Obama on Bhutto, Pakistan

Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:16 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
NEVADA, Iowa -- At a town hall in Nevada, Iowa, Obama expressed his sympathies for Benazir Bhutto’s family and the Pakistani people and noted that he has spoken previously on the problem of extremism there.

"Obviously today we just want to express our sympathies to the Pakistani people and the Bhutto family about the assassination," he said. "I've been saying for some time that we've got a very big problem there."

He elaborated: “Not only do we have a president who has acted in an anti-democratic fashion the past, but we also have the rise of Islamic militants in the northwest provinces that are going back and forth between the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Obama added that Al Qaeda now has a base in Pakistan and American intelligence says that the group is stronger there now than they were before 2001.

Tying the problem of Pakistan to the war in Iraq, Obama said, “We were distracted from focusing on them. And they are causing us problems, and they are still plotting to do harm to America. And once we have focused on how to stabilize Iraq and reduce our footprint there -- saying no permanent bases, we are not occupying this country -- we will then be in a position to really take on those who actually killed 3,000 Americans. That's what I intend to do as President of the United States."

In August, Obama’s reference to talking about Pakistan, most probably refers to an August 2007 speech on counterterrorism in which he argued the United States should strike Pakistan unilaterally if they find actionable intelligence about al-Qaeda terrorist camps there and Pakistan fails to act. The speech was criticized by some as overreaching in terms of foreign policy. But Obama frequently cites it now when pointing to the turmoil in Pakistan to say that he was right.

After Obama’s closing argument speech today, his chief media strategist David Axelrod, used the opportunity to criticize Clinton on the same theme, saying that if the United States had not gone to war in Iraq, they would have had more resources to deal with the greater threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

The Obama campaign is in a panic. Mr. Axelrod's reprehensible statement is meant to deflect the spotlight and rescue his candidate, because as people think about the implications of Benazir Bhutto's assassination one thing comes to mind and it isn't the leadership experience of Barack Obama. International tragedy has made Barack Obama and his campaign desperate for fear their paper thin experience in foreign policy will be weighed as voters ready for the Iowa primaries. It's in moments of crisis you find out what a candidate has and the strength of his character to respond to real dangers in the world. Another example of Mr. Obama's campaign of "hope," no doubt.
But Mr. Axelrod has stepped into it now. Blaming Clinton? This statement is not only beyond the pale, but it is made even more reprehensible, not to mention ridiculous, by Obama's campaign turning from the very serious subjects of Afghanistan-Pakistan-al Qaeda to the pop culture filmmaker Woody Allen, equating the two in a statement that is so ignorant you have to wonder if the Obama camp actually understands the possible ramifications of what happened today. I assure you, it does not come close to resembling or reflecting Woody Allen's wisdom on life. Seriously, the celebrity candidacy of Barack Obama, now threatened by a foreign policy emergency, has slipped into the nonsensical.
It reminds me of what Mr. Obama said himself about Pakistan in September, which now looks equally ignorant.
In 2004, Obama said that if president Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country: As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

Jerry Lansing Davenport IA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:32 PM)

2,750 killed in the WTCs and over 3,900 killed to date in Iraq. I say, who has killed more Americans! Is what we need to do is re-declare war on Iraq. Get Obama off the stage with his crazy ideas of "stabiliz[ing] Iraq and reduc[ing] our footprint there ...we will then be in a position to really take on those who actually killed 3,000 [innocent] Americans."

--NSMsnbc (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:39 PM)

Obama was right on Pakistan. He was right on Iran. He was right on Iraq. His opponents, who called him "naive" each time, were wrong.

How many more times does the guy need to prove himself? Not only is he the best equipped in the Democratic field to run the country, he is the best equipped to win in the general election, being the only Democrat who beats every Republican candidate due to the latest Zogby phone poll.

He is the Democrats' best hope at this point.

Hobo, Hoboken, NJ (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:43 PM)

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

video
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1126056719/bctid1125863588

Marbw (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:43 PM)

Well Jerry you are so wrong on this one...Clinton vote to go to war on Iraq contributed to what is going on in Pakistan...we the U.S took our eyes off the ball from Talabans...now they may be responsible for what happen...so there it is for you...wise up and this election is not about fear but about hope and Judgment...Clinton lacks both...as her vote on iraq and iran has shown

stan (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:48 PM)

Bhutto's reaction to Obama's Pakistan policy: "But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border." -- Benazir Bhutto, August, 2007 ....

