Muhammed is the only founder of a religious faith to have also had temporal authority- unlike Jesus, Buddha etc. Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Muhammed was both God's agent and Caesar. That distinction doesn't exist in Islam.

The tenets of Islam deal not only with the spiritual aspects but also prescribe and proscribe very specific individual behaviour. In fact it is a requirement that "good muslims" live under sharia and if they are not then actively work towards it.

Does that make Islam facist- not necessarily. In fact but for their view on God - Islam shares many of the same tenents as communism. The point is not to demonize Islam or to support some of outlandish comments- but to make the point that considering Islam to just another religion or to demonizeit misses the complexity of the situation

Colorado, Nebraska and Virginnia- each with a Democratic Senator, retiring Republican and carried by Obama. (NM also falls into this category and HRC and Obama tied)

Alaska, MN, Maine and Oregon- all with vulnerable Republican Senators and all won by Obama except for Oregon . (NH also falls into this category where HRC edged Obama).

So the question who helps at the top of the ticket in getting Democrats elected- HRC or Obama?

Bottom line unless Democrats have increased legislative majorities doesn't matter who is in the WH. Does anybody honestly believe that HRC health plan has a snow balls chance in hell of getting passed as long as there are 40 Republicans in the Senate?

Lord Palmerston said over 150 years ago- countries don't don't have permanent friends only permanent interests.

It is delusional to think that Pakistan would help the United States. A pro western pro Indian government (particularly pro Indian)in Afghanistan is something that the current generation of Pakistani leadership can't accept. FYI -Hamid Karzai has spent a considerable amount of time in India when the Taliban were in control in Afghanistan.

Until Pakistan comes to terms with India by recognizing that the rivalry is over and India won- (India's GDP is seven times larger and growing faster than Pakistan's which means that Pakistan can't win an arms race with India.)peace can't come to Afghanistan. All Pakistan can do is meddle in Kashmir which India counters with creating trouble for Pakistan in Baluchistan and NWFP which in turn creates the need for Pakistan to meddle in Afghanistan.

I think HRC wanting Greenspan's advice is probably the best example of somebody stuck in a time warp unable to tell the difference between good economic advice from bad and a little girl reading a poem from sniper fire.

Greenspan has been a fraud from the day he became Chairman of the Fed. As a private economist his track record was not much better. He has basically been a shill for Wall Street. Don't take my word for it do your own research- at every critical turning point he was wrong. In 2000 just before capital spending fell of a cliff Greenspan said he saw no sign of a slow down, or after the Asian crisis "it defies belief to believe that the US will remain an island of stability" wrong!!! the following quarters the US economy had some of its strongest growth period.

Like Bill Clinton Greenspan was the beneficiary of some mega global trends- China with its vast pool of cheap labor getting incorporated into the world economy, the internet, fiber optic cables and vast expansion in computing power. This was period similar to boom experienced with the introduction of rail roads and then electricity. Even he couldn't screw it up then but we are paying the price now for a Fed Chairman who rather than remove the punch bowl (as his predecessors would have done) spiked instead- party on!

I think this highlights a significant distinction between HRC and Obama. HRC approach as she demonstrated in the failed health care plan is to nail down all the details, develop "the perfect plan" and then "fight" to get people on board. Obama I believe(as did Ronald Reagan) sees the Presidential role as setting the general direction and then working the political process to move in that direction. The problem with setting forth a detailed proposal is that any compromises are seen as losses and it is real easy to get bogged down in the weeds. Good facilitators understand this.

In many respects this election is about what we want from the President. Somebody who tells us what to do or somebody who helps "we the people" achieve a more perfect union somebody who recognizes the inherent genius of the people working collectively. In this respect I would disagree with your assertion and argue that Obama is more Friedman and less Keynes. It also explains the great generation divide in this election. Younger Americans are more used to the facilitator and less used to the command and control of the elder generation.

I don't think that endorsements mean that much. But what I think is more important is that Sen. Casey has gone from being undecided to being an Obama supporter. Perhaps the same change in thinking is taking place amongst "Casey democrats" a demographic groups that has not been Obama supporters so far. I think the "sniper affair" has fatally damaged Clinton because it plays directly into an impression that people have of the Clintons- there was reason he was know as "Slick Willy" or that William Safire called her a congenital liar. I for one would prefer a President who I believed was telling me the truth even if I disagreed with him/her than somebody who said what I agreed with but couldn't trust.