'Conventional Washington' v. change

cms — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:48:02 GMT

This is as strong of a comeback as I could imagine. Power is terrific, thanks for posting the whole thing. Obama's team seems to be heeding (directly or not) your advice from this morning to get a hold of the narrative before it becomes a real problem.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Independent — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:59:08 GMT

Could he really do worse than deferrment dick and the liar?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

justin, new york — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:02:41 GMT

THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS!

the media seriously needs to apologize for their inexplicable headlines. this is a great response from the obama PR team and one that plugs all the "holes" people seem to be criticizing.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Crystal, washington,d.c — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:03:31 GMT

His comments are PRICELESS!!! Go Obama!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Omoboy — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:04:47 GMT

Wow!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Al, KS — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:08:17 GMT

Bravo...in one stroke Obama has labeled all of the other candidates as part of the Washington establishment. Let's see them wiggle out of that. Didn't they all vote for the war?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

cst — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:10:31 GMT

This is not a comeback. It is an attempt to steer us away from the real fact that Senator Obama is woefully out of his league on foreign policy. Destabilizing Pakistan would be the worst possible thing the U.S. could do.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Eric Vaughan, Salt Lake City, UTAH — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:12:09 GMT

Obama just won a vote.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Robert Jenkins, Hayward, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:13:02 GMT

This is a cogent, coherent and rational response to "conventional" wisdom in Washington and in the press. I was wavering on Obama until he began elucidating his foreign policy vision. Now I am firmly in his camp!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Isaac Van Basten, Jacksonville, FL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:13:36 GMT

The beltway conventional wisdom and why Obama is a thorn in their side:

The beltway insiders were cheerleading the rush to go to war in Iraq. How many times have these so called "experts" got it wrong? You know, how many of them have children serving in Iraq? I'm tired of these fat cat "experts" telling us what is right. They have been wrong so many times that in another setting, they would have been utterly shunned and ignored.

The American people are waking up to the fact that these "experts" and their buddies in Washington and the press are not worth their six figure salaries.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Homer — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:13:52 GMT

All I have to say is that I think it's great that Obama is not willing to go around setting off nuclear bombs in other soverign countries. Also, Clinton said that the nuclear option should never be taken off the table. Does this mean she would be willing to blow up Washington D.C. if that is where Osama Bin Laden was hiding

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bill, Herndon, VA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:13:56 GMT

That was a smart response to Obama's challengers.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Howard, Columbus, OH — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:14:28 GMT

I'm sorry, but haven't we had enough of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" attitude from the current President? I much prefer a thoughtful, measured approach to a change in foreign diplomacy over time to Obama's one-eighty.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

doc, nyc,nh — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:14:36 GMT

brilliant

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bob, Memphis, TN — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:16:51 GMT

Obama sounds different. He sounds like a true American President. The potential for us to put this country back on the right track is staring us in the face. We just have to reject the naysayers, the cynics, the powerful few who love to keep us divided and stupid, and join together to turn the freakin' page!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

the next generation, nyc, ny — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:17:05 GMT

The political system is so wack that his common sense seems brilliant!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Blue state baby — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:18:43 GMT

Conventional Washington was changed when bush/cheney took office. Now an administration can be above the law. It can start a war, invade and occupy any country without it being a threat to us. It can appoint justices and officials that are supportive of only their ideas. It can conceal documents and e-mails that might prove illegal activities. It can scoff at and ignor court orders. It does not have to answer to the people they represent. It can ignor health issues, safety issues, envirenment issues. It can torture prisoners of war against international laws and kill inocent people. It can keep high ranking officials in office, after they are proven liers, conficted of purgery. The vice president can shoot someone and wait until the next day to call police, after the alcohol wears off his breath. Oh conventional Washington is now gone.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

J. Ross, Bethesda, MD — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:18:48 GMT

This memo hit the nail on the head. Enough is quite enough.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Gail, Dallas, Tx. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:19:09 GMT

Bravo....Bravo to Obama and his team.
The media seems to only put what they think will
get the attention from the public.
If they would have let Obama copmlete what he was saying they may
have gotten a clear picture of what the gut was trying to tell them.

Let the man speak what is true, it is a time for a change in politics. I am sick and tired of the politicans ( Republican)telling the American people what is good for them put all that they say is good to a vote to the American people and let us decide.
And Yes they all voted for the war...Lets see them worm their way out of this..

Thanks you and AMEN.............

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Obama's the choice — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:21:28 GMT

This is the message and content that needs to be conveyed everytime Clinton snarks and says she thought Obama's campaign was about Hope, not attacks. It isn't about attacking alone, it is about conveying this type of message. It is principled, it is decisive, it does not follow polling and watchgroups. And Obama has every right to throw elbows when his message is misconstrued by the others. The whole, "I thought his campaign was about Hope" is glib, niave and old. Senator Obama, you have my vote.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Obama's the choice — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:21:28 GMT

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Adam, Lawrence, KS — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:21:35 GMT

I must say spectacular argument. Power nailed down all the pertinent points in clear fashion. This is one of the most reasoned out rationales I've heard in my (brief) lifetime.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:22:29 GMT

The problem with conventional 'wisdom' is that it's defending an Empire.
This country is pending more on 'defense' (ie.e the war machine) than all other countries in the world, combined.

Conventional candidates for President have to talk tought to prove they're willing to kill 'darkies' to protect and expand the empire.

It's odd (and unmnentioned in the media) that everyone taking shots at Obama either voted for the Iraq War (thereby becomming 'experienced') or supports the war, now ('realistic').

Don't expect the MSM to ask them to justify their votes for war.

Why doesn't Obama do this.
It really is time for TV advertising in the early primary states.
The Democratic party insiders have rigged the primary schedule for Hillary.
They've bunched the primaraies early so that big money counts.
They didn't expect that Hillary wouldn't be the biggest recipient of contributions) !!

Advertise now, Obama.
Start pointing out positions on Iraq.
Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards should be asked to explain their votes.
Richardson should be asked why he was so pro-war.

Obama '08
Let's end the 'culture of corruption'

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Anthony, Honolulu, HI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:22:41 GMT

Once again we have a very stupid and disrepectful person talking fot a candidate for the President of the United States. He is a doomsayer and ignorant person who has no place in politics. If he gets to be elected it will be the worst day every for our country as he is full or ideas but very very short short on speciifcs...it is all right to say this or that..but danmn it back it up with specifics or else we will take care of this issue ourselves.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Herschel Smith, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:23:51 GMT

I posted on this issue at my site. Sorry, but irrespective of why he or you might think of the current policy, this statement doesn't even come close to explaining the disaster and catastrophy that would ensure upon an actual land invasion of a country of 170 with nuclear weapons. Ralph Peters recently outlined the huge military effort that this would involve along with explaining why it would break the U.S. military.

Obama should go back to the drawing board. Chest butting isn't the right way to approach this region of the world. You think Iraq has been hard? Right. Try an invasion and occupation of Pakistan.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Joe, Los Angeles, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:24:09 GMT

I think we have a man for the people and can think in terms of 21st century and Cold War and post Cold War...Good luck responding to this one Team Hillary (Captain Hillary, Cheerleaders Biden, Dood, Richardson)

'Conventional Washington' v. change

macko — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:24:18 GMT

Obama's team seem to be quick and nimble in responding to the pundits..right and left..he will need this ability to escape the 'labels' to come.Good work team Obama!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Christian Guzek, Yorba Linda, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:26:02 GMT

Finally, a candidate striving to be a leader instead of a politician.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:26:02 GMT

Go Obama Go!!! Just when you think they've put him in a corner---he comes a swinging!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jim Harvey, Washington, DC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:26:26 GMT

Bravo, Obama! While all the other candidates and their corporate funded/influenced media partners continue to try and "out hawk" one another and garner the lion's share of the coverage for espousing the same old tired and disproven (I might add) approaches to government...Obama stands above the pack with new and refreshingly welcome ideas that are long overdue. All the nay sayers need to stop and think before opening their mouths that they ALL got it wrong on Iraq and many other issues. Obama was correct from the beginning. Again, Bravo, Obama!!
Jim Harvey, Washington, DC

'Conventional Washington' v. change

md, Los Angeles, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:26:59 GMT

He is so full of it. Obama, you supported the war in Iraq also! You voted for every single Iraq Emergency Supplemental Bill when you were in the senate, except for the last one, conveniently after you announced your run for the presidency. Does somebody need to show him his voting record because he must be suffering from amnesia.

Nobody said that they wouldn't talk to leaders. I don't understand where he is creating this corollary. As stated before, most of the things that he outlined in his "Foreign Policy Speech" are already taking place or in progress in Congress, but I guess he hasn't been there long enough to notice. If Obama is soo against the "conventional Washington thinking", then why did he run for the US Senate?? Why didn't he just run for president as a state senator?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

D.Sloan,Whitehorse ,Yukon,Canada — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:27:04 GMT

As an observer of the U.S. political scene(and not a disinterested one at that, since my daugher lives in the U.S.), I have to say Obama has uttered the first original American political thinking in a very long time.
The prospect of actually engaging one's adversaries rather than bomb the hell out of them? That doesn't seem overly radical to me.
Not using a nuclear bomb on populated area in an attempt to kill some terrorists? I don't know but it seems to me several thousand civilians as collateral damage would not actually enhance the U.S. image as a world leader.
The simple fact of the matter is that the world is too complex and interconnected for any state to be the world wide sheriff, and the world ain't Dodge.
Maybe some people should really consider someone like Obama who actually thinks about the issues and isn't afraid to say there may be other solutions than shoot first.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jennie Denver,CO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:27:19 GMT

And THAT'S why he's going to be the next president! Wow, I don't know about you all, but it's reading about that sort of vision and integrity in one of our candidates that makes me really proud to be a democrat.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kenya Simpson, chicago, IL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:28:19 GMT

Its time for a change! I love what Mr.Obama stands for he's saying what most americans are saying but our leaders are not willing to change, because that might implies that they were wrong. pride over doing whats right i hope the people call our leader on how this present course is taking america is down!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Paul, Syracuse, NY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:28:22 GMT

Please, no one will even read past the first line. How is having a memo written and issued by an advisor from Harvard University going to change people's perceptions? In the past two weeks Obama has only reinforced my initial misgivings about him. Why do all you Obama supporters blame the media - HE is the one who keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. And if you aren't savvy enough to deal with the media, you're toast! That being said, let's not take our eye off the ball and get sidetracked - our goal is the same - to remove the Republicans from office before our country is irretrievably broken.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Michael Johnson, Fresno, Ca — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:29:11 GMT

Americans should accept the kind of change Obama is advocating. After all the conventional way has brought one full circle with the worst results one could imagine.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mark Hayes, Wikieup, AZ, USA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:29:13 GMT

Obama's views are very reasonable and straightforward -- he is saying what he thinks, not what presidential candidates "should say", or will prevent him from being open to criticism by other candidates. His thinking is just the kind of thinking we need to make progress in foreign affairs.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Randy, St Louis, MO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:29:37 GMT

All relevant nails hit squarely on the head. I love it!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jennie Denver,CO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:29:43 GMT

CST- read the memo again- if he has ACTIONABLE intelligence he would send small specialized forces. In other words, no I'm not going to let them just sit around and play cards if I know we can take them out. He's not going in with thousands of troops and bombs as with Iraq, he's talking a very specific region in a specific circumstance.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Sandra M., St. Louis, MO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:29:44 GMT

Hopefully Americans will realize the wisdom in this.
"Tough" is more than military might, but it takes knowledge of history, current events, and foresight to understand this. Perhaps something good will come out of the catastrophe of Iraq - just because we "can" attack does not mean we should.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Pete — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:30:18 GMT

This memo proves that there is only one person with any vision or wisdom on the Democratic side. I had not made up my decision until today -- Obama will have my primary vote, and also my choice in the presidential election.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

John, Rockton IL. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:30:35 GMT

Finally, someone has articulated exactly what all of Hillary's "experience" really means. This man has my vote.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Clinton, Boise, Idaho — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:31:05 GMT

This is no comeback. This is just hogwash to cover up Obama's serious lack of skill when it comes to foreign policy. In no way, will I vote for him. I voting proudly for Hillary Clinton!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

pmar, Somerville, MA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:32:07 GMT

Hmm, he just won some respect from someone who thought he was an empty suit.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Chase, Rochester, MI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:32:20 GMT

Outstanding, simply outstanding; Americans do need a fresh approach and Obama seems to be the leader who is willing and able to take the necessary steps. Nuclear devices have become so sophisticated that they can be carried in a luggage bag. No longer can we rely on bombastic behavior to convey the concerns of the American people, we need to be able to use diplomacy and work in a concerted effort to work on issue of mutual interest with other countries.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

don vansickle rockville md. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:32:28 GMT

The "I know more than anybody", Mr B. Hussein Obama, should think more and speak less. His robust language is a thin veneer for an agenda not yet revealed.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

day, mesa, az — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:32:51 GMT

my comment or rating has been received. However, due to caching and moderation, it may not be displayed right away. That makes no sense to me. If you ask for a comment and one writes one to you, then why does it have to be considered for moderation. What is this a Democratic web only???

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Sunil, Shrewsbury, MA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:33:02 GMT

If Senator Obama continues to give such honest, fearless, no-compromise responses to the Washington establishment, then he just won my vote. If a country with almost unlimited traditional, sophisticated weaponry cannot do away with the threat of using nuclear weapons, then what right does it have to ask the same of countries who are NOT that strong in traditional weaponry and NEED nuclear weapons to secure their borders?? It is MADNESS to think that America needs nukes to succeed against terrorists.

Someone has to stop and think about where nuclear weapons have taken the human race and what they have really achieved.

