Thanks for a lucid post.

I'm particularly interested by this:

His statement that he would meet with leaders of "rogue" nations "without preconditions" is naive at best and reckless at worst. I read somewhere that there are only two things that could enhance Ahmedinajad's standing among the Iranian people (where his popularity is quite shaky). One is to invade Iran, the other is for the president of the US to meet with him.

If you'd care to educate me, I'd love to hear more about this.

Granting your premise that a meeting with Ahmedinajad could enhance his standing among the Iranian people, ergo what?

What does this actually mean, in other words? That right now there's a greater chance of his being deposed or losing an election because the US' isolation of his country is embittering Iran?

If the Obama met with him without precondition, would that embolden Iran vis a vis Israel?

Maybe in simplest terms, my question is what are the concrete scenarios that such a meeting could produce?

Again, thanks for making this point, it's a good one and I'm quite interested.

... is that she has consistently taken both positions on the war, despite both sides demanding that she explain herself.

We're supposed to believe that all that was to mollify the right-wing for the general election, and once in office, she'd show her true liberal colors.

They're supposed to believe that all that was to mollify us, and once in office, she'd show her true warrior colors.

Well, some months into the campaign, I now believe the truth is the latter. She's insulted my intelligence too many times for me to give her the benefit of the doubt when she won't even take an unequivocal stand now.

Even if she did sill harbor some anti-war sentiment, down hidden away in a back corner of her otherwise compromised mind, she'd probably kill a few million Iranians to set herself up for 2012. She'd do it. You'd forgive her.

None of the other candidates who voted for the war have been so brazen in their refusal to apologize for it, or admit it was a mistake.

If Dodd continued to support a war that only he and George Bush felt was warranted, I wouldn't have given him my support, either.

It's nothing personal against Hillary. I wanted Kucinich first, then Dodd, then Edwards, and now Obama. Hillary had all this time to repudiate her disgusting actions, and has completely failed to do so.

Issues tend to be complex and don't easily lend themselves to quick blog posts, but I'll try to give it a shot. For me the major issue I have with Obama is foreign policy. I understand that for many liberals posting here his policy positions are a plus. For me, I view him as inexperienced, naive, and misguided. I really don't want to rehash the whole pissing match about Hillary's experience, but my feeling is that at least she has been "around" foreign policy decision-making and better understands the complexities of how the game is played. (That goes for domestic policy as well).

Both Clinton and Obama have promised to "end" the war in Iraq "quickly". I don't believe either of them. And, in fact,one of Obama's policy advisors (don't quite remember who, maybe Rice) early on backed away from his assertion saying something like "well, of course he will have to consider the circumstances" (I can find the exact quote if pressed). So, as far as Iraq is concerned I view all three candidates as pretty much a wash (I don't expect agreement on this, just stating my view). His statement that he would meet with leaders of "rogue" nations "without preconditions" is naive at best and reckless at worst. I read somewhere that there are only two things that could enhance Ahmedinajad's standing among the Iranian people (where his popularity is quite shaky). One is to invade Iran, the other is for the president of the US to meet with him.

So, on that score perhaps Obama and McCain are equally dangerous. I do, however, think it would be harder for McCain to invade (especially with a democratic congress) than for Obama to hold a meeting. He states that he would not meet with Hamas unless they acknowledge Israel's right to exist. But Ahmadinejad has also denied that right, yet Obama has no problem meeting with him. Although in his latest version I believe he hinted that he would meet with the Mullahs rather than Ahmadinejad (as if that is somehow different).

He has already dumped about half of his foreign policy advisors (Powers, Malley, McPeak, etc.) But I think Brzezinski is still around. Brzezinski who takes credit for creating the Mujahedeen and considers the "blowback" of 9/11 worth it for pushing the Soviets out of Afghanistan. I live in NYC and lost friends in the WTC, so that's no small thing to me. There is much more, including other "characters" with whom he has surrounded himself that speak to his judgment, but I think I'll stop here. As I said, issues are complex and I'm confident that there will be much disagreement with what I have said. I'm not in the mood to argue the points.

I'll just say one more thing about domestic policy. Health care. Obama's plan will not work. It has no chance. Clinton's plan might have little chance, but his has none. Anyone who understands the least bit about risk pools and how insurance works knows that you can't allow all of the young and healthy to "opt out". Anyway, those are just two reasons I support Clinton over Obama. The nastiness and sneaky use of psychological manipulation by his campaign (again I anticipate disagreement from the usual quarters) is just additional cause for alienation, not the primary reason. I think both McCain and Obama are dangerous. Come November I will just have to decide who is more dangerous. I will vote for down-ticket democrats. In fact, my republican congressman just got himself involved in a scandal (for a change) so that seat looks promising. We'll see.