Given Obama is in first place in the newest Newsweek poll of Iowa likely caucus goers, his positive message seems to be getting through.

The new numbers put Obama at 28, Clinton at 24, and Edwards at 22.  When second choices are factored in, Obama gets 52, compared to Clinton's 44, and Edwards' 41.  In a caucus state like Iowa where both first and second choices are pivotal to who ultimately wins, this is great news for the Obama campaign.

I think you reporters are giving the candidates a pass by not nailing them down on the controversial pardons of Bush I and Clinton.  I think they should have to tell us, in detail,  how they would use the pardoning power and whether they would have made those pardons.  Weinberger, Eliot Abrams, Orlando Bosch and Robert McFarlane are the controversial ones, IMO, from Bush I.  Susan MacDougal, Roger Clinton, Marc Rich and his partner, clients of the Rodham Brothers are the ones from Clinton.   We should get some insight into how candidates view the pardon power.  Recent presidents have used the power of pardon and commutation like they think they are kings and the public has not liked it.

Since President Clinton's regard in so high in the Black community, I believe that perhaps he should stay out of any discussion between his wife and Senator Obama when it comes to anything, including experience. At the end of the day, we might think that he was not "America's first Black president" after all.

Anyone in this post arguing that Bill Clinton has more experience, when he ran in 1992 is a loon. Let’s face it; he was a governor of a backward state in the south running against a seating president George Herbert Walker Bush. Before his presidency, he happened to be a World War II veteran, who flew into combat. He was the Vice President of the United States in the administration of Ronald Reagan (1980 -1988). He has also served as the member of the United States House of Representatives for the 7th district of Texas (1967–1971), the United States Ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973), Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1973–1974), Chief of the United States Liaison Office in the People’s Republic of China (1974–1976), and Director of Central Intelligence (1976–1977).
My argument is that if Americans will elect Bill Clinton over Senior Bush then they will elect Obama over Hillary…end of story…

In the fourth paragraph the word should be tout which means to emphasize or give importance to. The word taut means to tighten.  Indeed, there are many who tout their beltway credentials. Good article.

Amen!!

It goes back to history. One of the ways that blacks were denied meaningful jobs is lack of education. Now that a sizable number of blacks have the education, even Harvard education, it is now experience.

There has been several people in history that made tremendous contribution to polical leadership, without the so called bad experience.

I have always been an admirer of Bill Clinton, I however feel that the latest statement about Barrack Obamas lack of experience does not reflect well on the president. He can do better than that.

It goes back to history. One of the ways that blacks were denied meaningful jobs is lack of education. Now that a sizable number of blacks have the education, even Harvard education, it is now experience.

There has been several people in history that made tremendous contribution to polical leadership, without the so called bad experience.

I have always been an admirer of Bill Clinton, I however feel that the latest statement about Barrack Obamas lack of experience does not reflect well on the president. He can do better than that.

The kind of experience tha leads us to war is better than the "No Experience" that leads to appeasement and surrender.I am now 71 years old and have NEVER seen a sitting administration so  badly derailed that it makes possible for such a sorry line up of Socialists,ciphers,
and outright opportunists to seek the highest office we have to sell.

It is amazing to see Bill CLinton is comming at Obama. Bill is trying to dimihish Obama in any way he can, even at the expense of facts. But, facts are facts adn could not change over time.

Take that BILL ADN HILLARY! The OBAMA train is comming and speeding you fast! The MSM, including MSNBC is missing the boat that they do not see (unfortunately) the support Sen OBAMA has on the grass roots level. In other words, it is below the radar. And it will be shown on the voting day!

All fired up, and REady to give you a surprise!

It is amazing to see Bill CLinton is comming at Obama. Bill is trying to dimihish Obama in any way he can, even at the expense of facts. But, facts are facts adn could not change over time.

Take that BILL ADN HILLARY! The OBAMA train is comming and speeding you fast! The MSM, including MSNBC is missing the boat that they do not see (unfortunately) the support Sen OBAMA has on the grass roots level. In other words, it is below the radar. And it will be shown on the voting day!

All fired up, and REady to give you a surprise!