Kudos Obama!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Thinker — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:33:18 GMT

Indeed, it is real cohesive, well integrated reply to the current ignorant attacks not only by perverted interests but even by Clinton Camp. It won't work Hillary, please be positive in your response. You might win with your credentials rather than pointing your opponent weaknesses (in fact those are the very strengths)
Regards

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dale Prescod, Woonsocket, RI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:33:50 GMT

Obama is lacking in his foreign policy and his stance on e Military actions. He is will NOT strike against those who strike at us. In one of his debates, he was asked, what will he do as president if America was under attack? His first response was “I’ll make sure that our first responders have the necessary equipment to do there job.” He’s a coward. You strike first and you strike hard.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike D — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:33:57 GMT

An outstanding response! Not reactionary and drives the point home of establishing a sound highly capable approach for US foreign policy

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kelly, Tampa — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:34:09 GMT

Whatever Obama states regarding foreign policy, the Clinton camp will try to make something of it. Obama may or not be right depending on your view, but it is different and sensible. I have a slightly favorable opinion of Bill's Clinton administration and regard his foreign policy highly. But I do not want to go back in time eight years. I do not want to see Madeline Albright or Richard Holbrooke on TV all the time shielding Hillary.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dale, Detroit, MI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:34:45 GMT

This is what his supporters have been waiting for. He slayed 25 birds with one stone on this one (or however many candidates there are now...minus Gravel.)

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Gwen Johnson, Washington, DC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:35:04 GMT

Yes! Yes! Yes! New ideas, new direction, new thinking.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Lyn, MD — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:35:10 GMT

Very insightful arguement in the NY times by Jeff Zeleny today that explains some of what we've seen going on. Below is an part of it. Hillary obiviously thinks Obama is intruding on what was supposed to be her GIVEN right to be the next President

"When Mr. Obama was running for the Senate, Mrs. Clinton waited out a lightning storm on a tarmac to fly to Chicago for a fundraiser on his behalf. After he arrived in Washington in 2005, he studied her first year in office and worked to keep a similarly studious – yet low – profile. After Hurricane Katrina, he joined Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton as they visited storm evacuees in Houston, with Mr. Obama walking a few paces behind out of deference to the leading names of the Democratic Party.

The relationship began to change, according to several Democrats who are friendly to both senators, when Mr. Obama began musing aloud about a presidential bid. The day he opened his exploratory committee, several Senate observers said, he extended his hand and said hello on the Senate floor. She breezed by him, offering a cool stare.

One week later, following the State of the Union address, the two senators found themselves doing a back-to-back interview on CNN. Mr. Obama went first, with Mrs. Clinton pacing a few feet away. Finally, an aide escorted her completely around the rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building, avoiding walking directly by Mr. Obama.

Many Senate observers, even those close to Mrs. Clinton, say they believe she set the less-than-collegial tone. But Mr. Obama offered a glimpse into his own competitiveness two years ago when a Chicago television reporter who had come to Washington to interview Mr. Obama informed him that he had snagged a hallway interview with Mrs. Clinton.

“I outpoll her in Illinois,” Mr. Obama said. After realizing his remark had been overheard, he said: “That was a joke!”

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Louis Hroncich, Cape Coral, Florida — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:35:50 GMT

Our bridges are in shambles! Our health care a sham. People are losing homes to foreclosure due to the "teriffic" economy. The rich get richer. How many bridges will we build for Iraq? When do we stop treating their sick and injured? Is their health care better than our own? Our soldiers return neglected! Military hospitols are falling apart! JUST KEEP GIVING MY TAX DOLLAR AWAY! We do need new direction. A millionare simply can not understand the working man's needs! Get them all the hell out. LET'S CHANGE "CONVENTIONAL" WAYS! It is definitly time for BIG change!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Felix Nunez — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:36:05 GMT

On all counts, B. Obama is right, except the use of force on Pakastani soil. President Musharraf, though a dictator, does not have absolute rule. His government would fall, thereby creating another lawless void, where any subsequent pro-Western leader would be suspect by the population. Most of the population does not regard wealth in terms of money; they revere family, land, faith and country. In both instance, Irag and Afghanistan, regime change was the end product by design. Would that be acceptable in Pakastan as well? Would the Indians welcome the change? Do they prefer the statas quo as a means to keep the peace on their shared border? Would this allow Iran then meddle into their eastern neighbor's affairs? Conventional wisdom does apply in certain circumstances; not because it is short-sighted or the path most treaded, but because analysts, theorists, and tacticians have thought through the consequences of actions and reactions. There are many who use the term "conventional wisdom", but rarely does it mean using wisdom. Most likely it would mean using "conventional policy"; policy that forwards or expedites one's own party or personal agenda.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

New Amsterdam — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:36:19 GMT

Barak is an Amateur...

Eagerness to meet with Iranians,invading Pakistan and
discussion on nukes is going to cost him dearly.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

cc in north carolina — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:36:59 GMT

Barak and his team are thinking the right way. America has been a power because we represent the things that the majority of people in the world hold as ideals: justice, integrity, vision, equality, and most of all fairness.

In times past, America did only exactly what it had to do, and no more, to help other countries, and then only when they asked us to help. For instance, Bush Sr. Sure, he could have easily taken Iraq, but he chose to stop when our goal of liberating Kuwait had been accomplished.

Barak is returning to that concept. Rather than riding in with or without help, Barak is advocating showing the way and leading others, not just rushing in and hoping others follow.

His vision, so carefully laid out in the memo, is a call back to those values that have served us so well in the past. Using nuclear weapons on civilians make us no better than the terrorists that use truck bombs in markets. Ignoring other countries only leaves them open to act however those countries want. Instead, talk to those countries, gauge their intentions and abilities. Is it not said that 'Knowledge is Power'? And honestly, using a nuke on a terrorist training camp is like using a firehose to put out a match.

If this memo is a true indication of Barak's vision, then he can count on my vote in 08.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

john Doe — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:37:05 GMT

More empty plattitudes from this tenderfoot. This guy has way too little experience at anything. Has he done anything at all? Managed anything? Run a business? Run a State? Had a real job?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

johdoe,aj.az — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:37:06 GMT

I see a lot of the replys are from people from NYC, NY. What is wrong with you? Do you want another 9/11?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bill Bucksport, ME — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:37:15 GMT

I am niether democrat nor republican, but I tell you. Obama tells teh truth. Unfortunatley teh American people cannot stand the truth. Baaaa Baaaaa

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:37:36 GMT

Hello ?? 'wreak havoc in Iraq,' ...
I thought that the US wreaked havoc in Iraq.
Am I missing something here ?
The US invaded Iraq and brought in its' little poodle,Britain . They have 'rights' in Iraq ?

The US bribed and badgered Italy, Spain, Poland, S. Korea, Japan, Latvia, Romania, El Salvador, Mongolia ......
ALL these nations have a 'right'
to interfere in Iraq ? But NOT IRAN !!

The Iranians have been supporting their co-religionists, the Shia. The Shia holy places were attacked by al-Queda (because the US occupation and its' Quislings couldn't protect them).

How does Iran 'wreak havoc in Iraq' ??
I thought that was Bush's job .

Syria has been allowed to 'meddle in Lebanon and support terror' ??
Meddling in Lebanon is the exclusive right of Israel and the US ??
The US gave Israel cluster bombs that the Israelis used against civilians. Is that terrorism ?
The Israelis attacked and destroyed civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.
Is that a war crime and terrorism ??

Wow !!
Ain't conventional 'wisdom' GREAT !!!
GET SOME !! TODAY !!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Sue, WI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:38:01 GMT

Let's stop waiting around! September 2008 is a long way off. We need to act now. Haven't we given Bush's plan enough time? We need to attack Pakistan while we still have some military left!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Ian MacGillivray, California — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:38:07 GMT

Obama has just recieved my vote.
Americans are sick and tired of the stale and irrational policies that have led us down a road of instability for years and years. It is so sad to see those who present rational, bold, and intelligent ideas get beaten down by the media and the slimy politicians who will do anything to hold onto power...even at the risk of our country and its people.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

John Walters, Selinsgrove, Pa. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:38:13 GMT

Obama's exactly correct. Smart. Tough. Focused. This would be a nice change. The comments about using nuclear(nuculer?) weapons were right on target; no pun intended. If we want to regain the high ground we have to use high ground thinking. Dialogue with our adversaries, notably the USSR, kept the world from a nuclear nightmare and led to peace. Great statesmen knew this.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jason — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:38:22 GMT

There is a neat Pro-Obama / Anti-Hillary Video on youtube. Obama needs to watch this comercial and change the conversation from experience to judgment. Check it out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq54KoIgf6E

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Wanda McDuffy — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:38:54 GMT

Take hold and clarify before things get out of hand. After reading this, I fully believe and think that sometimes our newscasters just speak of portions that they know will get some sparks flying.
And that leads to things being blown out of proportion. I am glad Obama is not following the path of most traveled. In my opinion we need someone new and fresh who is not following the norm that goes on in our capitol.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Michael S. Moore — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:39:03 GMT

This thorough and carefully considered statement reflects awareness that we can promote world safety through modeling appropriate and responsible behavior. It is an accurate, reponsible statement of responsible intent. We need to reverse our losses. The way to do that is to assume responsibilty. This statement is a roadmap for that.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Rick Rangel,Clute,Texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:39:29 GMT

I thought Mr Obama was a fence sitter.It never
occurred to me that he had a genuinely fresh perspective on how to do things differently in this crazy world of today. The leaders of Iran & North
Korea no longer pay heed to the rhetoric of the Bush
administration; I bet THEY pay heed to this unknown
presidential candidate that's not afraid to ruffle feathers,be they domestic or foreign.Especially if they need to be plucked.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

ki houston — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:39:30 GMT

what a leader !!!!!!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Saynotohillary, Louisville Ky — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:40:31 GMT

Obama looks great on this, with the media and the "lets go backwards democratic candiates," thinking they have the upper hand on this, but just wait, the media will find something else to promote the Goddess of Lies, and Flip Flops, Hillary Clinton, I bet when she addresses the dailykos, she will say it was a right wing conspiracy that made her vote for Iraq war and not read the intel reports that have led to so many useless deaths...she should be recalled. GO OBAMA GO PS: Edwards calls for clinton to give back Murdoch money, but he says he is keeping the $800,000 he got from murdoch, reference www.drudgereport.com.. looks like clinton and edwards come from the same breed of flippers

'Conventional Washington' v. change

gerry fluharty killeen, Tx — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:40:32 GMT

LOL - what a bunch of losers!!!!!

Voting for Obama? You might as well vote for Paris Hilton. They are roughly in the same league. Again - what a bunch of losers !!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Ken Grace, Fairfield, California — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:40:59 GMT

Obama makes an awful lot of sense. Easy way to prove this is that lunkheads Cheney and Bush disagree with him on every count. That's good enough for me!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

gac Akron,OH — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:41:24 GMT

cst.. Pakistan is already destabalized by being the new world headquarters of Al Qaeda.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Emma Morrow — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:41:25 GMT

What is this, about his third "Do-Over" in a week?

This is Obama's naive, freshman's attempts to cover up his mistakes rather than admit he was wrong.

America doesn't need a fool who's too proud to admit they were wrong, who hides behind closed doors to get a pack of lawyers to write his foreign policy for him.

BigEars is the LAST Democrat I would vote for.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

malarson2, Beaverton, OR — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:41:36 GMT

Truly Presidential.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Alex — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:41:41 GMT

To all the Obama supporters who are fainting over the brilliance of the statement, you think its smart to tell Iran that no matter what you do, you never have to be even be remotely concerned that we will use the nuclear deterrent that proteced us during the cold war. Samrt.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Amy, Washington, DC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:41:55 GMT

This is why I'm an Obama mama.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

HOT DAM — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:42:15 GMT

Obama is the JUNIOR Senator from Il.

What part of JUNIOR spells EXPERIENCE????

'Conventional Washington' v. change

houston — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:42:30 GMT

whos goinging to call the media on those rediculas national polls ,and the fact that they never talk about the primary state polls where hes rising by the second and even tied and beating hillary . uhm wonder why .

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Chris, Virginia Beach, VA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:42:39 GMT

Obama should grasp that he is auditioning for Vice President and stop talking foreign policy and go back to the 'politics of hope' domestic agenda that will get him on the ticket. One more major mess-up and it will be Clinton/Richardson on the Dem. ticket. Barack needs to be patient and get out of Mrs. Clinton's way before she completely destroys him.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Matt, Chicago, IL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:43:04 GMT

The Obama supporters are really out of touch. No president should ever say that nuclear weapons will never be used. Sure, 99% of the time there are other ways to tackle a conflict but if there was a major war or if we were attacked by some other country and we absolutely had to use nuclear weapons, then yes in this case nuclear weapons would be the right course of action. Nlaming washington isn't the answer. This is especially when Barack Obama himslef lives in DC and has a house and is a US Senator!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Deb, Weatherford TX — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:43:36 GMT

Senator and Samantha,

I congratulate you on an erudite and extremely coherent response. We need to get this out to as many prospective voters as possible.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

the watcher, Chapel Hll, NC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:46:03 GMT

Obama and his camp continuously exhibit something that's been missing in Washington for a long time: common sense. It's time to both heal our relationships with our neighbors abroad AND to heal our own country from within.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

San, Honolulu — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:46:12 GMT

I may very well vote for him, especially in the primary. Anybody but Hillary, and I am not at all in love with any of the Republicans.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

JOhn DOE — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:46:36 GMT

HOww can you have discussions with someone who will not dialog? They only want their way, when they get a concession they want more. It's the same as the domestic violence dynamic - the abuser will find worse things to do when you appease the demands made.Also, it is not a question of right and wrong - it is a question of what is a viable way to proceed with people who are not willing to see others as having the right to live. It appears that Samantha suffers from inability to apply logic to her thinking processes

'Conventional Washington' v. change

JoeCHI, Chicago, IL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:46:47 GMT

Once again, Obama's speech writers and policy advisors need to rescue him from having stepped into a big pile of his own making.

