He's starting to actually say something. I'm glad Hillary Clinton spat in his face. It was what he may have needed to drop the caution. I'll start taking him seriously now.

A lot of people out here have been sporting Obama stickers, but no one really seemed to know where or what he was about.

I was leaning towards Edwards, his 2 americas resonated with me, or Kucinich. and you knew were they stood on 1 or more things.

This makes me think Obama has a better understanding of the US as a nation in the world as a member and leader, not as the "benevolent" dictator/super power we have been acting like since the cold war.

But what concerns me is that Obama has neither the experience nor the critical eye, or skepticism, to really represent our interests.

Sometimes, and I know this may seem superficial, I see in him the same "who, me?" dazed look that I see in Bush. It does not inspire confidence.

While I'm glad to see Obama state that he would talk to anybody, that seems like a no-brainer in my own set of morals. In other words, I'm not sure that recommends him so much as proves that he shouldn't be dismissed.

That said, I'm more troubled by the indication that Obama wants to keep the "war on terror" going -- as though being "tough" is what's needed. I think the US has committed crimes far worse than any other nation in this millennium and what a real leader would do is admit that and make good by promoting not just talks, but a total change in policy.

I realize that given the media drumbeat that says the US is always right and the wide belief that we are, you couldn't just come out and say what I propose above, but there are ways to say it and be heard respectfully. At the very least, you don't have to keep pushing fiction and buy into the war on terror.

Hilary's up in the polls again. I must confess to be confounded by this result. Just another case of nobody ever going broke underestimating the American public, I suppose.

not so fast and not necessarily ...

Obama has the freedom to "talk tough" because, having no actual power, not actually being president, his words are unlikely to throw (wobbly) Musharrif out of power.

As I understand it, if we actually make an insursion into Paksitani "sovereign territory" Musharrif stands to lose the support of the MILITARY ... which as a MILITARY DICTATOR ... is likely "all she wrote."

As far as I can tell, Pakistani politics, like most third world politics -- and certainly most third world military dictatorships -- is cognizant of, if not obediant to, the will of the great unwashed masses and in Pakistan from most I've read, those great unwashed masses consider the Taliban and Bin Laden as god-fearing freedom fighters against infidel imperialists ... or something like that.

I think it's likely that Hillary is going to nail Obama's ass to the wall on this one.

I'm glad somebody injected some common sense into Washington's belief that we can get other countries to do our will by treating them as optical illusions. Here in Florida the disgruntled Cuban immigrants of Miami have successfully dragged Uncle Sam around by the nose for the past 49 years. Maybe the fact that Mr. Obama hasn't been in the Senate more than a couple of years is a plus.

I watched a YouTube Clip and had a Spanish speaker translate for me to be sure. Chavez went on for 6 full minutes namecalling Bush. On and on and on and on. Just childish yelling. I guess that's productive to some people. I'm just wondering what you think is a diplomatic approach to that? And what is it you think they would want from us, other than the obvious Great Boogeyman role for us to play in order to cower and drumbeat his own populace?

Syria and Iran at least claim to have some quasi rational agenda. Syria wants hard currency & 10% of Israel and Iran wants a third of Iraq. Those are least are goals one can haggle with. We could negotiate from the position of appeasement or at least handing over our regional role to them and they can make the area confederacy reaching from Southern Lebanon to Iran in an arc across what we used to call the Fertile Crescent. But again at least those are tangible.

... but he is afraid the world will end if two gay people marry each other?

I can't take any candidate seriously who not only doesn't support equality for all people (and this from a candidate whose own parents' marriage was illegal in the US until 1967!) but would extend an olive branch to murderers before he would allow two Americans in a loving, committed relationship to be able to visit each other in the hospital without a court order.

What a disgrace.

Sen. Obama stated, in rather simplified terms, that he'd meet with any other world leader without preconditions. Sen. Clinton specifically criticized THAT as "irresponsible and somewhat naive."

Clinton did NOT say that there is any country or leader that the U.S. should not talk to; her criticism was clearly directed towards any PRESIDENT committing to talk WITHOUT PRECONDITION to any and all around the world.

As Obama correctly pointed out, freezing out dangerous countries and leaders so that there is NO contact at ANY level is itself stupid and dangerous. But Clinton cannot be hung with the insulting idea that she endorses the Bush approach of such diplomatic freezes -- with some countries, there MUST be preconditions before full and open PRESIDENTIAL involvement is justified.

Hillary Clinton is absolutely correct about this issue. Her position is crystal clear, and its distortion to fit Obama's current tactic of painting her as "Bush Light" is despicable.

Obama's a sharp guy; he's smart, and he's articulate. He's definitely not the stunned chicken that is George Bush, nor the DLC accent chameleon that is Hillary Clinton. I think it's good that he's not only standing strong on his original points, but is expanding on them, further raising his profile, taking control of the message. We need more of this from him, not less.

And aren't people ever tired of the "madman leader" slur that is invariably thrown on anybody in the Third World our government doesn't like? Chavez enjoys playing the gadfly with Bush, but he was democratically elected by Venezeulans -- remember that Bush/Cheney supported the brief military coup against him, so why shouldn't he be pissed off about that? Or is anybody we don't like just immediately branded as insane? That sounds, well, crazy to me.

North Korea's leadership is definitely whacked, but they're crazy like foxes, too. But the rest? Nah. Sorry, I don't buy it. Angry at us, yes. Enjoying pissing us off, certainly. But insane? How could anybody look at American politics today and seriously accept that kind of verdict coming from a country that voted for Bush/Cheney not once, but twice? And for Hillary Clinton to go along with that kind of approach to try to look tough, shameful.

Unless anybody going against the sole superpower's plan for the world must therefore be insane -- it's alot like the old attack the Kremlin used within the USSR against dissidents, how they'd institutionalize them, because anybody going against the dictates of the Kremlin had to be insane! Wrongthink! Freeze them out, they're loonies!

Look to the Clinton Cadres to work hard this week and next to change the conversation, because they've lost this one, and they don't even realize it, yet. Kudos to Obama for kicking it up a notch, and for trying to break the US out of the "my way or the highway" straitjacket of preconditioned negotiation -- that shows intelligence, integrity, and courage on his part. The pundits will be pissed!