Newsweek is out with a poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers (September 26-27). On the Democratic side, Obama is leading Clinton by four:

Democrats
Obama 28
Clinton 24
Edwards 22
Richardson 10
Biden 5
Undecided 9

When first and second choices are combined, Obama doubles his lead:

Obama 52
Clinton 44
Edwards 41
Richardson 19
Biden 11

After watching the Democratic debate just this past week on MSNBC, I had to ponder alot on the analyses of the reporters at the end of the debate that leave me the question if they were watching the debate. By this I mean, Sen. Clinton was applauded for being the winner. I question the intelligence of such reporters and this has leaved me to think that their Bosses have been bought by the Clinton campaign. I know this is not a popular thought but that is just the case. Sen. Clinton did not commit to any topic that was brought forth for deliberation, but instead, she remained defiance on the question that were asked by Tim. When she was asked if there were any contributions that she made to Bill Clinton's administration, she was dumfounded and couldn't answer the question. Therefore where is the experience that she claims to have gather from her husband adminitration. One failed healthcare program that Sen. Clinton had, and because of this, the media if freezing on her experience. I think we should seat back and think. Expereince my foot. If you think I am just criticizing her, please, go back and watch that section. But the journalists wouldn't talk about that part. I think is best for our country just to get away from the Clintons and the Bush families.
We need to move forward..... The reign of dynasty is not a good practice for a nation. This is tyranny of the few and less priveledge. We have seen where the Bush family drag us into, and we shouldn’t wait to see what would happen with another Clinton{remember that Bill sold our treasury bonds to China. Now the Chinese don’t want it any more and want to get raid of it, and if they do so, this will lead this country in to infalation. – Nobody is talking about this issue}
I tell you my dear country men and women, if we Vote for another Clinton - because that is what the media wants - we have open the doors for the media and other big corporations to decide for us. Let us choose someone different from the usual face, like we did when we first met Bill Clinton.
Enough is enough........... It is time for us to push back.

Let the big corporations continue to push for Sen. Clinton, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO VOTE, PLEASE FOR THE SEEK OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY, LET US VOTE FOR A NEW FACE IN WASHINGTON - JOHN OR OBAMA.

SAVE OUR NATION AND PRESERVE OUR DIGNITY - LET OUR FAMILIES RULE THAT IS WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM BRITAIN

THANK YOU, THANK YOU THANK, YOU.................

Barack ROCKS!!!!

Barack ROCKS!!!

Well said.  Remember that Bill had no experience when he came into office.  No military experience, no foreign experience, limited economic experience.  The result?  A spectacular success in Bosnia--where our soldiers learned lessons now helping them survive Iraq.  A fantastic foreign policy, that brought about at the very least grudging respect from many nations--respect that Bush has squandered.  And, an eight-year expansion of the economy that actually lowered the deficit for the first time *ever*--and now Bush has turned that around into the worst budget shortfall ever.

Barack has what it takes.  He's by far the best choice.  A man who has always been a part of two different groups will know how to bring people together.  And that, I think, is what we need more than anything else.

I'm really looking forward to November when Clintons' tendencies to argue on bothe sides of every argument is exposed

Love Bill Clinton, but his time came and went. I secretly believe that Bill Clinton is 'secretly' wishing that he was working for the Obama's campaign and not Hillary Clinton's. Bill Clinton's presidency had very good and very divisive times(i miss it but not enuf for a redo now). It is good to remember the good times but the bad times were just painful. Having 'them' in the White House again is just the risk Dems cannot afford to take. Bill Clinton's term did a lot of damage to the Democratic Party, and the party is still trying to recover bit by bit.  

Hopefully someone can help me wuth a question that I have with Sen. Obama. I have heard him speak to the point that he was always against the war in Iraq. What type of intel was he privy to that hepled him arive at that conclusion? Was it on some type of fact or just a gut feeling? The vast majority of our leaders that were briefed on the intel (flawed or not) voted for if not supported the action. I want to know what he based his position on. In his mind is there anything that would warrant military action? He seems to say that our soldiers lifes were wasted, that there is no honor there. These men and women made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Just because he disagrees with the policy does not mean they did. So back to my question. What was his thought process to come to the decision that Iraq was not worth it, and also what would be? I know there are some people out there that represent the Sen. so please help me make up my mind.

Thanks for the article.

What America needs to see more of is fair and balanced coverage of this election.

I think more positive coverage of Mr. Obama is warranted based on the high interest and involvement in his campaign from the American people.

The polls - well, we all know the polls have been flawed and not telling the real story of whatt is actually happening out in the field and across the American beltway.