Marbw (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:52 PM)

Go Obama ! We need change.

alison, Raleigh, North Carolina (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:53 PM)

Here is a quote of Bhutto agreeing with Obama;

Bhutto's reaction to Obama's Pakistan policy: "But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border." -- Benazir Bhutto, August, 2007 ....

sonya, atlanta, ga (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:55 PM)

Hey Jerry, if you are from Davenport then I am the Queen of England!! Stop with your absurd argument!! Are you afraid that this whole situation is going to show people what TERRIFIC judgment Barack Obama had and continues to have?

modernwoman, Anytown,USA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:05 PM)

Obama's chief media spokesperson all but blamed Hillary Clinton for Mrs. Bhuto's asassination. Reprehensible does not even begin to describe these comments. This man should resign immediately and the Obama campaign should hang their heads in shame.

sberman agoura hills, calif. (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:06 PM)

Obama was scripted and cold. He read from notes with his head down and looked like a prof lecturing on water freezes.

He didn't look like a leader.

Not ready for prime time Mr. Obama.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:09 PM)

We needs exprience leader like hillary to
guid our nation thru these difficult times.
No need for some one with ONE YEAR experience as a
senator, even if he talks good.

Ben Mohajerin (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:09 PM)

So, if Obama was President in 2003 we'd have invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq?

Bruce, NV (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:11 PM)

Obama was scripted and cold. He read from notes with his head down and looked like a prof lecturing on water freezes.

He didn't look like a leader.

Not ready for prime time Mr. Obama.
Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:09 PM)

-----------------------------------------------------
Another foolish comment by First Read's resident imbecile. What's wrong "Dickie"? Ashamed of your unit size?

Real Democrat, CA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:17 PM)

As Americans,we have lived through our own assassinations,as a Nation,we survived.Pakistan has a strongman despot that ONE BULLET will topple,and then we must deal with nukes in the hands of rabble.It's Iran all over,with nuclear weapons.Way to go U.N.,and the E.U. along with the Bush/Cheney Dictatorship.To politicize this in a campaign is just another "fear card",and only demeans the process.

docrock,tx (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:24 PM)

He got it right again...and still they say he does not know what he's talking about...some people are so blinded by who they like to face the true...We witness a young man say that this country Pakistan should be pressured to take action to these militias and they called him naive...today they ignore that that pressure may have saved this great figure's life...who agreed with this naive young man...

I say maybe we all should be naive and have better judgement!

Obama '08

Obama Right Now!

Ty, Dallas, Tx (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:42 PM)

As far as I'm concerned,the recent tragedy in Pakistan (i.e. the assassination of Bhutto),truly reflects the complexity, fragility and dangerous nature of the middle-east situation.Terrorism can be wiped out from the global scene.True Democracy can reign supreme anywhere on earth.It just requires a different kind of leadership contrary to what the world's greatest super-power is providing.Now, more than ever before,America has the opportunity to change the world for good, one nation at a time.Vote for Mr.Obama, and you will discover for yourself how a pure minded human being can contribute in the remaking of our world.Experience or no experience, Barack,is more than ready to lead the free world.I have no doubt that Mr.Obama is the ONE to bring about true change in AMERICA and the World at large.

SAM (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:52 PM)

I must say that Obama has shown his intelligence regarding these issues. I'd much rather have a Columbia and Harvard graduate, university professor, civil rights lawyer, and community advocate running this country than anyone one else. I think most people know what to expect from every other candidate (democrate or republican), a lack of change.

Plus, he looks good in a suite.

David, Seattle, WA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:54 PM)

SAM, SMYRNA - GA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:58 PM)

I must say that Obama's intelligence has shined on these issues. I'd much rather have a Columbia/Harvard graduate, university professor, civil rights lawyer, and community advocate running this country than any of the other candidates. I like to think that most people know what to expect from the other candidates (democrates and republicans), and that is no change at all.

Plus, he looks good in a suit.