What's so terribly difficult about putting out a press release?

The fact remains that in the debates and interviews, when he doesn't have a prepared text, he doesn't seem to know what he thinks and invariably gives the wrong answer.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Ba Amon Ra, New York — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:47:08 GMT

Obama is a true leader. Young fresh ideas is what this country needs. If the USA wants to be look upon as the World Leader then lets put Obama in the president seat.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Ben B, Arlington, Tx — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:47:14 GMT

The Obama campaign need to have him present this on TV, cause this is all he might need to win the primaries and the general election. It can't get any better than this.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:47:22 GMT

It is true that his PR response portrays him as a change in conventional wisdom. However, is it strange that on two occastions it takes his PR to clarify statments that he makes in person, is this what he was thinking when he made the statements? We will never know for sure.

But, if he is President and has his high level meetings, shouldn't we be concerned with his ability to communicate accurately and coherently on the first occassion without the benefit of PR to clean up his message.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Nitrac, Astoria Oregon — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:47:43 GMT

Unless the Demos get behind and give support to Obama they will be subject to the same thing that cost them so many votes before: many of us breaking away from the Party and going with a third party candidate.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Wil, Havelock, NC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:47:52 GMT

What is it called when one does the same thing in the same way continually, but expects different results? Obama is not yet polluted by beltway politics and I hope he continues to surround himself with wise advisors....he's very close to getting my vote. Go Obama Go!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bri, Calif — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:48:11 GMT

Is Obama smoking crack again ?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

DJ Judge, Herndon, VA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:48:56 GMT

Thank you for posting this memo. Mr Obama is a talented, eloquent, intelligence man. We should be proud that he chose to serve his Nation in such an honorable fashion. Support this fine fellow and our world will become better. Do you really think sticking your wet finger in the air type position taking is correct? If so, vote for her. She'll tell you anything you want to hear and then do what she damn well wants to do....amazing, the media is in love with her.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jimmy Carter — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:49:23 GMT

The more things change the more they stay the same.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

M Dayne, Denver CO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:49:26 GMT

A nice way to gloss over putting his foot in his mouth repreatedly. People with bad ideas ALWAYS claim afterwards they are "breaking with conventional wisdom" to explain themselves and their lack of international experience.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

tim, Chicago, IL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:49:44 GMT

Thankfully, the debate now has turned away from haircuts and fundraising and towards substantive policy discussion. Look at the blogs, the comments online, the print and tv coverage. People are debating substantive foreign policy choices that our next President will have. Finally. Despite some twisted and distorted coverage of Obama's comments over the last week, this is a debate he clearly welcomes, because unlike the politics of sound bites, a true policy debate is one in which Obama will thrive, because he is by his very nature, a man of subtance and will not shy away from it. Let the debate continue in depth and let the voters decide!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike, Chicago, IL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:50:16 GMT

Posting from The Next Generation in NYC: "The political system is so whack that his common sense seems brilliant!!"...Couldn't have said it better myself. I find it laughable that he was actually being critizied for not wanting to drop "the bomb" on Pakistan!! My Lord, is Washington out of their minds or what??

Great response!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

josesph doe — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:50:17 GMT

Why would anyone think that not invading IRAQ would have stopped terrorists from their activities? We did that scenario already with the Third Reich - waited and waited and hoped and finally had to be involved at a much greater cost of lives.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Robert catalano, Salem, OR — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:50:37 GMT

Wow, this is original thinking; something we've sorely seen a lack of for the past 6+ years. We have gone past the cold war yet most of our foreign policy positions are filled with cold war policy thinkers whose time has passed. It is time to explore ways we can remain a world player, respond to threats when we need to, yet still be able to do the things for our own citizens and infrastructure without bankrupting the nation both financially and morally. Whether Obama is the leader who can accomplish this, I am not sure; however, I do know that the first Bush, Nixon and Reagan administration retreads who are running government currently have no idea about what is good for our country's future.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Brian, Richmond Virginia — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:50:45 GMT

Blow. How you like me now?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Fred Larsen, Livermore, Ca. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:50:52 GMT

So Obama would launch a unilateral attack against nuclear armed Pakistan promising the rules of engagement beforehand. Brilliant !! He should stick to playing golf with Castro and Chavez.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mark Hayes, Wikieup, AZ, USA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:50:54 GMT

Paul, Syracuse, NY said: "In the past two weeks Obama has only reinforced my initial misgivings about him. Why do all you Obama supporters blame the media - HE is the one who keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. And if you aren't savvy enough to deal with the media, you're toast!"

Paul, why decide against a candidate because you worry that the media will say bad things about him? Why not decide based on the views and attributes of the candidate? The other way of looking at what's happening here is that Obama is giving the media something they've rarely seen: straightforward thinking, with details, not just sound bites. I guess they're having a hard time with that, but they'll come around.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Steve, KC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:50:54 GMT

It's amazing what a few hundred well written words can do to an entire army of "experts". I firmly believe there is hope for these United States, as long as we stay united. In the final analysis, there have been so many broken promises in the last 7 years that we have to make a major change. The corrupt Clinton era was for the 90's, the ignorant Bush era was for the 00's...it's time we made an intelligent choice...for the sake of this great nation we call home.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Marlon Smith, chicago, IL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:51:19 GMT

Wow, this is a great response! Go Obama!!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Fred Larsen, Livermore, Ca. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:51:41 GMT

So Obama would launch a unilateral attack against nuclear armed Pakistan promising the rules of engagement beforehand. Brilliant !! He should stick to playing golf with Castro and Chavez.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

M. Sammon,Atlanta, GA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:51:48 GMT

It is nice to hear intelligent, well thought out FRES IDEAs on how to change things. I am sick and tired of the shoot from the hip, come day go day God send Sunday attitude coming out of Washington, and I will be glad when they are voted out.
The county is in so much debt, our priorities are screwed up, so we fight wars in other countries but we don't have the resouces to take care of home, i.e. this week the Minnesota bridge tragedy, not enough resrouces to keep our bridges in shape so that we don't die on the way to school or work.
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED!!!
Keep it coming Barack!!!! You are young and need a little more experience but you can get us there.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Tami, Seattle, Wa — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:52:11 GMT

This is why I absolutely cannot trust the media. They are as bad as the Insurance industry.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dave, Tn — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:53:09 GMT

-- The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs."

Thanks to the fact that Bill Clinton. NotSoBright and Richardson gave them the material to make it with.
Oh I know Bush called them evil, but a week before that Clinton announced they had plans drawn up to bomb N Korea. What do think pissed them off more?
What were the opinions of this person then?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K; Denver, CO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:53:10 GMT

Wow. Very nice, detailed, principled, and in one memo took a swipe at every other candidate, Democrat and Republican, running for President. Bravo to Obama and his team for putting this all out in the open from now.

The media needs to put this out there and let people see it. Right now, it appears buried. Put it out in the open where people can see it and make an educated decision about the direction they'd like to see foreign policy taken--the same old s--- that's gotten us where we are now, or a new direction that might actually accomplish something good for us and the world.

Again, Bravo on this statement Obama and friends!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

john doe — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:53:52 GMT

The terrorists are comparable to gang members in our country, and every country. This is a new kind of war

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kurt — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:54:17 GMT

Chikenhawks Cheney & Bush lied to us and where are we now? We need some common sense in our foreign policy not machismo! Excellent response to these sound bite spewing, no brain beltway lemmings!

Draft college Republicans!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Joshua F Kratz, Harleysville, Pennsylvania — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:57:37 GMT

Obama should do the talk show circuit and get his name and face being talked about at the every watercooler in the nation the next day.

As a current Republican, I would vote for Obama over Hillary any day of the week if he is the Dems nomination. Maybe I should change my party's affiliation?

Best of luck to you sir!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

P Espo NY, NY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:58:13 GMT

Why is it OK for an Obama pre-emptive strike on Pakistan, but so bad for one on Iraq?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Art Carter, Orlando, FL. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:59:18 GMT

I totally agree that allowing the Taliban and A-Qaeda to escape, train, flourish, and promote terrorism from the sanctuary of the Pakistani Tribal Areas is a Big Mistake. Tell me when we went after Hitler if he fled to Switzerland and was still able to operate and promote Nazism and the Swiss did little about it, do you think we would have gone into Switzerland? You bet we would have.

As for using Nuclear Weapons against Al-Qaeda, I do not believe we should use them as a "First Strike", etc. But if Al-Qaeda ever succeeds in exploding a nuclear devise on American Soil, even a dirty bomb, then they have earned the right to be exterminated from the face of the earth like the disease they are.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

matt — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:59:30 GMT

Yeah, this guy might make Bush look good...he is well meaning, but his positions are really immature and undeveloped. This memo is really an attempt to take the spotlight off his horribly uninformed comments. (but he is correct about nukes)..and yes, he was right about Iraq but don't cofuse a lucky guess/politically motivated response with actual intellectual ability

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Darrell, Foxboro, MA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:59:51 GMT

It is so refreshing to see a politician FINALLY refusing to drink the Pakistani Kool-Aid. Where did this idea that they are in any way helping us come from? They are at least as much the problem as the solution. They are essentially the Iran of their region, except their leader pretends to be on our side. Musharraf is politically isolated and many Pakistanis support Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Talk about a scary place for us to be "allied" to.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

JJ Hartzheim — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:00:24 GMT

Obama has made some good points; however, to start fixing the image issue that the USA has all over the world, rhetoric such as Obama has been saying is certainly not going to help. If it was as easy as threatening other countries with war and nuclear weapons, wouldn't the CURRENT President have already done this?? It is never as simple as a candidate makes it seem. In addition, Obama has not given any details of his so called plans. I am still leaning towards "Camp Hillary". She has a plan. It may not work, but she has a plan with details. I don't want another bully President

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Nate, Dallas Texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:00:34 GMT

Dale, striking first and striking hard without weighing all options has led us to the Iraq mess. I believe Obama is the right man for the job! Are leaders need to start thinking strategically and stop thinking catastrophic war does not have negative consequences for our country.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Phyllis, Detroit, MI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:00:56 GMT

Excellent! The Obama camp is using wisdom instead of brute force. It is time that someone said, "Since it ain't working, maybe we should try another way." Bravo Sir Bravo!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

viscel, long island, new york — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:01:15 GMT

Whoa! This is exactly how I've been feeling. Forget politics!!! This is just plain common sense.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Tom, St. Louis, Missouri — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:01:26 GMT

It still astounds me that Clinton leads Obama in the polls despite throwing around the same Bush-like rhetoric. Doesn't make any sense at all. I touched on it in my blog post linked below.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Sean S — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:01:43 GMT

I love the person who referred to Barack Obama as "woefully out of his league on foriegn policy"... as if "W", who could not even find Iraq on a map yet still managed to lead the way to 3,600 troop deaths, is a beacon of foriegn policay prowess. Obama speaks like a true leader, he is just what this country needs.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

John Allen, Augusta, Georgia — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:02:12 GMT

Obama proves once again that he has the ability to write eloquently, or rather approve someone else's eloquent writing. Too bad he can't speak to the issues and can't take the pressure when he's facing a crowd. Forget this guy - he's a joke no matter how well he can write. It's obvious here that some people will believe whatever they read.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

EN - Wisconsin — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:02:38 GMT

Obama's willingness to invade Pakistan is stale old military strategic thinking. It removes him as a peace candidate. Yes, he's turning the page, but turning it back to past chapters full of danger. He has lost my vote.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

pservelle, palm springs, ca — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:02:40 GMT

Calling all Obama supporters and any others who are open to serious discussion of the most important issues of our time. Immediately copy and paste this amazing memo by S. Power. It needs to be seen, read and pondered by everyone interested in moving forward on a new path. It needs to be everywhere and it needs to be spread now for the world to see. Copy, paste, send. Copy, paste, send. Copy, paste, send and don't stop. If you really want to make a difference this is your chance.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

EG, Michigan — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:03:15 GMT

Pure brilliance.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Ashe, SF CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:03:42 GMT

Lyn of MD:

Thanks for the great read! Many Democrats believe as I do that all the negative remarks made about Sen. Obama have originated in the Clinton camp. It is highly arrogant of HRC to believe that the Dem. nomination is her right. It shows the delusion of some of our politicians in Washington...and the need for Washington to change the status quo. It's sad that politicians, like HRC, forget who they represent and believe their Senate seat are a birthright. If HRC thinks that she can waltz into the WH without having to clarify her policy positions...then I've got beachfront property in Nevada that I'd like to sell her. She may be the media's frontrunner, but she is far from being America's frontrunner.

