Mr. Talbot, et. al,

On the assertion that Sen. Obama would ‘clearly’ make the better president I disagree. While Sen. McCain might not be the best choice we could have had, he is the best choice we have been given. I believe that the world will be a better place in 20 years because of what Bush has done, and after we are finished cleaning up the mess. This isn’t the forum to argue the political and military reasons for his decisions, but with an understanding of the long-range philosophy I believe we made the correct choice, just used the wrong mythology. President Bush made a mess of things and could have done things much, much better on most things, but wile we are free to judge him now I will reserve my final judgment after sufficient time has elapsed. Bush aside, the world is as it is, and the leader of our great nation needs certain innate qualities to succeed: national pride; belief in what this country stands for; strong national defense; economics; and patience. While Sen. Obama may be the potential stronger economic leader, he severely lacks in the other areas I deem critical for a good president. The democratic faithful have been lured into following him by his smooth speech, charisma, looks, and they are figuring everything will work out in the end, without even knowing the path they are walking. Lured by the piper, but towards the cliff or valley we can’t yet tell. He seems to have the potential to be a great president, but there are great risks in electing him.

I don't see Sen. Obama as any of those; I don't seem him giving us 4 years of prosperity; I see 4 years of knee-jerk politics; I see 4 years of under-informed immature decisions. When I was young, going on road trips with the grandparents, often we would wake in the morning and my grandfather would drive us back the way we came by mistake.

In electing Sen. Obama to the White house, I see 4 years of us driving backwards.

It is always nice to see one more example of the impartiality of the media. I don’t think David Talbot is posting this piece as a member of the media; he is posting as a member of the Democratic party. And on a site that ‘reports’ the news, the lines are getting a little thin.

vr

Will Fox

I absolutely love it when a blatantly leftist publication has the gumption to complain about right-leaning reporting of the war. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall when they were discussing how to pose this piece without coming off as liberal tools. Should have talked a little longer guys.

While I agree the journalism should be independent of political funding, and these guys may or may not be, it is not reasonable to expect an individual not to bias their reporting with their views. Slate is as good an example as BlackFive (full disclosure I regularly read BlackFive and occasional post responses).

The worst thing that could happen to the left is for the right to gain a foothold in the media and entertainment industry. Without all that free advertising, would they be enjoying a majority in congress and a candidate for President who assumes he is already the President?

Will Fox

Fox news is not part of the media?

True. But I would argue that the leftist bias of the media itself created the market for a right-leaning news organization. Fair and balanced reporting is a myth, on both sides.

_________

Let's Just Call These Pro-War Iraqi Vets By The Correct Name: SUCKERS.

Perhaps the strangest aspect of these suckers who served in Iraq and support this war..

_________

Suckers? Wow. Show some respect to those that serve even if you don't agree with their service and sacrifices.

"slick, unqualified, right-wing extremist and religious zealot in designer glasses"

Could be re-written for The Obamath:

"slick, unqualified, left-wing extremist and religious zealot in designer suits"