Like a previous writer, I was born in Africa. I spent about half of my childhood in Liberia and Kenya. As an adult I have travelled rather a lot, and lived in Italy. I disagree with that previous writer, in that I grew up with a strongly global perspective that I do not believe can be gained so easily by a person who grew up in the Midwest (I lived there, too, by the way) and whose foreign experience is that of a privileged traveller and as a First Lady or a Senator or any other US leader. Obama is introducing a new element to the foreign policy arena: the experience of actually observing and living with a completely foreign set of values and world views. Like him, my experience overseas has not diminished, but rather nourished my patriotism and love of m country. However, I will never shed my perspective that what this one country does or thinks is not by any means the only or the best way to act or to see the world. With his family background, his overseas experience in his formative years, added to his bent for true consensus building, I think that Obama offers what no other candidate can in this increasingly global economy and political arena. I want Barack Obama to lead my country into the uncertain global future.

The fallacy of the democrats in anti-war posture asserting foreign policy wherewithal is humorous were it not so frightening.The fact that Senator Obama is the front-runner in Iowa with such limited diplomatic and governmental administrative experience indicates the Mule Party is vacuaously running on empty rhethoric and Bush-bashing: if only we, the American people, can rid ourselves of the hated-Bush, the international world order led by Venezuela and Iran will swoon over the left-wing overtures and promises of pacifism emanating from the front-running senator.

The power of Clintonism has not changed: run as a moderate to conservative mature candidate, bash bush(it works), show understanding of financial markets (while investing in foreign countries under husband's name for future favor-mongerings and rentals of the lincoln bedroom.)Hillary knows that the American voters elected Bush over Kerry in 2004 irrespective of the Gore drama of 2000.To date, the Bush administration record on Iraq has been mired in media left-wing anti-war subterfuge which does not allow for lucid and candid examination. The fact that Barrack will never invade another country or never refuse to talk to dictators in the vain hopes of changing their perspectives only shows shallowness behind the school boy charm: a glaring signal that his candidacy is not designed to go the distance.

The more serious candidate (Sen. Clinton)suffers form the same tired world view that America is the enemy of the "world" so neither could ever wield any modicum of respect from the U.S. military: to wit, they will spend every waking hour attempting to dismantle the Department of Defense, underfund military campaigns, pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, while pretending that there is probable "common ground" with chavez and ahmadenijag!

America is imperiled by these wannabe leaders of the once-free world: they have more in common with Castro than with Bush: and for that they are essentially proud. Losers.

...have their white counterparts right here in our own backyard.

Some of the most notable posters here like --elephanthead and alicengerty --push the 'no carrots' but just every dirty trick and stick and sanction and punishment and torture tactic and cluster bomb and DPD tipped missile from the Bush/Cheney manual on foreign policy, and you think everyone else is bad??

You aren't anywhere near as 'special' or different...or better ..than they are after all. So get over yourselves.

Just to give you further proof of your own brutality -you Southern Right wingers especially -America is the only nation in the entire world with laws publicly approving and allowing the execution of juveniles.

You and your Fox friends like to hide behind the moral chant of 'protecting children', when in fact you approve of killing them. Here and abroad.

is where I stopped reading what Obama had to say.

1. Who died and made him -- or "we," -- in charge of Iran's behavior?

2. Has anyone in the US, Obama included, given any indication that they have the least little inkling what Iran is about, what it wants, and what it is doing ON ITS OWN to achieve its own sovereign, autonomous, Iran-centric goals?

We must have a much more effective set of sanctions and measured sticks that we should apply to get Iran to change its behavior.

I assume that in order to properly handle foreign policy, diplomacy, and all other aspects of dealing with the various questions of the U.S. co-existing in this world, Obama would first have to consult Oprah Winfrey who announced yesterday that she is going to be campaigning for Barack in Iowa and any other place she is needed.

After all, Oprah has all kinds of skills and a message to deliver from her favorite candidate. Her experience in politics extends from weight loss to that of self designated family counselor and her own brand of religious credentials,coupled with all that talk show experience. She also has a huge mansion in California with 15 bath rooms and 10 fireplaces and a spouting fountain on her huge lawn. This should impress all the poor folk who are being foreclosed upon, jobless, hungry, and ill without proper health insurance, and speak wonders for our image and dexterity in dealing with foreign policy.

Obama clearly knows all the answers. Ask Oprah.

Yawn.

The pool of voters who would not consider voting for someone because he's black, or because he lived in a Muslim country for part of his childhood, or because his name rhymes with a terrorist's name, are not a pool of voters who would ever vote for a Democrat, anyway.

With the group of voters who might possibly avoid voting for Obama based on any of those non-reasons, the best the Democrats can hope for is to give those people as little reason as possible to show up to vote. So far, the Republicans have done their part to assure this, since their pool of candidates is astonishingly underwhelming to their constituency. It just becomes a question of which Democrat is more likely to inspire that group of people to vote *against* them.

There is a percentage of that group that is not merely nasty-minded but genuinely confused and actually *does* think that Obama is a Muslim. I forwarded my dad's email to a new account for him and I saw chain letter evidence of this confusion. Among that group of truly befuddled, culturally illiterate people, some of them might be inspired to vote against Obama based upon this confusion. However, the number of people who would be inspired to show up to vote against Clinton is significantly higher; the Republicans have not spent 15 years campaigning against her for naught. This seems to be their entire strategy.

Ultimately I think the most important and positive thing that can come out of this election cycle is an attitude reboot. The Bush Republicans will never, ever admit their error. This is a group that is categorically incapable of doing so. And it's pointless to try to force them to admit this. Another Clinton presidency will simply fuel their continued resentment and further their nasty attitudes. It's not worth it. I think she's perfectly okay, but she's not so extraordinary in any way that the good she could do would outweigh the negatives of perpetuating our national inability to converse in our inside voices for the next eight years, and no other Democrat is a real contender.