to care about change because they are too afraid of the consequences of voting against current bills and sponsoring their own. Simply throwing more money at the system obviously is not fixing the problems so why do we continue to just add more and more funds and not address the problems or attempt to overhaul the system? McCain has tried to introduce bills but has been shot down.If you read the news and VA reports you will in fact see McCain has been trying to draw attention to this issue. For the past two years he has been saying that given the lessons learned from manpower issues in Iraq, any new benefits that are added to the current ones should be dependant on the years served. For example, Instead of four years of college for three years of service, why not give a year of tuition for each year served? Not only does this gives one the incentive to stay on longer, it address potential manpower issues and puts less strain on recruitment and budgets. It also frees up funds to restructure the current VA health system and requires less expenditures in training new soldiers.Example: You spend $100,000 to train a new soldier in a technical specialty and they leave after three years because they have no further incentive to stay on. You then have to train another soldier in his place when you could have added an extra year of service and received more benefit from the inititial training outlay. Every year you don't have to train a new recruit, the more money saved.McCain has never said the goal is to deny services. He simply believes services like tuition reimbursement should be contingent upon years of service. Funds saved from this change could then go into revamping the healthcare issues within the VA system. He sees this as a much better method than just throwing more money at a system that never gets any better. It also addressed manpower issues. Of course, many do not agree with this approach but these are the things he has been proposing. His we have been stuffing more money into the VA system for decades but it only gets worse.It is dishonest to say his goal is to screw over the soldiers or to take away benefits. It is also a little crazy to think, prior to an election year, he would vote down any such funds if his intent was not as stated. The only result would be creating opposition with your own base and making a mockery of yourself with veterans. McCain believes the system is screwed and needs to be fixed. But I can just as easily mention every item Obama voted against and without trying to figure out his rationale, simply state "See, he obviously is trying to screw [enter your interest here]. He is being mean with sinister motives and is out to screw over [enter your interest here]. To really look at it objectively it helps if you try to take into context all other factors and not simply see something you want to.Regarding the other issues your brought up: troop deployments, redeployments etc...This vote is always split along party lines. Democrats opposing the deployment and Republicans wanting to keep the status quo. Nothing new here.I see this as a reality of manpower rather than a disregard for solders. Planners have realized that in order to maintain current troop levels you either: 1) start up a draft or 2) use rapid redeployments. I really don't want to sound cold or callous about this but I must bring this up -- this is the military. We are at war in Iraq. One signs the papers knowing in advance this scenario could happen; It's in the fine print. The only reason the military exists is to prepare and train for war.Serving in the military is a SACRIFICE. You are being asked to potentially do things that require great personal hardship for you and your family. You do not sign up for the armed forces with the idea you might go on a comfortable field trip and get to pick and choose when and for how long you are deployed. If you did, then you are either misinformed or naive. The fact is, especially in the Guard and Reserve, many signed up simply to get the benefits, believing they would just serve a few weeks a year and reap the benefits that come with it.In your contract it is clearly stated that in the event of a conflict you could be deployed for very long periods of time -- your duty can be extended indefinitely. It further states that such deployments will depend on the manpower needs of your service branch at the time and place of a conflict. It then goes on to ask you to attest by your signature and oath that you are fully aware of this potentiality and being of sound mind, agree without any reservation to fulfill the terms of this contract, should you be called upon to do so.If you are concerned with this type of hardship being a possibility, it is at that point that you should walk away, not when you are being ordered to deploy. This is always a possibility. If you do not want this potential burden then do not sign up for the military .I agree this is not for everybody but nobody is forcing you to make the final decisions to join. You join of your own free will knowing the potential consequences for you and your family should the situation warrant your deployment in any manner sees fit.During WWII and WWI you didn't come home until the war was over. During Vietnam, a soldier typically had a one year deployment. The current shortage in manpower has created the necessity of quick redeployments. Such is the nature of military life. You go when you are ordered. This is not about neglecting to care for the soldiers. As you find in any branch of the military, you do not do what is in your own interests first. You do what is in the best interest of your unit, your service branch, and the nation. In the military you learn very quickly that your interests come last. You are part of a team. That's the job of a soldier. If they say we are short and you must redeploy rapidly, you redeploy rapidly. That's why the words Service and Sacrifice are used so often when discussing the military.Yes it sucks for those on deployment and yes it involves hardship. But you did in fact agree to do this. You are giving up your freedom and facing the unknown and facing the uncertainty of deployment at any time and for any length. This may sound harsh and uncaring but any such complaint in the service would be met with the screaming reply, "What did you expect? What do you think you are here for? This is the Army. This ain't no frickin day job."

Regarding Audacity of Hope: I purchased the audio book on Itunes. I have been listening to the audio over the course of the past week and just finished up.I would say I have more respect for Obama on a personal level now that I have heard at least a bit more about his vision. Unfortunately, however, the more I listened the more I kept thinking that the book might have been better titled, "'The way things would be in a perfect world." I still have not heard anything of substance which might lead me to conclude he has any specific plans to make his vision a reality.A couple of things I kept waiting for but never heard: First, I was hoping he would take a controversial stance on something - anything. Iraq, Gay Marriage, Abortion -- just take a stand and don't wish-wash in the middle. In the book, he says all the right things but does so without really ever taking a stand on anything specific. Of course all Americans need health care, good paying jobs, and social stability. What is your plan to make this happen? I never heard the answer to this. In the book, Obama seemed to be giving a motivational speech rather than supplying a specific agenda for change. At times, it is as if Obama was implicitly telling the reader that, "I am the solution to every problem that faces America."It also irks me that both candidates give lip service to the middle-class but fail to address a very glaring problem for many middle-class Americans: The "American Dream" seems to be going overseas to India as more and more jobs are out-sourced, especially in the CIS and Tech sectors. Many of these middle-class, "Good Paying Jobs" are being sold for the lowest bid to foreign employment agencies. I believe neither candidate will do anything to address this because of the influence of the lobby.Obama supplies a wonderfully positive and upbeat account of a vision for unity, justice, and happiness for all. Unfortunately, Audacity of Hope reads more like Plato's Republic and never goes beyond an abstract vision. I hate to say it, but Obama is "hoping" for too much. This isn't a perfect world and Washington doesn't give two shakes about words, outside of their PR value. If Obama hopes to accomplish anything, he needs to learn how to be a slick politician -- that's reality.The next President will face very serious challenges with very serious consequences. If Obama hopes to accomplish anything, he needs to be less of a visionary and more of a pragmatist. Forget about the earth-shattering changes -- it's not going to happen overnight. Develop a realistic agenda and stick to your guns. I have more respect for a politicians who tells it like it is, even when the vision is not popular. Obama has not really stood on any platform -- he has just made very idealistic references to justice and the pursuit of happiness.Where's the beef?Perhaps I will learn more in the debates.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

I am not a big fan of Obama; however, those comments from his book are totally taken out of context and represent nothing but a partisan attempt to play the race card. Obama is/was giving an honest and candid assesment of race relations in America during the civil rights era.