Media outlets, it's time you guys report on with what is really happening in the minds of the American people. Mr. Obama has touched a nerve in millions and the proof is in the dollars!

http://www.jobs-from-home.com

Did anyone even proofread this entry? I know it's a blog, but come on....this is just a mess.

As for the topic--Obama is completely right. Hillary's "experience" consists of a failed universal healthcare plan, eight years as a Republican punching bag, and a couple of turns representing Israel's interests and showing her belly to Bush in the US Senate. Obama spent his time in elected office (more than Hillary? I think so) forging consensus, representing genuine progressive ideals, and bringing a fresh injection of blood into the stale and jaded political scene. Baby boomers: you tried and you failed. All you've given us is Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, for as long as many of us can remember. It may be hard to let loose the reins of power from your death grip, but right now you're steering us off a cliff.

Thanks for the article.

What America needs to see more of is fair and balanced coverage of this election.

I think more positive coverage of Mr. Obama is warranted based on the high interest and involvement in his campaign from the American people.

The polls - well, we all know the polls have been flawed and not telling the real story of whatt is actually happening out in the field and across the American beltway.

Media outlets, it's time you guys report on with what is really happening in the minds of the American people. Mr. Obama has touched a nerve in millions and the proof is in the dollars!

Obama is right! Im sick of Clintons and Bushes! MY GOD! Get them out of my life! Bush or Clinton in the White House since I was 9 years old.. I'm 36 now! LETS EVOLVE PEOPLE!

Correct! Barack.

He better get ready.You've got his number.

Way to go Obama, i think it is high time we pointed out what is wrong with washington.

Obama has repeatedly said he would not directly go on attack against his opponets but, if attacked he will throw some very sharp elbows.
Hillary did not directly attack him.  bill did.  Obama answered.
Obama is not going to fall into the trap of attacking first.  His strategy is to catch them in their hypocritical moments and lies and go after them hard when they attack.
Why waste time making himself look nasty when he can do what needs doing with the Clintons need to always play dirty.

Barack needs to confront Hillary in these debates. If he does not we will not know what the difference is between the two candidates. It was ridiculous watching Hillary refusing to answer questions the other night. We need her to answer questions at length so we know where she stands, especially in regards to the war issue. Sometimes she says she will pull the troops out, and at other times it looks like we are in it for the long haul. Will the real Hillary please stand up. I will never vote for anybody who is that vague on the issues, nor should anybody else.

That is very right! Obama is the man with the right judgement and expirience that we need right now.  2002 Hillary voted to give President Bush authority to go to war with iraq and now this past week she did the same thing voting yes to a bill that can be manipulated by the president to go to war with Iran.  And you call this expiriance?!! Maybe she did not read what the bill entails. Voting her will be a big mistake!! believe me!

Obama is MAGIC....
That's a cerebral slap to Bill Clinton but I think the Clintons are so addicted to the power that humiliation cannot stop them...

Give me a break Obama!  All in good time, You too will be filling your pockets with special interest money faster than a tornado ripping through the midwest!!

I feel much more comfortable with Sen. Obama's attitude about the lives of those in our military than with Romney's call for increasing military while calling for cuts in government programs(should he be elected). The Veterans Administration is a gov. program. We need to be able to take care of the wounded military we have already, before increasing its size. Senator Obama is right. The lives of our military are not a game.

Senator Obama has a lot of good points go consider. I am glad he is making them. He doesn't have to go on the offensive with name calling. He simply makes his point. Showing us he can be tactful is much more becoming for a presidential hopeful than provocations and outbursts of passion. Obama, so far, has a certain degree of sophistication not found in some other candidates.

Obama is toast.

By 1992, Bill Clinton had served 5 terms as Gov of AK -not 2 years in the US Senate like Obama.

Obama's campaign appears to be stuck against Hillary. If it's true he will only raise $20 million during the third quarter, that is a HUGE dropoff since the 2nd quarter and his campaign will have a lot of explaining to do.

Sen. Obama does have to get tough with those people
in Washington, also, he should identify with BLACK
ISSUES. Those who are running his campaign (WHITE),
ARE TELLING HIM NOT TO IDENTIFY WITH BLACK ISSUES.

