I served on a nuclear powered cruiser as part of a battle group. Many of you that speak of a carrier being a "target" do not understand how battle groups work or the strategies of the Navy. At some point I think people need to realize without first-hand experience, you probably aren't getting all the information to make a solid opinion of the subject.

This documentary looks interesting because it represents or tries to represent the reality of part of our military. You could argue all you want that our military is not needed or that this is idolizing war. However, it is reality. We have a military and this doesn't look like it's going to change no matter who the president is. So if someone tries to represent that reality, you immediately condemn it and the people it represents?

Perhaps you should see the documentary first and accept the fact you don't know everything about the topic before forming an opinion of it, or the people who live in the military.

Everyone talks about Cheney like he is delusional and that there is no way Iraq could have WMD, but how can someone in the blogsphere that practices armchair goverment be any more informed than him? He does have access to information that normal people do not.

Of course, there are many reports that suggest there are no weapons but look at it from his perspective and I for one don't put much faith in the idea either. However, he believes they were there and that they still exist. He believes he was right. What would you do if you believed they existed? More importantly, what happens if he finds something?

You're right, he does need to get more to specifics and try and mix his powerful speeches with more ideas. When I saw him in Seattle it was the standard stump speech. He spoke of giving out more money for college for service to the country, etc but not much else. I also think a debate where he could put Hillary on the defensive from her recent comments would be a very good place to make some distinctions between the two, which I think is what we all want.

The key here though is not that he make differences between him and Hillary as much as between McCain. By standing up and talking about more issues and solutions he'll begin to transition from a primary candidate to a general election candidate, which is exactly what he needs to begin doing.

As per factcheck, that bill raised taxes on the oil companies. Why does Hillary keep saying it was a "boon" to them when it's not true? Better yet, why isn't anyone mentioning it anymore?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dems_face_youtube_interrogators.html

She's misrepresenting the Bill for political gain yet Obama is the "liar" and the "disgusting" one?

If this long primary (as if it has been somehow different from any other primary in terms of when states voted) has taught me anything is, that it's too long. Sure there are some advantages but mostly this drag out fight between two people can be seen as a large disadvantage. Regardless of who you support, both of their negatives have risen. Sure, you can argue that the gaffes and such come out now and not in the general, but it's all fair game. The republicans will use the sniper story and Rev. Wright regardless.

To Hillary's defense (even though I support Obama), she's not asking to change the rules. She is only trying to change the debate so the superdelegates go to her side. Those are the rules and she knows they are. If the superdelegates decide to vote en mass for Hillary, they are perfectly within the rules to do so. Would they "overturn" the will of the voters? Perhaps, but within the rules of the system they can. Will they? Probably not. Most of them have to worry about their own political careers. However, most of us know this and I'm simply preaching to the choir.

However, the process should change. The long primary season only prolongs an unsure process. I would be all for letting the candidates go to the last state *if* there were no superdelegates. It is my belief that we should build election systems that function best when we need them the most. FL in 2000 is a perfect example of a failed election system. This primary is looking like it could be another. What we have is a system that works fine when things aren't close, but the minute we get within 1%, it begins to fail when we need it most. For example, a study on the electoral college for presidential elections verified that the system has overturned the popular vote more times when the vote was close than when it wasn't. How can we rely on such a system in the times of heated campaigns for the future of our country? I don't believe we can.

We need to do is have people like Howard Dean really stand up and lead for a better system of elections. We need them to work so well that if a candidate wins by 1 vote, everyone can agree on the result. Maybe this is a pipe dream but why we can't try to improve on our system shouldn't be. We should be debating this more than the same stories we've run through the news mill again and again this election season.