Kudos to Barack for his cogent, laser-like response. You can take Barack outta the south-side...but you can't take the south-side outta Barack!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Heath S. Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:04:53 GMT

I am a self admitted hawk and supported the war when it was about to begin. While I believe that someday things will get better in the middle east (it's tough to get much worse) I can unashamedly admit that I was wrong. I was also not a real supporter of Obama in the beginning (too young and inexperienced in upper level government), but I have definitely come around. I think the country needs somebody who is not afraid to bunk conventional "wisdom" and I think that his stance on the war and now Pakistan proves that he is a person that fits that profile. One of the things that people liked about George Bush in the beginning was the fact that he made no apologies for what he believed and he stood by his decisions. Obama seems to have the same type of intestinal fortitude to stand against something even if his opinion happens to be in the minority. Hopefully he can start to drum up more support from the Democratic party because I think Hillary will probably be a carbon copy of most politicians and not shake things up. Go Obama!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Brian, Las Vegas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:05:46 GMT

Good idea, Dale. Let's no bother to make sure that we're striking at the right people, let's just hit fast and hit hard...oh, wait, that's what got us in Iraq in the first place. It's quite interesting reading the anti-Obama crowd parroting the same shtick they've been saying since Hillary decided to start calling Obama (who, by the way, has more years of elected service than she does) naive. Why don't you actually read the memo, which is easy since MSNBC actually provided the full text, and then think about it before jumping to a knee-jerk reaction.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

give me a break — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:06:17 GMT

I could have stayed focused on this article if the phrase "conventional wisdom" wasn't used in excess to the point where I was turned off by the whole article.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dave, Houston, TX — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:06:30 GMT

Interesting. Current wisdom in Washington says that we must pre-emptively strike adversaries and potential adversaries. This not only violates our own legal system, but our own morality as a country. For the past 5 major wars, the US fought as liberators. Whatever flaws in reasoning and execution, the US basic stance was reactionary; now we drum up false accusations and dismantle an entire NATION based on nothing more than an agenda. How can you NOT turn 180 degrees from that way of thinking?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jules C, Middleton, WI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:08:56 GMT

I am absolutely sold on Obama! He has my vote.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Chris - Kentucky — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:09:16 GMT

Obama has the vision and wisdom to secure the country and re-establish our credibility throughout the world.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K; Denver — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:09:39 GMT

<<The beltway insiders were cheerleading the rush to go to war in Iraq. How many times have these so called "experts" got it wrong? You know, how many of them have children serving in Iraq? I'm tired of these fat cat "experts" telling us what is right. They have been wrong so many times that in another setting, they would have been utterly shunned and ignored.>>

And in some they'd have been charged and convicted of war crimes and murder and executed in the city square. It's too bad we can't take that stand here...

'Conventional Washington' v. change

john, usa — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:10:34 GMT

Conventional wisdom, coined by the man who wrote a post WWII report stating bombing Germany did not shorten the war. In the same light it reported the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan did shorten the war and called for additional funding and the creation of an independent American air force to facilitate the dropping of future nuclear bombs. Perhaps understanding this buzzword and the above article, is, in itself conventional wisdom?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

d. williams — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:10:43 GMT

yeah, but obama will send troops into pakistan.

what a man, just like bush, he's the BushLite policy kid on the block

'Conventional Washington' v. change

greg herndon okc ok — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:11:00 GMT

Wow. see what happens when you have your people ready to respond on a blog... The responses were all the same. Regaurdless of the spin by Ms Harvard the comments were just plain dumb. Ok now we should have never gone to Iraq, but Pakistan thats different!!! I think Sen. Obama sounds like a nice guy but come on. Please inform me, what business has he ran? Give me real qualifacations. Sen. does not count its a position to lie and steal, worry only about what you bring home to your voters. Bark loud and take no responsibility. Presidents should have shoulders to carry the load, not pass it on go G.W. thanks for your honor!!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jason Hsin, Arcadia, California — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:11:39 GMT

Obama's strategy of using common sense to guide his foreign policy tactics seems a credible and effective approach to many of todays 's conflicts worldwide. However, as much as i support his radical departure from conventional "broken" wisdom that has landed our country in this endless pothole of a mess, I fear that his lack of experience will lead to unseen ramifications and his openness to speak without terms and unconditionally will be taken by our opponents as weakness and therefore be exploited against. Don't get me wrong, our government is broken and following "conventional logic" has proven itself a failed approach to today's problems, and common sense is what we really need - however I still fear that Obama's lack of experience might lead us headfirst into unseen ramifications as a result of such lack of experience.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

scott — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:13:20 GMT

best response ever.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Joe, Chicago, Il. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:14:26 GMT

Right on the money. I recall being told before the invasion of Iraq that they had weapons of mass destruction and invading would not take away from our pursuit of Al Quaeda (I didn't believe either). We were lied to on both counts. Now, I wasn't against the Iraq invasion because I feel sorry for it's citizens, they danced on 9/11 and I still don't feel sorry. What I'm mad about is that there are 120,000+ troops sitting in a country where we know the perpetrators of 9/11 are not residing. They'd be put to much better use actually going after those responsible for the worst terror attack in U.S. history. Bush has betrayed the memories of those who died that day.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:14:39 GMT

<<I'm sorry, but haven't we had enough of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" attitude from the current President? I much prefer a thoughtful, measured approach to a change in foreign diplomacy over time to Obama's one-eighty.>>

Then you're an idiot. A gradual change would keep us in Iraq for how much longer? Would kill how many more soldiers? Would kill how many more civilians? Would embolden Al-Qaida by how much?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

wb hickok — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:14:54 GMT

Some moron said Obama has "Vision and integrity." Compared to Hillary, maybe, as Jack The Freakin Ripper would have, also.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Sushil Bhattacharjee — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:15:25 GMT

Once again another US leader thinks he has the moral authority to bomb another country without any permission or consultation. Obama's thinking is no different than any other politician. Does he have to go to a Harvard think tank person to suggest what his policy should be. I would suggest Senator Obama should take a month's tour of the hot spots of the world, talk to the common people who will be affected, and get their reaction about some of the drastic measures he plans to take. The Indian subcontinent is full of nukes, if Obama strikes without Pakistan's permission, that would re-inforce the thinking in that part of the world that US is against muslims. So, do not come up with grandiose ideas without thinking through its consequences. Pakistan is not Iraq.. they would retaliate may be along with the Taliban. Then what?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Sushil Bhattacharjee — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:16:05 GMT

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Murry — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:17:45 GMT

Louis Hroncich,

You're right. Things are bleak. My advise for you is to head down to the beach (Cape Coral!! Very nice!!), grab one of those inner-tubes a Cuban refugee is floating in on, and paddle yourself down to Cuba where everyday is a holiday (most everyone is out of work).

Take Sean Penn with you if you could.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Malak de los Reyes, Washington, DC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:18:52 GMT

No that's not what Obama said. Obama said he wouldn't use nuclear weapons, period.

In which case, we should just get rid of them and be hostage to those who don't.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kris, Maine — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:19:52 GMT

Why is everyone so gaga over a campaign memo? Obama's out of his league.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Fred Stratton, Los Angeles, California — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:21:00 GMT

Barack Obama has great potential, and thus should be seriously considered by everyone as a viable candidate to be the next president. Yes, he doesn't have experience, but what experience really prepares you for the job of president of the United States? He will learn from his mistakes, and learn quickly, instead of beating tired old policies that don't work into the ground, a la George W. Bush.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Ben, Peoria, IL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:21:42 GMT

Bravo Obama! It's about time we have a candidate that is not afraid to say what he/she thinks. I think he is spot on. We have 7 years of so called conventional wisdom and the country is in a mess because of the arrogance and incompetence of this administration. With a President Obama, we may actually be able to believe in the Constitution again. Bush said the Constitution is just a piece of paper. January 21, 2009 can't come soon enough, I just hope our country survives that long.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Eric, Houston, Tx — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:22:13 GMT

This guy should not be President...he has no experience. Although I will admit I'm impressed with the way his staffed covered up his inexperience with this memo.

If he's going to run for President, he needs to take more tough questions and come up with more consistent answers. So far this has made his sound like a waffler! Pass the Syrup!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

James P. Mason Jefferson, GA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:23:30 GMT

Obama,

Thanks for establishing a sense of disciplinary thinking within the mental void that has become Washington D.C. Our leaders act like children hammering out a game on their computers, "Kill first, sort out the ruins later". Finally a man who believes that sending death and destruction and force isn't the only way to get what you need (notice I said need, not want). I'm a patriot, but so what if America doesn't always get their way? So what if we are not feared in all corners of this spherical planet? I prefer the peaceful, SLOW diplomacy that requires negotiation, patience and a unified global commitment. Sir, you have put yourself in place as a serious candidate and have circumvented the first of what is to be a multitude of criticisms from both the left and the right. Hold your ground, uphold your honor, and even if I don't agree with you, please uphold your standards.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:24:04 GMT

Actually, after watching Chuck Todd on mtp last week and after reading first read daily I would say that he has been fair to Obama.

I think that reflects his age and the fact that he has not been in DC as so many other pundits. I also agree with his criticism of Obama which mostly comes out of my shared fear that he will be Dean-ized by the media.

I hope Obama leads with his head and does not let people get under his skin. The pundits and the other campaigns are intentionally trying to provoke Obama, trap him and paint him as a naive maverick loose cannon. He has to be careful.

Thanks for posting this

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Charles Terrano, Independence, KY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:25:10 GMT

I am so torn about Obama. He is intelligent, I believe him to be very sincere, his foreign policy explanation above was brilliant; exactly what this country needs. Hillary worries me, I get the impression from her that she just says whatever she thinks she has to say in order to get elected. At the same time though Obama has indicated that he would like to repeal, at the Federal level, the rights of citizens to carry concealed handguns. For someone to threaten to take away my right to defend my family is a deal breaker for me. So I am torn, there is so much that I love about him but he's on the wrong side of what to me is a deal breaking issue.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Catie, Orlando, FL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:25:30 GMT

I've been wondering all day how Obama would respond to all the recent criticism. I must say, I am impressed. He still has my vote.

By the way, is he coming to Central Florida anytime soon?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:26:19 GMT

Dale Prescod, Woonsocket, RI--My guess is that he will find out who to strike before he strikes and then not take his eye of the ball until the job is done unlike the current President who lost interest and went off on to teh next little "hobby war".
Do you think that what this administration is doing in Iraq is striking hard?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

O.C. Calif. Democrat — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:26:38 GMT

Come on America! Wake up and smell the flowers!!! OBAMA is the ONLY candidate that makes ANY SENSE in this mess Bush and his cronies have gotten us, the law abiding, tax payers - hard working Americans, in.
That's why it is crucial that America TURN THE PAGE and elect someone that has the SINCERE VISION for this Country, and whose integrity can earn back all the respect and confidence we've lost around the world due to this Administration's "bullynism".

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bob Trabosh, Media Pa — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:27:17 GMT

I agree with Dale Precod, Strike hard and fast, leave no one behind....

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Chris, St.Louis MO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:27:32 GMT

This sounds like the Obama that everyone expected after previously hearing inspiring speech after inspiring speech. The problem comes when he can't read from a speach and has to answer questions, then he doesn't sound like the same Obama anymore. I will give Obama credit though, he does have a great SPEECH WRITER!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Terry, Buffalo, NY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:27:50 GMT

Has anyone here the sense to see that preemptive strike is not the way to go? Didn't we give good ole George that power and see what he did with it? How about giving that power back to the people where it belongs. If Obama starts bombing willy nilly, because some other President doesn't act fast enough to suit him, then he's no different than George.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

O.C. Calif. Democrat — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:27:56 GMT

'Conventional Washington' v. change

ren GR MI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:28:14 GMT

Huuuuuuh, politics! I like what i read by the prof. and mostly i agree. but ugh! all the bombastic commentary. i wanna retch. i am watching obama carefully-- looking for the audacity of hope......

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Subba — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:29:27 GMT

Go Obama's PR team. You need to be on the offensive. I never doubt Obama.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Michael Rahim — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:29:27 GMT

Intellegince and savoyness will bring us better protection from our enemies. Bush's failed foreign policies centered on cowboy retheric and incompetence have emboldened our enemies, and consequently enhanced our homeland insecurity.

Obama has my vote...

'Conventional Washington' v. change

dewayne — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:29:28 GMT

At first I questioned Obama's experience and credibility, however, the more I listen to him and his team is the more I am convinced that he really is about radical change and returning this country to its rightful place as a world leader worthy to be followed. Obama is smart and by the comments of Ms. Power has very intelligent people around him. Obama has my vote. Bush/Cheney and the current regime have utterly detroyed any semblance of America's reputation as a world leader. It's an absolute shame!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bee — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:29:36 GMT

Thoughtful, Briliant and Outstanding !

'Conventional Washington' v. change

P.Loeding Mpls, Minn. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:29:53 GMT

I think we all need to take areally long look at the last 40 years or so. What have our wars gotten us.We need someone who will look at things in a different way.We need to give Senator Obama A chance. It sure can't turn out any worse then it has already.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

jojo kamala,Maryville ,MO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:32:57 GMT

Good JOb

'Conventional Washington' v. change

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:33:15 GMT

Complete and total naive lunacy. Woe the day this man ever becomes President.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

marty — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:33:27 GMT

Here, Here, The light at the end of the tunnel. This is the first clear logical discussion of the state of American diplomacy I've heard in years. Where did our Ben Franklin minds go.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Steven — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:34:46 GMT

I've been waiting awhile for a leader to stand up and say the things Mr. Obama is saying. Hillary's camp of supporters want to make him out to be naive and not ready, but their wrong. I've met people who want to vote for her just cause she would be the first woman or cause they want to see Bill back and that's insane. It's time to end the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton era. No matter how much you like Bill, and I do, he severely disrespected the Office of the Presidency. He did, period. AND Hillary, because she wanted to be President even then, just let it go AGAIN!!! That doesn't scream strong to me, it screams power hungry.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dee of VA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:36:21 GMT

Paul (of Syracuse),

If the media has nothing to do with, tell me why Obama and Clinton can make almost the exact same statements--on the very same day--in attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan and only Obama's statements get reported and the media gives Clinton a free pass on reversing her statement the very next day?

OBAMA: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf will not act, we will.