Senator Barack is correct in saying that experience matters.  How that "experience"is framed bespeaof who "you" are.  If one were to embrace developmental references for the candiddates then the impact,that sociocultural, biobehavioral and neurobiological roots have had upon who each candidate has become, is critical in their judgement relative to  the issues, national international and local. To be sure,the experiences of life oblige everyone to determine whaat is protective for self.  Additionally, all scriptures conclude that a life hidden under a barrel is a life never lived.  Likewise, that which is covered will see the light of day.Thank you Mr. Baracka for being a gentleman in the phraasing of your remarks.  God's speed and good luck.

Obama has not proven that he is capable of leading this country.  His popularity won't last as substance matters.

I couldn't agree more.  Just look at all the experience the present administration supposedly had (Rumsfeld, Chaney, etc.) and what did it get us.
PAT - BOSTON, Congratulations on your Red Sox.  Could there still be hope for a Cubs/Red Sox World Series?? Here's hoping!

Obama keep stepping on the fore skin!  The Clintons are nothing to be feared. They only serve their self serving agenda's. As this week Hillary made a major leap into the record books.. """Rants and Raves at ""Pull the troops NOW"",, But look at here.. Butt Head ""VOTED YES TO  FOR WAR"""..

What a two faced ""WASHINGTON PAPER HANGING BI!CH SHE IS"" She flip flopped on her vote for the ""WAR"" ..Now she flips and flops for funding. Her constant raving about her AGENDA'S!

She is a major part of how Washington Paper Hanging S.O.B's failed this nation.  I want to PUKE on my key board. She is making a total fool out of her and that garbage can Bill!!!

We don't need two perveted freaks in the White House. We had enough of the perverted bas!ard, and we are seeing the one who supported that pervert.

Bill Clinton needs to shut the f@#@ UP!. He's not running for President!!! They both are scum then and are scum NOW!! America has not such a short memory!!!  

We don't need two perveted freaks in the White House. We had enough of the perverted bas!ard, and we are seeing the one who supported that pervert.

Bill Clinton needs to shut the f@#@ UP!. He's not running for President!!! They both are scum then and are scum NOW!! America has not such a short memory!!!  

Someone get their can of Cockroach killer. Because I know it will where two COCKROACHES LIVE.

The Washington Paper Hanging S.O.B's are failures of yesterday, today, and our future!!!  What we have here is a Total collapse of those whom are sent to Washington as our Voice.

Their contrived and self serving agenda's is not what America is About. They have pissed off close to a trillion dollars on a country which is ungrateful.

A open check is not the answer in the Mideast. We only prolong this situation.

It is time to close Pandora's Box.!!!

obama is no match, politically or intellectually, for bill or hillary.  obama's campaign speeches lack substance.  obama is about to be fed his lunch.

As a Democrat, I find Obama VERY disingenuous!
He voted to fund the war and opposed timetables for 2 years!  then entered the prez race based on his "opposition" to the war - when he COULDN'T VOTE.
But his endorsing Lieberman last year in the presence of 1700 Connecticut Dems - encouraging them to have the "good sense" to return a warmonger to the Senate - was the Biggest Red Flag concerning his "opposition" to the war!
Obama is whatever his Obama Girl supporters need him to be.

Why do you all continue to try and anoint Hillary the Democratic nominee when the truth is she is not leading in Iowa and has stalled in all other national polls. You can say you heard it from me first She will not, I repeat will not win Iowa or the nomination. Obama will win it all (President). Mark these words.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?

What happened to our democracy?

If Clinton then Bush again.  

This is monarchy not democracy.

When second Bush leaves office we will be in the same position when the first Bush took over office.  Time has elapsed but we are still in the same situation even worse.  This chain of monarchy has to come to an end otherwise our constitution will collapse.

Clinton in the middle of the two Bushes had no effect because we are still in the same position.  Thus, why should we make the same mistake over again rooting for Clinton?  Let us not repeat the history all over again, haven’t we learned.

Time has come my fellow Americans to gain back our true democracy that was placed by the framers that broke away from the monarchy.  Let us not fall in the same trap as in the past.

Obama is the chain breaker of monarchy that will revitalize the democracy in our nation.

Dear Obama fight for our democracy and freedom because we are behind you.

Mazi

While a student at Harvard Law School, Sen. Obama built a reputation as a consensus builder and that led to his being elected head of the Harvard Law Review. He carried this same ability to the Illinois state senate.
I hope the voters will see that quality is exactly what we need in our next president.