David, Seattle, WA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:00 PM)

all this talk about experience is ridiculous. you can have someone with tons of experience but who still has a flawed judgement. when it came to the irak war all the experience didnt stop clinton and the rest of making the wrong decisions for our nation. obama however was the man wit the correct judgement.

i want the next president to make the right decisions. that person is obama, which is proven by his actions and not of unsubstansive talk about experience.

aa , clinton, iowa (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:01 PM)

Obama, has no clue as to what is going on in Pakistan. He claims to know it all, regarding Iraq, Iran and now Pakistan. I am from Pakistan and Bhutto supporter. The assassination is more related to internal local politics. Bhutto would have been target regardless of her ideology and stand on terrorism. Obama is trying to spin the event in his favor. What is he going to claim next that he “invented the Internet” before Al Gore thought of it.

Sahmed, New York City, NY (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:04 PM)

Obama is exactly right. I trust him to handle situations like this with more candor, tact and judgment than anyone else.

GoJake, San Francisco, CA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:10 PM)

sberman....Wow you really know how to twist someones words to draw erroneous conclusions. Truly desperate and pathetic.

Ben Mohajerin....the experience thing is getting pathetic as well. Barack has more elected experience than Hillary. And if being first lady is real presidential experience, then I hope you are rooting for Laura Bush in 2012. Vote for Biden or Dodd if you really believe experience trumps all.

Jeff, Portland, OR (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:11 PM)

Funny how HRC and the other dems criticized Obama when he said we needed to put more pressure on Pakistan due to terrorists running around.

Hmmm...Obama...right again.

Thanks to Hillary and Bush, we invaded the WRONG COUNTRY, so Al Qaeda/Taliban are stronger than ever in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Tell me...of ALL THE EXPERIENCE that Hillary is supposed to have, has she been right about anything?

RobK, Seattle, Wash (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:19 PM)

Obama is exactly right. I trust him to handle situations like this with more candor, tact and judgment than anyone else.

GoJake, San Francisco, CA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:19 PM)

Good remarks from Obama back in August.

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."

Again...what's hillary's experience say about Pakistan?

RobK, Seattle, Wash (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:22 PM)

This is from an op-ed on Huffington Post. I do hope the good editors of First Read let your pundits know where they were last summer when Obama proposed something that has turned out to be correct - again. Seems all the pundits always knock Obama even though he was right on the consequences of going into to Iraq and again with Pakistan.

No one has formulated a foreign policy toward Islamabad beyond the simple observation of: Musharraf (sort of) bad, democracy (sort of) good. In his Foreign Affairs article, Mitt Romney mentions Pakistan not once. Ditto Rudy Giuliani. John Edwards drops the P bomb just twice, while Hillary Clinton calls for "redoubling our efforts" in Pakistan's tribal regions, whatever that means.

The next leader of the free world needs to think more specifically and clearly about how best to use American influence to keep Pakistan from becoming the next Afghanistan or Sudan circa late-1990s. The first serious American politician to propose a radical realignment of U.S. policy toward Pakistan was Barack Obama. Last summer, he proposed unilateral military action if the United States was supplied with "actionable intelligence" on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan. He was pounced on by the punditry, his statements taken as further evidence he is a foreign policy lightweight. How dare a presidential candidate jeopardize one of America's most prized partnerships and impinge Pakistani sovereignty! Or, even if Republicans might agree with Obama, it's best not to say such things in public, pundits said.

Now, fast-forward a few months--after a state of martial law, the most deadly terrorist attack in Pakistani history, and the assassination of the country's top opposition figure--most Americans would probably agree that Washington's backing of Musharraf makes for bad policy. Even Republicans like Mike Huckabee have echoed Obama's sentiments to take out terrorist camps in Pakistan without Islamabad's permission.

diane (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:23 PM)

Our approach in the region has to change. We all recognize that initiating war with Iraq was a mistake. In doing so, we shifted our focus away from Afghanistan, BinLaden and the Taliban. While we devoted substantial military, economic and political resources to Iraq, the terrorists have been able to regroup. Inspite of our efforts to entice Mashrif with $billions in aide he has been unable or unwilling to take the fight to Al Queda within his country. Bhutto's murder is an unfortunate, though not unforeseen result of our foreign policy failures.