CLINTON: If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan, I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Drilling — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:37:28 GMT

Obama has ZERO foriegn policy experience. This "fresh" approach you people are touting simply won't work! Stop letting your hatred of the current administration trump reason. It's foolish to think you know what will work better when you aren't privvy to how things are currently done. This guy is just the latest incarnation of a flash in the pan candidate.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Rishav Malhotra, Madison WI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:39:06 GMT

What america needs now a strong forward looking leader like Obama. Let's wake up people and choose the right person for the job

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Momo — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:40:31 GMT

Nice answer. He would need to repeat all these talking point in a speech if he wants better press coverage. A candidate gets more press than a campaign adviser.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kahu 2 — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:41:26 GMT

Obama:Bush/Cheney heavy - more than an opinionator - another arrogant decider!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

G Wilson Los Angeles CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:43:12 GMT

Obama is an answer to an age old problem. American life is about death. American wealth is about death. The conventional wisdom does equal death and taxes, though they claim to be our protectors. In this response I see life. If military death is your thing because you don't have a family member committed then you really have lost nothing. You have sacrificed nothing. Therefore, to America's future you are nothing. This response has merit, if you're not willing to turn the page, what worth do you really have to America's future.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Rick Brown, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:44:05 GMT

Finally Obama (or at least his staff) is stepping up to the dias and letting us know exactly where he stands. A wise choice - I would gladly stand side by side with him, even if we have little chance of winning in White America.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

OBAMA 08 — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:44:21 GMT

I have been "sitting on the fence" watching the democratic candidates duke it out and was leaning toward Bill Richards with is experience as a Gov, Diplmat, etc.,but his experience seems not to have taught him or the other candidates anything. Obama is the only one who seems to be thinking "out of the box". Some of you hold his lack of foreign policy experience against him, but take a look at those with the supposed experience...they have not learned from their past mistakes. You'd smack your kid for making the same mistake (or have to admit your kid is the village idiot)

In a nutshell, I'M GOING WITH OBAMA and will volunteer for his campaign to get the word out and hopefully educate my fellow American, that a change is needed! No more VILLAGE IDIOTS in the White House.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kahu 2, Hilo, Hawaii — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:44:23 GMT

Obama:Bush/Cheney heavy - more than an opinionator - another arrogant decider!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kevin, Detroit, MI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:44:50 GMT

I really hope that the American people realize that this is the worst state that we have ever been in and that we NOW have an opportunity to opt for change. Rather you're Demo or Repub, the 'Good Sense' in Obama's statements cannot be ignored.
Why not explore other options (besides point-blank war)?? [To those against Obama] If your favorite candidate made the statements, would you still be opposed to them?? Remember, the solution is the answer, not 'my favorite candidate'. Be honest.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

JIrby, Colorado — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:45:17 GMT

I agree that everything Bush touches turns to crap, but I'm still not all the way on board with Obama. I am about eighty percent on board. I'm not enough of a military tactician to agree that he is right in how he would respond. I will want to hear a lot more out of him on various issues. America uses the voting booth in lieu of violent revolution, and I will say that Obama has some revolutionary ideas. If he catches on with the people, he will force Hillary to move left. One thing I believe about Obama - I believe he is telling the truth as he sees it, unlike Bush & Co. who are a pack of liars and fools. It seems unusual that none of our regulars are responding to this. I am the only one. Anyway, with Obama, so far so good, I think. I want to hear more instead of going along just because he represents a change from screwy CW. Bush and his fellow a-holes have effed things up in a way that repairing the mess will be very complicated and risky. It will be interesting to see how the Repubs will attempt to swiftboat this one, and how he responds. I do agree with what I've heard of his domestic policy, which addresses the problem of the government having been co-opted by big biz.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

ItsTimeToTurnThePage — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:45:51 GMT

Samantha said it all. Wow!!!!!!

It's time to get off the George Bush/Dick Cheney bandwagon for dummies and hop on the Obama train.

Hillary and all those who believe in the Bush doctrine of tough talk and wimpy behavior are not wanted by the American people.

We want a real president, a real thinker - a real leader - Barack Obama.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Steve Dothard, Irving Tx — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:46:43 GMT

I wondered if Obama would be able to stand against the establishment...with help from Harvard, he has done so with great credibility to boot! Ms. Power, bravo, for articulating Obama's vision so well and in timely fashion. Bravo. Obama's right, we shouldn't throw a nuke at Pakistan, we've got plenty of other types of weapons to defeat Pakistan based terrorists. And we should talk with our enemies, if they are willing to talk to us...Ms Power is right as to the reasons why. We need Obama, the world needs Obama. It's simply an imperative for all good Americans.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:47:47 GMT

<<Once again we have a very stupid and disrepectful person talking fot a candidate for the President of the United States. He is a doomsayer and ignorant person who has no place in politics. If he gets to be elected it will be the worst day every for our country as he is full or ideas but very very short short on speciifcs...it is all right to say this or that..but danmn it back it up with specifics or else we will take care of this issue ourselves. >>

Mr. Rove? Is that you?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mark, Santa Monica, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:49:23 GMT

The next election is a choice between incremental change, as offered by all of the Republicans and Mrs. Clinton, and transformational change. When a country is on the wrong track, as most Americans believe that we are, it ought to be clear that incremental change is not the better choice. Once transformational change becomes the goal, one need only look for a candidate who possesses the judgment to bring about the right kind of change. This election ought not be about "experience" but, rather, about judgment. This memo clearly articulates that Barack Obama possesses the best judgment of any candidate running for president. We need this kind of judgment to get us out of the hole that conventional thinkers like Clinton and Bush have dug.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Elliott Bauman, Metairie, Louisiana — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:49:43 GMT

He ought to return to Illinois, buy a farm, and raise cattle and corn!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:50:00 GMT

<<Obama should go back to the drawing board. Chest butting isn't the right way to approach this region of the world. You think Iraq has been hard? Right. Try an invasion and occupation of Pakistan.>>

*re-reads statement*
Where does he mention the need to invade and occupy Pakistan? It doesn't. A tactical strike against the militant camps using special forces and aircraft support will be more than sufficient actually. This is what he is saying and he is very much correct about this.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Joycelynne Palmer-Stodghill, Los Angeles, California — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:50:31 GMT

Finally a Presidential candidate who is truthful and motivated by what is best for the people of our Country and the International Community.

Stand firm Obama, we are with you!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jim Sund, Poulsbo, WA. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:52:13 GMT

Wouldn't it be nice if Theodore Roosevelt could come back and use the 'Big Stick' on Obama. He could use a lesson in reality. No doubt, terrorists around the world are giggling in anticipation of Barack as our next president. God help us!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

ItsTimeToTurnThePage — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:52:41 GMT

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Matthew, Houston, Tx — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:52:45 GMT

kudos to Obama's team for a well thought out response to all the so called conventional ways. The world is changing only new ideas like this will help makes it stronger. I like this Obama, keep it up! The next Mr President"

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Lee, Seattle, WA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:53:41 GMT

At least Obama has a clear vision for the FUTURE of the United States, thats more than I can say for the rest of the talking heads in Washington !

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Independent, Los Angeles — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:55:19 GMT

You can berate Obama's message and "naive" approach, but Clinton has already stated she will bring a harder line than President Bush. The United States has been the ONLY country to ever use a nuclear weapon, and NO president has threatened such action since Japan. Yet Clinton has declared her desire to keep it on the table. What would happen to this country if we did use such weaponry? In short, the world would turn on us and seek to eliminate a "rogue" superpower willing to kill innocents in the name of self preservation.

We're one year out from primary elections, and presidential messages are just starting to form for the candidates. We have spent more than 200 years electing the powerful and wealthy to serve our interests, and we are now one of the most hated countries in the world. I, for one, would like to see that change. The only way that will happen is if the people of this country and it's leaders, find a new path.

I personally don't know if Obama will be that leader, but he can't do much worse than our last two presidents. For those of you touting the Clinton camp, how many times did Bill have a chance to kill Bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Sandra, Ann Arbor, Michigan — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:56:05 GMT

Oh, Dale. Do you think before you post?

First of all, if America is under attack, clearly you can't attack first. America is ALREADY UNDER ATTACK.

Secondly, you don't "strike first" as a rule. Any kindergartener knows that.

Striking first and striking hard is NOT a good thing, and our history has shown that over and over. It's exactly what Al-Quaeda did, remember? They struck first, and did so without talking and without trying diplomacy. They just hit us and hit hard. Granted, they hit a civilian target, so you might be correct to differentiate 9-11 from your "strike first and strike hard" dogma.

So here's another example: Striking first and striking hard is what Japan did in Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was a military target. They struck first and struck hard, and how did we feel about that?

Thirdly, what part of "make sure our first responders have the necessary equipment to do their job" says that he wouldn't respond with all due force? Doesn't his statement just mean that he would send troops with the RIGHT equipment instead of missing or inadequate equipment?

As someone who seems to advocate military might, I would assume you would be in favor of proper equipment.

Or is it just the speed of the response that matters? If immediate action is what you crave, then wouldn't it make sense to EQUIP AND TRAIN THE MILITARY WELL ALL THE TIME? (This is hardly what the current government has done, by the way.) If Obama states (as he did in your quote) that military preparedness is a prerequisite for military action, AND stated in the above release that he believes some form of military action may be necessary in Pakistan, wouldn't you then conclude that part of Obama's plan is to do exactly what you'd want, to sufficiently equip and train the military all the time?

And finally, wouldn't it make sense, if you anticipated military action, to offer MORE incentives to join the military so that you have a LARGE and WILLING military to train and equip? (Also not done by the current goverment...) This would certainly be something implied, although not stated directly, by Obama's past and current statements. Isn't an increase in military benefits/incentives something that all people want? A pro-military man like you must surely agree it would be a good thing.

Or did your brain quit at "democrat" or "Obama."

Think, Dale. Think. It's what your brain is for. You're hearing what someone else is telling you to hear, instead of reading and thinking critically on your own.

I fail to see where Obama has said he would not strike at those who struck us. I also don't see cowardice, I see contemplation. Brains not braun. Try it sometime.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Toasty, Indiana — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:56:29 GMT

I believe this to be the most thoughtful, profound, and significant statements from a politician's campaign I've heard.

I have been so fearful as to the direction this nation has taken with its foriegn policy. When the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, it felt as though Washington stood up, said "we won!" and danced a dance in front of the leader of every other nation across the world. Our belittling world politics have gotten us to where we are today... in a hell of a mess!

Good for Obama! I believe it is exactly his "inexperience" that makes him a phenominal candidate for the Oval Office because he's able to think outside of Washington! He applies a logic and thoughtfulness not heard from other politicians!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Oneal, Miami — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:57:06 GMT

Whatever, Clinton is still better!!!!!!!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

STEPHANIE, IDAHO FALLS ID — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:57:43 GMT

THIS COUNTRY NEEDS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR AND OBAMA IS IT, WE'VE BEEN SUFFOCATING LONG ENOUGH BY CLINTON AND BUSH'S CHOKE-HOLD. SO YOU THINK OBAMA DOESNT HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIANCE? LOOK AT ALL THE EXPERIANCE BUSH HAD... ENOUGH SAID.

BREATHE AGAIN AMERICA! VOTE OBAMA '08

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Harry — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:02:21 GMT

Obama just jumped way ahead of Clinton in my book. Although the response wasn't his, we must assume he approved it.

He would not occupy Pakistan, but would authorize a strike to capture or eliminate bin Laden et al. under very specific circumstances. Not using nukes for it is courageous in this atmosphere.

I really don't think that his position is so hugely different from the other Dems, although definitely not identical. It is enormously different from the knee-jerk, power-hungry, money-grubbing fools in charge of our executive branch. They've managed to squander all of the good will from 9/11 AND make us less safe at the same time. Heck of a job, GWB!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

RE St. Petersburg,Florida — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:03:30 GMT

Still..We are not looking into the Eye..Obama, someone else is writing for you..Are you not able to articulate yourself..Mr. Bush...is not able to speak or write..We are not going this way again..shame on you..Speak for yourself..Explain ..why are we spending billions in Iraq...Why...Osama is still loose...and some of the other croonies..Meanwhile..we can't spend a dime on our children...highways...taking care of New Orleans..If you are the New president...walk the walk ..talk the talk...and take care of us..here...That's the President I'm voting for...

'Conventional Washington' v. change

andy erickson, wenatchee, washington — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:04:31 GMT

oh my god! can you imagine, a politician who prefers diplomacy to nuclear action aginst innocent people? All of you who critisize saying he won't go after those that attacked us....Goeorge didn't go after those who attacked us, he let them go home to pakistan who's intelligence agency was sponsored by us to attack the WTC. (do some research you morons)
the idea of letting these military geniuses in washington Nuke random places is not good policy. These war mongers are using your stupidity and fear to get away with treason, murder, and in the mean time sending trillions of your taxpayer dollars to all their friends that paid to get them "elected" in the first place. All the while manipulating you so you remain ignorant to the fact that they are changing our laws, our constitution, and the powers of the government brancehs into nothing less than a complete fascist dictatorship with corperate interests at the helm, we should be ashamed as a nation, of our president, of our congress, of our own inaction...history will show a competely different picture of what is happening that you are picturing in your little minds...if at that point there is anyone left to write it.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Anon — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:05:23 GMT

If we don't elect this man president of the United States of America, we deserve whatever we get in his place. I am for Barack Obama

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Roberta, Sarasota, FL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:05:42 GMT

I remain unclear about why everyone thinks this PR memo is brilliant. IMO, it is simply another "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" piece of PR tripe without any real substance. All this says is, "See, I have been thinking correctly about this all along." Obama makes one foolish statement after another publicly, and then deploys his PR team to put out the fires. This is not a person that I would ever consider voting for for anything, much less President of the U.S. He clearly lacks both the knowledge and the experience in foreign affairs to head up anything in Washington. Maybe in 15 years, but not now.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Naveed H. Ahmad, Cincinnati, OH — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:05:48 GMT

Let's not be so quick to let Senator Obama off the hook. His whole campaign has rested on one word: change. How much of a change is it from current political leadership if he is so quick to physically attack a country in order to kill terrorists, terrorists that we as a country have no real idea where they are, but more a vague idea. Does he expect no civilians to die? Is he ok with that? Remember that Pakistan is the only real country to support America in the weeks following 9/11 and Musharraf has bent over backwards complying to America's demands while balancing the volatile nature of his third-world country. To bomb Pakistan would, as a previous blogger stated, destabalize a country on the fringe and disrespect a global leader and country that has done its best to support America. I believe Senator Obama is making these statements purely for getting votes, which makes him no different and not the right man to be our next president. I cannot support Senator Barack Obama.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jass Mack St. Louis, Mo. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:06:07 GMT

Don't let his age fool you. This man has viewed the world from a 21st century view. He is who the United States needs to beome united again. He has my vote!