John McCain...Anyone who prefers one religion to another is a biggot..  I will not vote for you!  The only exception is a radical muslim.  They have stated bu by their belief they cannot co-exist with any other faith.

I don't understand why the other demo people won't go after Hillary Clinton.  Either they are very afraid of her or Bill's people has a lot of pictures and dirt on them.

Sen. Barack Obama may just need top go and  get himself into uniform , I,  like many others from the American Expat community currently  living in Australia,
Belive   he should  jnoin the forces  and  have a few  month at the front.   do something for Amercia
Be a man Be Marine.  Lets face it Any Clown can run for President.   And he is to naive to  do a  good  bad or even an indiffernt job in the white house.  He has not been much goood in the Senate. even now  as he has his  own speechwriters,  and   a few dozen  puppet masters  keeping him on a string and tellin him what to do and say.  Remeber  the American public  and voters   even  overseas  are NOT  stupid. I have checked out all  the Candidates,  And he must be the most inexperianced,  So like I said do something usefull join   "The Marines"  Not as an officer  but as a regular GI.  

[Dear MSNBC, I may have offered this before, but it
remains a nice fit on this thread. - Best. -TR]

Regarding the value of "experience," I recently came across an amusing anecdote General Anthony Zinni's (USMC Ret.) most recent book, "The Battle for Peace."   Zinni tells the story of someone asking Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and a brilliant strategist, "Who on your staff has the most experience?"  Frederick replied, "See that mule over there, he has been by my side in every battle... but in the end he's still a jackass."

Below please find my own extended comments regarding this issue of "experience", specifically that of Senator Clinton, as it relates to foreign and defense policy.  Best, -TR  

Albany Times Union
Words matter:
Voters could benefit from a re-examination of the Clinton-Obama national security uproar  
 
By THOMAS J. RALEIGH
First published: Sunday, August 12, 2007

Democratic presidential front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are engaged in a series of highly publicized skirmishes on important national security issues. Conducting analysis that is both
superficial and one-sided, political observers have been far too quick to agree with Clinton's suggestion that she is much better prepared to
serve as commander in chief than Obama.

On the heels of some confusing comments regarding the use of nuclear weapons, and remarks delivered recently at Princeton University, Obama finds himself under all kinds of scrutiny. Addressing the presence of al-Qaida networks in Pakistan, Obama said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

The suggestion of conducting uncoordinated, unilateral cross-border operations into a nuclear-armed country that is already unstable, coming from a candidate who has consistently asserted the limits of military power, is as disconcerting as it is surprising.

Though Obama's recent clumsy remarks regarding Pakistan merit the prize for "blunder of the week," Clinton's foreign policy statements deserve equal critical scrutiny. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson
asserted, following Tuesday's AFL-CIO presidential forum in Chicago, that candidates need to speak clearly and carefully when discussing foreign and defense policy.

"Words matter," said Wolfson.

He's right.

During the CNN/YouTube debate last month, Clinton emphatically asserted that she would not hold talks with the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Cuba and other troubling regimes. Following the debate,
Clinton characterized Obama as being "irresponsible and frankly naive" for expressing a willingness to do so. The general consensus is that Clinton emerged from the debate and post-debate clashes as the
candidate with enhanced national security credentials.

There is an alternative assessment, however, one that suggests that Clinton is an opportunistic flip-flopper. In October 2006, she outlined her foreign policy views in a major policy speech before the
Council of Foreign Relations. Clinton said, "We should not hesitate to engage in the world's most difficult conflicts on the diplomatic front. We cannot leave the Middle East to solve itself or avoid direct talks with North Korea. When faced with an existential challenge to the life of our nation, President Kennedy said, 'Let us never negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.' Direct
negotiations are not a sign of weakness. They're a sign of leadership."

Clinton also said, "We have to keep all options on the table, including being ready to talk directly to Iranians should the right opportunity present itself. Direct talks lets you assess who's making
the decisions what their stated and unstated goals might be. And willingness to talk sends important messages; to the Iranian people, that our quarrel is with their leaders, not with them; and to the
international community, that we are pursuing every available peaceful avenue to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power."