We should be very concerned about supporting someone who does not have the vision or judgement to see their way through difficult situations. Even more so, we should be frighten of anyone who would vote in favor of a war as a political calculation gaged to further personal ambitions.

CE, Kenosha, WI (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:42 PM)

The vitriol that is expressed by the supporters of Clinton reminds me of the current partisan environment we find ourselves in due to seven years of Bush's policies. A Clinton administration will only continue it, which is why we need Obama.

Dimitri; Niceville,Fl. (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:58 PM)

Obama's terrific judgment, modernwoman? How? By skipping votes or voting "present?" I think this requires a bit more vision and courage.

Not only is Ms. Bhutto's untimely death an event that needs a speaking point for which Obama can have someone draft up, but this puts US Pakistan strategy in serious peril. What we need is a President that can shift policy to account for these types of crises, and in order to do this you need to have a lot more than hope and a catchy turn of phrase.

Obama is not ready for the Oval office, and voters are going to realize this fact through the tragedy of Ms. Bhutto's passing. This is a shining example of why we need Hillary to be our next President; experience, judgment, social conscience, respect on the world stage and a cadre of strong individuals to work alongside of her.

AKB, New York, NY (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:03 PM)

Shame on all politicians who are trying to capitalize from the death of Bhutto. Pakistan has internal problems that no one except for Pakistanis can solve. US can't solve the problems of Iraq, how will they solve Pakistan's internal problems.

Musa Iqbal (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:04 PM)

Hmmmm, Senator Obama looked cold? How about somber? You folks really need to chill out sometimes.

Nashville_fan (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:18 PM)

Forgive me if I don't swoon to this drivel,but truthfully,King George the Second beat this comment hands down.Voter naivity,plus media blindness got us into the Iraq/ENTIRE WORLD!!! mess we're already in,so don't make hay from tragedy.JEEEZ!!! Ease off the campaign rhetoric and see we are NOT the world.The sun does not originate in N.Y.,tomorrow will come even if some of us don't see it.Just remember to vote, or this tragedy,among many others,means NOTHING!

docrock,tx (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:21 PM)

Barack Obama has been right about Pakistan all along.
There is a HUGE difference between experience and wisdom. Some folks, no matter how much experience they have never acquire wisdom, and some very wise people are just inately born that way!
Mr. Obama has so much more than experience will ever do for Hillary, intelligence, ability to negotiate, bring people together instead of alienating them, a true diplomat, which is something that has not been in the White House for a very long time. Go Barack!

A Worried Grammy (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:25 PM)

Barack Obama once quoted " if the United States had not gone to war in Iraq, the US Army would have had more resources to deal with the greater threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan"

This show BARACK OBAMA has GOOD JUDGEMENT.

NO MORE CLINTON POLITICAL DYNASTY.
WE NEED CHANGE NOW.

!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!

kelly (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:26 PM)

Um, excuse me Ben, but Hillary is just reaping the experience weight of Bill Clinton. She has barely any valid experience to hold a presidential office.

Sublingo (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:39 PM)

Why hasn't david axlerod resigned? He suggested that it was Hillary's fault for creating that type of environment. Kerrey got into more trouble just because he used obama's middle name, Hussein.

New York, NY (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:43 PM)

GO clinton! We love you mami! Tienes el voto de los latinos :)

Jaz, ca (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:50 PM)

Once again Obama is proven right. First on Iraq, then on Iran and now on Pakistan.

It proves once again, there is the right experience, and the wrong experience. The right judgement and the wrong judgement.

Benazir agreed with Obama on Pakistan - Hillary disagreed and agreed with Bush as usual.

Nadeem, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:05 PM)

oBAMA IS A PURE IDIOT! we cannot invade pakistan we don't have the economic or military power and they posses nukes it would be a disaster for the Us

besides obama is beholden to special interests do some research he takes plenty of money from lobbyists

Obamavotedforthepatriotact (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:23 PM)

Hillary Clinton does not have anymore foreign policy experience than Obama and has proven to have even worse judgement. If you truly believe experience is the most important factor, you should be supporting Biden, Dodd, or maybe even Richardson. Although Richardson's comment about having Musharraf step down, shows he is too much of a wild card.