Obama for president!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

ROB MOORE — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:08:01 GMT

OBAMA for PRESIDENT. Sounds sort of like PETER PAN FOR ADMIRAL. How can an "informed" America even entertain the thought of having B. Hussein Obama...a Muslim, being President of the United States of America? Did we not establish that it was Muslims that flew 4 Airliners into "strategic" targets that killed thousands of Americans? Why don't we just invite Kim Il into the presidential campaign? After all, he has more experience in "government" than Obama. Light up another Kool, Mr. Obama...you don't have a chance being President...of anywhere!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Rick J. Sierra, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:08:46 GMT

In the beginning I was going to vote for Hilary Clinton with out a doubt, after I read his response, I want Obama in the White House!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Larry J — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:10:10 GMT

to cst: Pakistan is already close to chaos. Having our personal access to a friendly,unelected dictator (see Shah of Iran) is never a long-term solution. As Obama said in his remarks, he would ASK Mushraff to act but IF HE DID NOT, then we should act. These are, after all, the folks that planned and carried out 911.

We NEED a thinking President - and not a calculating President, nor an ignorant President (note last 7 years).

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K; Denver — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:10:40 GMT

<<Please, no one will even read past the first line. How is having a memo written and issued by an advisor from Harvard University going to change people's perceptions? In the past two weeks Obama has only reinforced my initial misgivings about him. Why do all you Obama supporters blame the media - HE is the one who keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. And if you aren't savvy enough to deal with the media, you're toast! That being said, let's not take our eye off the ball and get sidetracked - our goal is the same - to remove the Republicans from office before our country is irretrievably broken.>>

And if Bill Clinton was "Republican Light" Hillary is "Dubya Junior". He isn't blaming the media for anything. He's blaming the "Insiders" who continue beating the drums of war and foreign policy as it has been instead of how it should be; how we WANT it to be. It isn't just us that are tired of this backwards thinking, but so is 90% of the world. If we want to regain our position as leaders, we have to engage EVERYONE, even those who may not share our views on the way the world works or should work. WHo knows, we might even learn something.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

norb Jackson Michigan — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:13:30 GMT

He's right on Pakistan. Wasn't it a Pakistani nuclear scientist that gave away bomb making secrets and they slapped him on the hand and let him continue to live in his mansion? Pakistan is still in bed with the Taliban. They're taking the old green back and lining their pockets with them. And ,laughing at us at the same time. I think the Obama camp has it right. It's the straight talk we've been missing.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Beth, Plymouth, Michigan — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:14:23 GMT

Thanks for the free campaigning for Obama. Gee, what a surprise to see a liberal website voluntarily run, in its entirety, a statement by a candidate's "people," which casts him in such a favorable light. Thank you for making it clear to all of us who you support for president. I wonder whether President George Bush will receive the same special treatment, should he decide to release a glowing statement about himself.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:14:44 GMT

Update:  The Obama campaign has just issued a desperate Bush-like memo defending Obama&#8217;s foreign policy views.   Just like Bush, Obama is advertised as &#8220;bold&#8221; in his foreign policy views.  Just like

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Becca, Charlotte, North Carolina — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:14:50 GMT

YES!!! How does the saying go? "Insanity is to keep doing what you've always done and expect different results." One more vote for Obama.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Billy A. Houston, Tx. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:15:13 GMT

Obama is talking straight. He is making alot of sence. I'm leaning Hillary because of her experience and Bill Clinton's. Hillary camp should stay away from responding to Obama because he is making some good points. I don't see anything wrong in what he said.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Billy A. Houston, Tx. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:15:47 GMT

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dee, Rockland County, NY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:15:49 GMT

If the morons who think Obama's stance is 'dangerous' can't understand his position, it would've been simple enough for him to come back with "I believe in our nation's armed forces' ability to deal with any threat without having to use nuclear force. I believe they can quash any threat leveled against us, small or large, and a nuclear weapon will never achieve the same results."

Bingo. You just hit a nerve with the "bomb everything" crowd. You put them on the defensive. Do they think that the armed forces are wusses? No. So why do we need to use nuclear weapons against any terrorist threat? Conventional bombs are all we need.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Billy Joe Williams, St. Clair, MO. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:16:04 GMT

Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air to those of us who have had to go into combat(Vietnam, Cambodia,1969-70) due to phony bravado,hubris from our so called leaders(who themselves avoided or never experienced the carnage of war)9-11 created the perfect storm for Bush to launch this ill advised invasion of Iraq. Members of both parties who new better went along. Obama's courage to take a stand demonstrates capability of the leadership that our country needs desparately,someone who will not waste lives and resources on a phony "War on terror",but who will work to restore our status as an example to the world of true leadership and compassion.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

John — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:16:40 GMT

The correct postion to take is to support the leaders who are leading this nation. We are right where we want to be. A location to take out Iran and settle the mess in the middle east that has been festering for years because of leadership with no balls. Obama is indeed ignorant -making threats at this time is very unwise when we are trying to foster diplomacy.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bryant Emerson — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:17:50 GMT

President Obama...oops...Mr. Obama through his writing team made his points pretty lucid. Republican or Democrat or Independent you must say his ideas are fresh. I know the Republicans are saying damn this man Ronald Reagan like(tall, bold and presidential sounding...the Democrats are trying to figure out if they have another William Jefferson Clinton (practical and engaging)...the Independents are forgetting about Bloomberg... I hope Brian Williams and his anchor co-horts reveal this memo fully so the public can see how Obama (and his team) just made conventional wisdom foolish.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Peter, San Francisco, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:18:55 GMT

Great stuff. Now the Obama campaign needs to repeat this, and repeat this, and repeat it again. The classic error of Democrats is they say something to the press once, and think their work is done. The GOP has always understood the truth - you keep pounding again and again, until the message is practically subliminal. And when someone attacks you, you retaliate again and again, until they wish they had never brought it up.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dewey, Birmingham, AL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:19:46 GMT

I am beginning to perceive that MSNBC and other news outlets have picked their favorite candidates and Obama (like Ron Paul) is not one of them. MSNBC and others keep posting news stories that make it sound as if Obama is struggling and is not a viable candidate when put up against people with "experience" (ie. Hillary Clinton). What drives this?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:21:03 GMT

<<This is no comeback. This is just hogwash to cover up Obama's serious lack of skill when it comes to foreign policy. In no way, will I vote for him. I voting proudly for Hillary Clinton!>>

So you'll happily knock back international diplomacy another 60 years beyond what Dubya already has because a Hillary presidency would do just that. HINT: SHE ISN'T A DEMOCRAT. She's saying what she needs to say now to win the nomination. In office, it would be no different than what we're seeing today, if not worse. I can't even begin to imagine what kinds of things she'd attempt to hide from Congress and the American people. What she'd do internationally. She has no charm, no charisma, no direction for America. Everything I have seen and read about her screams at me "FULL SPEED AHEAD" in the exact same destructive direction we're currently going in.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

James English, Charlotte,NC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:21:28 GMT

This memo just reinforces why sound judgement and being articulate is more important than experience. Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards all voted for this war so what did their experience teach them four years ago? Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer did not vote for this war so what did their experience teach them? EXPERIENCE IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE CHOICES YOU MAKE! If you are Hillary Clinton you have to ask yourself, if I cannot admit my mistakes then how can I fix it?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Gigi, Avalon, California — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:21:53 GMT

All you right wing nuts would not know an thoughtful, intelligent human if you saw one. shrub and cheater as president proves my point.

I just sent Barack Obama money. He has my vote. The republicrooks will desperately be trying to tear him down, you know like trying to connect Obama with Bin Lauden. Muslims kill people, Christians (shrub) would never kill innocent people. Lies, the republicrook's way. Steal from the poor and give to the rich.

If he does not get the nomination, I will vote for ANY Democrate who is nominated for president.

Wayne and irrational friends, I do not care what you think.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:23:52 GMT

<<The "I know more than anybody", Mr B. Hussein Obama, should think more and speak less. His robust language is a thin veneer for an agenda not yet revealed.>>

What part of "bomb less, talk more" did do you not grasp? Oh wait, you must be a Republican neo-con who doesn't see things unless they're being blown to bits under the US military's might.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

LAGuy, Los Angeles, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:25:17 GMT

I was leaning towards Obama until this week when he made those two huge foreign policy gaffes. First he recklessly threatens an American ally and nuclear power (Pakistan) with an invasion if they don't act up to our anti-terrorist standards. He sounded very much like Bush in his talk before the Iraq invasion. Pretty scary. Then I guess to make up for this gaffe and re-establish his "peace" credentials he rules out nuclear weapons in any circumstance. Huh???? Unlike you folks, I look deep into a candidate's thinking and judgment before I vote instead of being wowed with smooth language and an enormous smile. Although I still like Obama and he may make a good VP (to gain experince) he obviously isn't ready for the big leagues yet. I guess I'm one of the millions of people who are leaving Obama for Clinton as the recent polls show.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

JWH — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:26:31 GMT

Obama Schooled Washington’s conventional wisdom. Booya! Well done, Senator!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Scott Eles — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:26:38 GMT

Update:  The Obama campaign has just issued a desperate Bush-like memo defending Obama&#8217;s foreign policy views. 

His staff had to pull an all-nighter to cut and paste it all together.

Barack will take a look at it when he gets moment, just so he knows what to say the next time the subject comes up. Until then, 1) no direct interviews with the press. 2) all questions must be submitted by 5pm each day with answers provided in, at best, two business days. No exceptions.

Obama is such a creature of his handlers, by comparison, he makes Hillary look wild and crazy.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Josh, Fort Worth, TX — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:27:08 GMT

Last time I checked foreign policy required a good sense of diplomacy and integrity. Military action is a safety net for poorly executed foreign policy. AND even if Obama does get into a situation where military action is necessary or required or more beneficial, that's where the experience of the secretaries of war (secretary of army, secretary of defense, etc) will come into play. We already know he's willing to be tough when dealing with foreign policy so I don't get the impression that he will neglect the advice of these secretaries in a dire situation.

I think Obama has his head screwed on straight while Bush has it all backwards. Diplomacy first, military action second. There is no other way to obtain a PEACEFUL solution (without reprecussions).

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:27:41 GMT

<<Obama is lacking in his foreign policy and his stance on e Military actions. He is will NOT strike against those who strike at us. In one of his debates, he was asked, what will he do as president if America was under attack? His first response was “I’ll make sure that our first responders have the necessary equipment to do there job.” He’s a coward. You strike first and you strike hard.>>

And look where that's gotten us. 3500 soldiers dead, thousands of civilians dead, a country in ruins, families torn apart, an economy on the brink of ruin. Great job so far!

Look how many died on 9-11 after the initial attacks because no one could talk to each other and the lack of manpower and the equipment to get to the people trapped in the rubble. Maybe it is time we looked after our own before going out hellbent on blood.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Craig, Baton Rouge, Louisiana — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:27:47 GMT

People, foreign policy is traditionally handled a certain way because it has worked for 231 years. You people have obviously never been involved in the most meager of negotiations because to get what you want, you come to the table from a position of power....not weakness. Why doesn't the president meet with Castro, you ask? Because it legitimatizes his regime which has totally crippled a nation. What the president of the U.S. says and does gives legitimaticy to other countries and leaders. If the pres. meets with a dictator it means to the rest of the world that we recognize that leader......

Osama, err Obama, isn't a breath of fresh air. His kind of thinking is naive and will lead our country to disaster.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Gail, dallas,Tx. — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:32:27 GMT

Obama is lacking in his foreign policy??
What in world made you make that statement..
ok, so you say that he`s lacking in foreign policy,
well som is the Bush/Cheney team (Republicans) are a bunch of cowards, they send in our sons and daughters to fight their battles and brian wash the commanders that are there to guide them to beleive that they are fighting for a good cause.
How mant times has it changed what the U.S Troops are over there for 6-10. Find Osama Bin Liden for Christ sake... The US would be safer if we weren`t in Iraq.
What ever happen to finding the guy that that was the head of blowing up the WORLD TRADE Centers?
Bush/Cheney needs to be IMPEACHED....IMPEACHED....IMPEACHED
Ther are a bunch fo DICTATORS...

'Conventional Washington' v. change

EL, Ogd, NY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:34:21 GMT

Obama is our only hope for an intelligent and effective America that can co-exist with other countries on this planet. Enough division and finger pointing. Our politics have never been so extremely divided, ineffective, and unsupportive of what the American people truly want.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

glueShoe — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:37:22 GMT

First, we re-outfit all US Infantry with full size Mickey Mouse suits that are highly combat functional Type IV body armor with Aluminum Oxide shielding. Of course, all original Mickey Mouse colors just like you see at Disney World. Then deploy them around the world and into the fray in Iraq and elsewhere.