In this speech, Clinton presents a world view and America's role in international affairs starkly different than that of President Bush whose foreign policy team, she convincingly suggests, has presented the American people with false choices: Internationalism versus unilateralism. Realism versus idealism. Posted on both her Senate and
campaign Web sites, it is an impressive speech; one that was clearly intended to serve as an overarching national security policy statement for her presidential campaign and to reassure foreign policy elites that, as president, she would pursue a more practical, enlightened and effective foreign policy than that of President George W. Bush. Or so it seemed.

Alas, it now appears that Clinton merely read a well-prepared speech. When juxtaposed to her comments during and following the recent debate, in terms of foreign and defense policy, it is difficult to
ascertain what Clinton believes. Based on her conflicting and irreconcilable statements, voters now have no idea how Hillary will deal with an ascendant Iran and other threats, or how she will improve the nation's standing overseas.

Far from illustrating her foreign policy savoir-faire, Clinton, by suggesting that Barrack Obama is irresponsible and naive for expressing a willingness to engage in direct talks with Iran and other
troubling regimes, something she herself emphatically and unambiguously advocated only nine month ago, instead shows that when the chips are down, and when her reputation for being tough is on the line, Clinton will choose posturing over principle; the sound bite over sound policy; in this case, a policy that suggests, inter alia, that there will never be a stable and secure Iraq in the absence of some positive understandings with Iran.

A candidate might be able to flip-flop on domestic issues and get away with it, but not on matters related to war and peace particularly in the midst of a wartime presidential campaign. Just ask John Kerry.

Up until now, the challenge facing Clinton was to explain her rather abrupt about-face on the war a difficult but manageable task that would have featured a frank "act of contrition" for what she has done and what she has failed to do with regard to Iraq; an acknowledgment that she failed to read in its entirety the pre-invasion National
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq; a willingness to take responsibility for her vote that authorized the invasion; an admission that for far too long she mistakenly embraced the notion that Iraq constitutes the central front on the war on terrorism; an expression of regret that she failed to criticize, in a timely and constructive manner, the Bush
administration's failure to shape the strategic conditions for success in Iraq.

She would also need to explain what she learned from these mistakes and how it would affect her approach to foreign and defense policy in general, and her decision-making during a crisis in particular.

It is becoming clear that this just isn't Clinton's style. At the candidate forum in Chicago, she again asserted that Iraq is "George Bush's war." This is regrettable. As someone who appears to admire
John Kennedy, she ought to recall not only how JFK took responsibility for the botched Bay of Pigs invasion, but even more important, how he learned from that painful experience and averted disaster two years later.

Tuesday evening, in MSNBC's post-debate spin room, Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe suggested that a great number of Americans can picture her as their commander in chief. Perhaps that's true. But
there are lots of people who find unsettling the prospect of electing as president someone who is preoccupied, if not obsessed, by a perceived need to project a tough image.

Picture President Hillary Clinton facing a crisis as acute and complex as the Cuban missile crisis. Imagine that she is under tremendous pressure from her Joint Chiefs to conduct military strikes somewhere pick a place: Iran, Pakistan, Syria just as they tried to pressure Kennedy to bomb the hell out of Cuba in 1962. The question is not: Is
Clinton tough enough to bomb Iran? The question instead should be: Is she tough enough to withstand the pressure to conduct military strikes if a more prudent approach calls for restraint and compromise?

In the end, we that is, the voters are left with the words of the candidates. And whether the topic is the war in Iraq, dealing with Iran, or the use and limits of diplomacy as an instrument of national
power, Clinton has been all over the map. If her Democratic rivals fail to take her to task on the profound inconsistencies in her national security policy positions, her Republican challenger surely
will not.

So who's the big winner as a result of the Clinton-Obama national security hubbub? Though I'm tempted to say it's the Republicans, I suggest instead it's the American voter.

The upshot of this ongoing debate may be a stirred, engaged and discerning electorate that recognizes that we once again live in a period of "maximum danger" (to borrow JFK's phrase) where there is no
place in the White House neither for amateurs, nor those prone to posturing or bluster. An electorate that might look beyond the presumed front-runners of either political party for a presidential candidate, a genuine statesman to lead their country in complex and perilous times.
---------------------
Thomas Raleigh is a retired U.S. Army Infantry officer and military diplomat. He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination in the 21st Congressional District last year. He currently works in Iraq.  His e-mail address is thomasraleigh@nycap.rr.com.

All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2007, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):