Hillary had some state dinners and press trips with foreign dignataries. Many of whom I am sure are no longer in office. She has had some exposure as a Senator. But her claim to be an experienced leader is silly. She has never led anything before, and has been an unimpressive Senator.

Obama has less years in the Senate, but his experiences have led him to be right on the big decisions while those who should have known better did not.

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:28 PM)

Obama and Axelrod are correct. Pakistan and Afghanistan have been the center of radical Islamism ever since Ron Reagan and Bill Casey made it so to fight the Soviets. Hillary took the corporate and lobbyist road and supported an invasion of Iraq. Hillary is a phoney and a "Republican Lite". If you want to vote for Hillary don't waste your vote on a "Lite" candidate. Might as well vote for Mitt, Rudy or McCain.

Mark G. (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:33 PM)

The Obama camp in a panic? It's not Obama that has been panicking for the last three weeks. Repeatedly Clinton's camp has reacted out of desperation, attacking Obama's kindergarden record, "casually" mentioning his drug use as a teen and "accidentally" letting slip that his middle name is Hussein.
Hopefully voters across the country will start to see through the political smokescreens and practiced mind games played by those with more experience in the mired politics of Washington. What Barack Obama brings is a broader understanding of the world, something that has been sadly lacking for the last eight years. His understanding of the dangers evident in the unstable Pakistani social and political arena show that "experience" should not just be measured in the number of years you spent playing games in Washington. Instinct, comprehension and the ability to be optimistic about the future in a bleak time still count for a lot.

Chris Winslow, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:33 PM)

Axelrod did not blame Clinton for Bhutto's death. What he is saying is you can't claim to be the best thing for the country because of your experience, and expect to not be accountable for the poor decisions you've made. Obama has always been at the forefront in saying that Iraq was distracting us from the real war against the terrorists.

If Hillary has so much experience that she claims to be ready to lead on day 1(more so than any other president has been in the past), then she must explain why she has made so many poor decisions in the past. A key component to being president is being able to make the right decisions. She has proven time and time again of being incapable of doing that.

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:35 PM)

If the focus is the judgement informed by the experience in lieu of the experience per se, it is crystal clear that Sen. Clinton is not the one. Indeed, here is a thought: Ummmm, one so inexperienced (so-called) displaying such judgement to, at points, give the appearance of prescience, when the occurrence is compared to predicted outcome.

Now if the caucus goers and primary voters with a different view outnumber, as necessary, those with this perspective, then America will be signaling the world that post-Bush, it will be, at core, more of the same. If not, perhaps America's claim to leadership, in lieu of arrogant bullying, will have some credibility ------ after a pause to get over the shock, good shock and possibly even some awe.

POLpursun (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:19 PM)

Dickie you know there is more to life than just waiting around for an Obama story to pop up so you can bash him. Maybe you should find a good book or see a good movie and just escape a little bit. How about it ?

Apple Bobbitt Los Angeles, CA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:31 PM)

America here is a time when we must stay strong, here is when we must stay focus..... Don't get side track. We need Senator Obama. He was the only who has been speaking about this..... America don't get distracted..... That's was Hillary wants you to do....But judge her on how she handled similar situations..... and then ask your self.... do you truly have confidence in her or has the media basically manipualted you into believe she is a military commander and chief? Don't be fooled don't be brain washed.... You were fooled with George W. Bush and look where the country is now.... Don't be fooled.... Don't be brain washed...

Don't be fooled Don't be Brain Washed (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:32 PM)

What experience does Hillary CLinton have, she keeps saying experience, experience....what Cabinet Post did she hold in her husbands office? This makes about as much sense as Melinda Gates calling herself a computer Guru simply because Bill Gates owns Microsoft..please. I prefer McCain for President but as it has been clearly pointed out and I clearly remember Obama noted the problems in Pakistan and even Bhutto herself acknowledged the fact...back then even the "experienced" Washington Senators said Barack was naive about his comments.....now see what has happened....if theirs is the kind of experience they think we need...hell....Barack Obama for President....the guy has been right on two major counts maybe there's something truth in the hype after all...

Ron Lucchessi Long Beach, CA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:37 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=535827