Next, build a huge Wheel of Fortune style device with the names of all major non-US cities around the world. Every four years we hold a national lotto to determine who gets to spin the wheel. The city the wheel settles on is the one to bomb that very day. Of course, with Neutron bombs as this will only kill all living things in the blast area and leave the infrastructure fully intact. Also, the half-life of the radiation is much reduced with this type of weaon so after only a couple/few years we can deploy our troops to setup standing armies in the affected region (see above).

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Greg G, Arvada, CO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:40:23 GMT

Obama has proved again that he's a Little Leaguer playing Major League ball and strikes out woefully. I pity the people of IL who elected him to be a senator and not a wannabe President. Same for the fine folks in NC who wasted their votes on Edwards. What a shame!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bruce, NV — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:41:07 GMT

Why does someone who is the director of "the center for human rights", whatever the heck that is, act as Obama's foreign policy advisor? Reading the statemnet, it sounds as if she is unaware of a lot of things and quite stupid if she thinks invading Pakistan is a good idea.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

kc, nv — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:41:59 GMT

WOW!!! I have been on the fence with Obama because he has lacked the Foriegn policy experience, after reading this, I am not so sure he lacks that experience.

I do believe that a woman President would be a good thing for the US but what voters will really need to decide on is weather or not we want to let the Clinton/Bush legacy continue or start fresh.

Remember this is suppose to be a democracy. How can we have a democray when there have been (2) families running this country for the past 20 years and want another 4 to 8 years with the some old system. And who is to say Jeb Bush will not eventually run.

At this rate the Clinton's and the Bush families will be in office for a combined 32 to 36 years.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:42:17 GMT

P Espo of NY

"Why is it OK for an Obama pre-emptive strike on Pakistan, but so bad for one on Iraq?"

That is a substantive question. The answer is that Musharaf is a weak unelected dictator who will not act against those plotting to tie explosives to their bodies to become "martyrs". Musharaf overthrew an elected government and has given voice to warlords they previously did not have. Pakistan had even elected a female president only recently. He has now blown smoke when all he is doing is buying time. And unlike Saddam he HAS nuclear weapons.

If there's actionable intelligence and Musharaf will not act then Obama will.

Of course the term "actionable intelligence" is loosely defined. Obama's judgment was that the Iraq case was NOT actionable intelligence. He was right. Iraq was no threat to anyone.

In contrast the taliban and Al Qaeda have attacked in the past and by ***everyone's account*** represent (in contrast to Iraqis) the most medievalist ruthless savage warlords this century.

It's up to each president to decide what actionable intelligence really is. Whose judgment would you trust?

Essentially I agree with your point but I would rather have Obama make the decision about what actionable intelligence really is rather than "Bush-Cheney lite".

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Scott Eles — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:43:08 GMT

I just sent Barack Obama money. <<<

Why not just send it to me? It will do you just as much good, and I'll send you a nice thank you card.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bruce, NV — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:43:11 GMT

From Agence France-Presse:

Pakistani troops backed by helicopter gunships killed 18 pro-Taliban militants in intense fighting in a troubled tribal zone bordering Afghanistan on Tuesday, the army said.

Separately security officials told AFP the Islamic rebels abducted four soldiers in the rugged North Waziristan region, where the United States alleges that Al-Qaeda has created a safe haven to plan attacks against Western targets.

North Waziristan has seen a spike in violence since pro-Taliban rebels in the area scrapped a peace deal with the government on July 15, five days after the army stormed a radical mosque in the capital, leaving scores dead.

Fighting raged for six hours after an army patrol came under attack after signalling three vehicles to stop at the Banda checkpoint in the conflict-torn region, said chief military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Danielle Ngwira, Fort Worth,TX — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:43:26 GMT

Americans are ready for a change and I think Obama is just the man for the job. He’s got my vote.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Aminah Yaquin Carroll — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:44:35 GMT

each time that there is positive coverage of Obama in the news the Billary plants weigh in . like CST with a woefully unobservant comment like "we need to ensure that we do not destabilize Pakistant'. for starters we have already destabilized Pakistan. we did that more than five years ago when we began to denigrate Musharraf as if he were Arafat.
to too many people who write in on this board the only good muslim is a dead muslim. and its better to have a muslim country in fetters , in feckless sway to our bribery and corruption like fatah has spawned in Palestine, and on fire and in tears than to have a powerful and unified one that we can't bribe like Hamas; let's recognize the simplistic approach that degrading and bombing the living hell out of a people and setting off a desperate civil war instead of negotiating and capacity building represents.
the while Darfur smolders,its people twisting in the wind, and the Congo explodes...but these disenfranchized countries don't have anything like oil or offer the political prestige for "crises solving" that we want.

and back at the ranch as important to the US as one presidential election is, until we hold our Congress accountable and reform the corporate entitlement system that has made our country a plutocracy for the filthy greedy rich instead of a democracy we have little chance of essentially impacting our national power structure to evolve into one that is socially and fiscally responsible.

We the people and Brarack Obama in particular as an authentic threat to these status quo, hugely powerful global merga-company corporate banking and blackmarket interests had better be on our guard.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

John Doe, Portland, Or — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:46:22 GMT

I think that this outcry of Obama's statement of non use of nuclear weapons is ridiculous. The support and promulgation of WMD's in itself is absurd. Isn't this fear of wmd's what got us into Iraq? Isn't this the same wmd question we are now looking at in Iran. Has anyone any idea what a nuclear weapon's detonation would do to our already fragile failing eco-system? Why is the world playing politics when the planet itself is now endangered because of the folly created by our own hands? Gracious God! Wake up people! What is needed is not one leader, in one country, but a body of world leaders who recognize that all peoples of every region, race, religion and gender are now endangered and under the most dire threat by these same self serving politics of war and division.
I do not believe that any of these leaders regardless of what political party, or country will rid us of these antiquated policies (unless it became popular or economically feasible). The people of the world must demand this. Must remove these self serving, short sighted, corruptable so called leaders (in every country) who do not have the slightest insight of the unimaginable dimensions, and undreamed of consequences to what nuclear weapons would do to the planet we all share and call home.
As a wise person once said, we can all come to the table together and try to resolve our differences through understanding, tolerance and consultation... or we can all die as fools.
A concerned citizen of the planet Earth

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Robert, Malibu,CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:50:12 GMT

Wow, I was reluctantly for Mrs. Clinton, but after reading this and realizing what Mr. Obama's "thinking" is regarding foreign policy I have to say without a doubt Clinton is the best prepared candidate. And that all these people write back such supportive statements really is frightening. Hopefully Obama will become a footnote to this race and go back and educate himself to the realities of the planet, not wishful thinking !!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jeff R., Portland, OR — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:51:37 GMT

I find it incomprehensible that any U.S. politician would even consider using nuclear weapons to take out specific "targets." Aside from the moral implications, such a decision fails to take into account the world's reaction - or do we even care about such things anymore? Obama's right, there are other ways to reach such targets. The fact that he is willing to take such an intelligent, moral stand, and not back down in the face of criticism by hackneyed good old boys (and girls) just increases my respect for the man. It is time for a change, and he represents our best hope for that.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Thomas, New York City — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:51:38 GMT

Obama is clearly not ready for prime time. These are amateur gaffes; completely inexcusable. He's coming off as someone who has no idea what he stands for... one minute hes talking about meeting with dictators, the next minute hes invading Pakistan, then hes says that nuclear weapons are never an option, then backpedals in the very same sentence to say that its merely not being 'discussed'.

As the race progresses and the questions get harder and harder, his lack of experience will continue to shine through, as they did with Wesley Clark and Howard Dean four years ago.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Daniel — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:51:38 GMT

The so called experts in Washington DC, including Hillary Clinton say nukes should not be taken of the table but the same experts become very uncomfortable when other countries threaten to use nukes. America should always lead the world in finding solutions to difficult problems that face our world today without threatening to destroy innocent lives, the environment and live-forms simply because others disagree with it. I am beginning to take this guy, Obama, seriously. I really like this response. This article is a needed break from the misleading expert opinions.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Ernest Caldwell Philadelphia, PA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:51:51 GMT

Matt in Chicago. Where and when did Obama say that he would never use nuclear weapons. The Senator was asked a very specific use of nuclear weapons to combat terrorist in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and he said he would not use nuclear weapons to do so. At to this also goes to the comments that suggest Obama wants to invade and occupy Pakistan. He doesnt say that again he wants to attack specific Al Qaeda baese in Pakistan based on credible intelligence. You know its this type of engagement where people only see and hear what they want see and hear that got us into this mess in Iraq. Get your fact straight.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

barry — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:53:02 GMT

Obama is talking about Pakistan and Afganistan. Lets not confuse it with Iran. Hillary is a junior senator as well. What is your point?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Karen Beger, Rochester MI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:56:45 GMT

Okay, all of you out there. You do sound supportive of all that Obama stands for...as am I. He is FEARLESS! A LEADER: NEGOTIATION...NOW THERE'S A NEW THOUGHT!! Our mission now is to get the electorate to the polls so that CHANGE comes to the government as we know it. A FRESH APPROACH...THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR! BRAVO, BARACK OBAMA!! YOU HAVE MY VOTE!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

t.johnson — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:58:04 GMT

Fantastic response. Obama's team must be ready to quickly respond to spin and distortion before the opposition uses the media as a proxy to define of 'swift boat' him. He has to force the electorate to think and ignore the media hype and stunts.
t.johnson

'Conventional Washington' v. change

clara, diamond bar, california — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:02:46 GMT

We finally have a candidate that has intelligence, integrity, honesty, wisdom, guts, vision, and on top of that is a LEADER!!! such a huge change from the current evil dictator and idiot!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

isaac,phoenix, arizona — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:03:01 GMT

The reason that people like don vansickle has to resort to name calling is that they are afraid, this guy could actually win. Get over the petty name calling and listen to reason. He is going to be your next president.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

jim, st louis, mo — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:03:12 GMT

today i an no longer undecided. i couldnt agree with this statement any more. senator clinton is just the other side of the coin from the republicans. what we need is a whole new coin, and thats barak.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dale — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:03:14 GMT

Obama, the right words from the right person for the job! I was on the fence, not anymore! Give him the broom and let's clean out the Washington insiders. It is time for a change, fresh eyes bringing fresh air.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Al Friedman, Albuquerque, NM — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:03:21 GMT

The Obama campaign has released a memo? A MEMO??!!?? Good lord. It's the airwaves, the front pages and, yes, YouTube, that the Obama campaign needs to reach. That memo is very well-written. That and a coupla bucks will get Obama on the subway.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Karen, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:06:27 GMT

Wow! Finally, someone who breaks from the status quo in Washington and has the courage and intelligence to stand up and shout it to the world! It just goes to show, I guess, what happens when a candidate hasn't been "bought" by the PACs and the lobbyists. And,he is the only candidate to realease a list of his earmarks. What are the rest of them afraid of? Obama '08!!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jake, Seattle, Wa — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:08:15 GMT

Enough already. What would have happened if we did it Obama's way??? We have no way of telling. So tell me what’s so broken. Are we under attack here? How is our economy? I thought Obama was the great uniter, but I only hear him tear things apart

'Conventional Washington' v. change

LAGuy — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:08:22 GMT

His foreign policy gaffes is the main reason everyone (except the kool-aid drinkers on here) are departing Obama in droves. Today's polls show he has lost 5% of his vote in only one month. Clinton is now comfortably ahead by 20%. Obama should have just adhered to the old saying -- it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Tom, Greensboro, NC — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:12:03 GMT

What this country needs: A leader, not another politician...Obama gets it.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Ken, Boston, MA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:22:36 GMT

To all whom think the rhetoric Senator Obama is giving is the right approach is absolutely wrong. It is easy to say the Iraq war was wrong, especially when he was a State Senator at the time and not in the US Senate. If he was so against the war, then why did he not go to the US Senate floor before they voted with the President to go to war to voice his objections and tell everyone why he was against it. Hindsight is 20/20!

Before 9/11 happened, I was always against going after the idiots of the middle east and said whatever happens to our American people over there is their problem and not the governments. The middle east has never been a stable area in it's entire history, just go back and read your history books. So, during my whole 40 years I have been living, there has not been one whole year of peace anywhere in the world, people are always at war, and usually it's in the middle east and Africa somewhere. I have always felt the US should just stay out, until 9/11.

Now, I am pissed off and it's time the sleeping giant has awoken again, but not to just stop and end a war, but to bring total peace to the whole world. President Bush, although he has made many mistakes like most presidents of the past have, is the first president in US history to be a "PROACTIVE" president in foreign policy.

However, the next president needs to continue that same approach and kick terrorist butt all over the world along with ending all wars all over the world. To do that, the next president of the USA needs to be a combination of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, "IKE", John F Kennedy, Linden Baines Johnson, Richard M Nixon, Gerald R Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush. The next president has to be part all of these presidents and use their best foreign policy assets in a proactive manner. I don't mention slick willie clinton here because his foreign policy, like his wife's, was very weak.

So, after you read all of this, you will see that Barack Obama is not the best candidate, nor is Hillary Clinton. Please people, stop voting for people with slick talk and vote for the person that can be the combination of all these presidents mentioned above. As far as I can see, no republican nor democrat truly fits the bill, and I am a registered Republican too.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

James Hood, Wausau, WI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:22:54 GMT

An excellent presentation of the contrast between rational and irrational approaches to foreign policy. My concern is that Obama's intelligent and insightful comments on many important issues of the day will either frighten or estrange many people, who would prefer simple answers to complex problems. Intelligent rebuttal such as that given above by Ms. Power is threatening to many in the electorate. I am afraid that Barack may be too good for America.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K; Denver — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:23:44 GMT

<<To all the Obama supporters who are fainting over the brilliance of the statement, you think its smart to tell Iran that no matter what you do, you never have to be even be remotely concerned that we will use the nuclear deterrent that proteced us during the cold war. Samrt.>>

Actually, I am more afraid of a nuclear attack NOW with the two bumblef---s running the place than I would be with someone with something other than helium between his ears. Those who live by the sword will eventually die by it. Dubya's leading us down this path. Diplomacy, common ground, and common sense are the best ways to solve the world's problems, not nuclear weapons.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Quincy, Brier, WA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:26:31 GMT

Obama is our new Abraham Lincoln to save the Unions. But the pundits is touting Clinton. She will say anything to get elected just like another Clinton. Only bold president can state like Obama did. Nuclear weapons against terrorists? Out of table. Only stupid candidates think they should keep nuclear option as deterrence. Because there only is zero percent chance to use it.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

April Benjamin, South Bound Brook, NJ — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:26:31 GMT

This memo is to the point and addresses the most relevant issues. I've also read the responses and am glad that he has won over those who were not yet sold on him. We need Obama to get things back on track, more specifically, he hit the nail on the head when he talked about how other countries view us, as a joke. I travel a great deal and most of the people that I've spoken to think American's are the biggest egoist, hypocrites and are too arrogant for their own good. So, why not get back to basics and try to mend relationships and not instigate further atrocities....

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kristian O — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:28:18 GMT

I think it's safe to assert that the next presidential debate will be real. Not Mickey Mouse/Dairy Queen get togethers we've had so far. Barack makes Hilary sound real bland. He actually thinks his answers out during debate. Hilary knows that she's in trouble, despite what these pathetic MSM polls profess. Edwards and Obama will battle it out when all is said and done. I'm liking Barack more and more each day, despite that fact that I will support whomever wins the Dem nomination. Stay tuned. Looks like the Black Kennedy has been born.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mitty — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:29:07 GMT

Kudos! Obama. You got my vote. Don't worry about those negative OLD FARTS. You are the only candiate with a plan.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

James Mehler, Mooresville, NC — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:29:48 GMT

All the positive comments here are frightening. If some of the views expressed here were put into practice during WWII, the Germans would have won the war. Obama's sentiments are laudable, but his reasoning is over simplified and reckless. Nuclear weapons are meant as a deterrent and the option to use them should never be taken off the table. It was BECAUSE of nuclear weapons that we were at a stalemate (i.e. the Cold War) with the Soviet Union. Without the threat of them, conventional wars would have been waged with countless lives being lost.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mitty, Miami Gardens, Florida — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:29:55 GMT

Kudos! Obama. You got my vote. Don't worry about those negative OLD FARTS. You are the only candiate with a plan.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kriptical — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:30:05 GMT

/agree Obama

'Conventional Washington' v. change

J. Smith, Portland, OR — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:34:31 GMT

Thomas Friedman and David Brooks, two well-respected journalists/authors were guests on 'Meet The Press' which aired Dec. 18, 2006. As is his custom, 'Meet The Press' Moderator, Tim Russert, asked each guest for insight and analysis of a specific topic. Tim's topic that program: Sen. Barack Obama.

Thomas Friedman said of Obama, "A president needs good judgement more than they need experience. Barack Obama's strongest case really presents himself as a unifier and not a divider."

David Brooks said of Obama, "He offers the ability to see all sides of an argument, and he sees the best side of an opponent's argument, and reflects it right back. Obama's willing to respect the other side. He listens. He's able to multiply the knowledge he has by listening to both sides. He also makes a good point that the 'Boomers' have been running this country for quite a while, and he sees himself as non-boomer, non-establishment, and non-insider. He represents hope for change - - it's needed."

Both Friedman and Brooks got it right about Obama!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

J. Nathan Bland, Leesville, LA — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:45:12 GMT

This is a very strong, clear, and concise response. Why would anyone support the U.S. using nuclear weapons again -- especially against a target that can re-group anywhere? I fully support this candidate.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Tim — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:47:37 GMT

Osama, I mean Obama is a idiot. This guy is a Muslim plant. He could not run a 7-11. Another dot head messing up our world.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

J. Smith, Portland, OR — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:47:55 GMT

In the Clinton world - they are smart, aggressive, mean people. They're looking at this guy (Barack Obama) and he just won't go away, and it makes Hillary's dislike of him all the more obvious.

She may have powerful people supporting her, but power can't & won't replace good judgement - - and lack of good judgement is one of her weaknesses.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Obama run 'em Scared — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:52:14 GMT

Obama run 'em all scared for "08". This guy "Obama" is a big thong in their flesh. The pundit and the War voters smell blood.

Obama ain't no Howard Dean or J. Kerry.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike - Pittsburgh — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:56:07 GMT

Just goes to show that Obama is a noob and hasn't had enough experience in local or national politics to make statements such as he did. New ideas come in good and bad forms - Talking to our enemies and invading our allies just proves he's not just a noob but a boob as well. If he gets the Democrapic ticket whatever Republican runs against him is a shoe-in for the White House.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

eman — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:59:39 GMT

Notice that he doesn't say what _he_ would do. The gift of fault finding is a cheap gift indeed.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

john,john — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:11:09 GMT

He is the best ever but he is going to lose, exactly because he is the best.That's just the way it is.
God bless the blind.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

J. Smith, Portland, OR — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:42:57 GMT

The comments that Obama's PR team 'composed the memo and he rubber stamped it' are uninformed and they reflect unfamiliarity with who Sen. Obama is.

If you've read either one of his books, read or heard his speeches, listened to him during debates, or watched him on-line you'll have seen he's very intelligent, deliberate in words, articulates well-reasoned policy based on good judgement, listens to opposing views and reflects them right back, is honest and truthful, has no personal baggage, isn't mean-spirited, and is willing to respect the other side. And he's neither stubborn nor full of pride.

In contrast, HRC is stubborn, proud, has LOTS of baggage (with/from Bill), is mean-spirited, has poor judgement (her first Iraq War vote), lacks honesty and truthfulness (subsequent questions about that first Iraq War vote, 'on-air' interview with Keith Olberman she said she WOULD engage in diplomatic talks with dictators of rogue nations within her first year), and has 'reinvented' herself in each region of the country where she has campaigned, so far.

In contrast, Obama's intelligent, smart, articulate, extremely well-informed, strong on diplomacy, interested in others, he's comfortable in his own skin, and he is the BEST candidate for '08!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Lone Star, Fort Worth, Texas — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:48:02 GMT

While I agree that there is no present need to use nuclear weapons on Al Q'aeda in Pakistan (or anywhere else), it is also my understanding that Obama has stated that he would not use them in ANY circumstance. Think about that...should, God forbid, Islamic militants pop "a big one" on the U.S., the man who would deign to become Commander-in-Chief states that he would not respond in-kind. To categorically state that he would not avenge us is, in this world, tantamount to stating that he will not defend us...that he intends to be derelict in his constitutional duty as Commander-In-Chief. Therefore, in my mind at least, he has declared his very ineligibity to become President or Vice-President. Let me tell you one other thing...if the United states were subjected to a nuclear strike, and the President/Commander-in-Chief, whoever that may be, were to refuse to authorize an appropriately dire and overwhelming response, then it would be incumbent upon the JCS to MUTINY on behalf of "We the People" who have provided the President with the appropriate tools of response which he refuses to use, and then do the right thing, which is awesome, overwhelming, mindnumbing REVENGE.

But on the other hand, what do you expect from soemone whose middle name is "Hussein"?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Amanda Gonzales — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:53:07 GMT

All I have to say is WOW! What a fabulous comeback. Here is man willing to stand up for what he believes is right not just what is popular. I truelly believe he is the person that will lead us into a bright and better future.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

DAY OF R.,SACRAMENTO,CA. — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:55:44 GMT

OBAMA HAS GAINED ANOTHER VOTE. IT'S NICE TO HEAR COMMON SENSE.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

R Davis, Portland, OR — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:33:54 GMT

Before condemning Obama for his stated unwillingness to use nuclear power against a site in Pakistan, please review the results of the only use of atomic bombs against human targets. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 perhaps helped bring a desirable result, the end of World War II. Many of the top U.S. military commanders expressed the opinion that the war would have ended soon even if we had not dropped those bombs. At the time, I was on Okinawa, waiting to be part of an army of invasion. I was thankful then to be part of an army of occupation instead. But I wondered why my reprieve had to be at the cost of the lives of more than 150,000 civilians. The same two bombs used to vaporize two very small uninhabited Japanese islands, with the threat that the next would be dropped on a Japanese city, would have brought an end to the war with the loss of very few, if any, human lives. Now, our use of a nuclear strike as the initial action against any target in a sovereign nation would be the most irresponsible move we could possibly make. The international respect for the U.S. which still remains after the last three and a half years, and which we sorely need, would vanish. Barack Obama’s choice of method for a military action in Pakistan reflects sound thinking and potential strong leadership.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:34:06 GMT

I'm disappointed to see so many people here refuse to be informed, refuse to see what's right in front of them, in order to preserve their opinions.

Admit it, Samantha Power just opened up a can. And that's serious business. She won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003, started working with Obama in the same year (so it's not like she just jumped on board for the campaign). By the way, she was named in Time magazine's 2004 Time 100 Scientists and Thinkers.

It's clear that most of you who reacted negatively to this want to believe Obama isn't ready, want to believe Obama can't win, want to believe Obama and those he trusts are naive.

Obama has always been the candidate with the most foreign policy cred (hence the only candidate that can come out like this), and now he's letting the public know. This is what you get when other candidates and certain media outlets try to obfuscate his strongest area.

Put aside what you want to believe, and open your eyes.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Carol-STL-MO — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:47:35 GMT

Obama has got it right.

This brillant man will go on to unite & change the world ---make it a civil, more peaceful place for all of us !!!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Salman, Dallas, TX — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 07:14:20 GMT

Any incursion, whether it be by land or by special ops into Pakistani air force without the government's consent will be seen as an invasion. Such a decision can only lead to chaos. Retaliation will take place and the US will start a new war on a new front.

The US army is sticking it out in Iraq because they believe they are making a difference, and they are. To retreat from Iraq, essentially admitting defeat, and starting a new battle against a more dangerous opponent in more extreme terrain will be devestating for our soldiers morale.

This response is by a public relations team. Of course they are defending Obama's position and making him out to be a visionary. This however does not cover up for the reckless and irresponsible comments Obama made in his speech.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Lee Holmes — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:04:43 GMT

JiRBY: Not quite.I suppose I am as ''regular'' as anyone around here and find that Obama is merely Carter,with fancier duds and without his military service. Obama,as seen outside the US,is viewed as a neopyhte rookie who could not tie his shoes unless DAILY KOS' Markos Zuniga was there to do it for him. Worse,to the Muslim world,he is seen as every bit as dangerous as a Bush.[as we speak,anti-Obama protests continue in Pakistan]. Obamas ''audacity of hope''jive will not win friends and influence people either in Islamabad or those nations within striking distance of Pakistans nuclear missles.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Jimmie — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:46:23 GMT

So it's Obama's policy that "conventional wisdom" is the problem, huh?

I guess he'll show up naked at the next debate since wearing clothes is "conventional wisdom". And he'll introduce a few bills to make bank robbery and carjacking legal since having those against the law is "conventional wisdom" too, huh? And who needs a law against marrying your siblings? That's just ""conventional wisdom" that says it's wrong.

Go get 'em Obama. Tear down the walls of convention!

That entire press release was a pile of facile thinking from an immature mind.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Douglas Watts — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:03:30 GMT

Americans are stupid. And that stupidity kills other people.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

POLpursun — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:25:57 GMT

It DOES come down to the two sentence final paragraph of Ms. Power's piece. The chattering class is on a consolidate-the-conventional-wisdom offensive. There is no doubt that Obama's original judgement on the Iraq fiasco was excellent. Now he is being excoriated by those whose poor judgement plays a large role in the current situation being one in which there really are no good outcomes. Yes, those ones, the ones with the experience and savvy.

So it will be seen whether "2008 the change election" is talk or walk. A switch from republican to democrat does not necessarily mean a change in conventional wisdom.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Marbw — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:18:48 GMT

Our Dem party is making the same mistake as 2004. While i liked Carville/Begala/Epstein, etc, they shud have known about the 'Swiftboating' beforehand. Even tho JKerry was in the military, he ticked off a lot of the soldiers during Vietnam (Dems shud have seen them coming a mile away). The Repubs and media wants Mrs Clinton because she will be easy to beat in the general election. She will not win over any Repubs or many Independents(which any candidate will need). JMcCain is finding out that criticizing the rightwing evangelicals sealed his fate. Mrs Clinton going on tv and saying that it was 'a rightwing conspiracy' sealed her fate w/ the Repubs. While i liked BClinton, i was one of those that is still upset w/ him for being reckless w/ Monica(i agree that the Repubs went overboard w/ impeachment and their attacks). I do not dislike Mrs Clinton, but i cannot support her. JScarborough(voted to impeach BClinton)..CMatthews(talks dismissively about Dems) Epstein(commented about BObama not putting forth a plan(i am sure he has a computer and has seen BObama's speeches and response above..so Epstein is not credible to me). JScarborough/Matthews/Epstein are now pushing Mrs Clinton in our faces. The Dems also put forth WMondale last time(knowing that that state wanted change..they did vote for JVentura before, didn't they?). The same 'conventional wisdom' Dems brought us loss after loss are now at it again. Fool me once, shame on you...

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Kevin NH — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:49:22 GMT

Very audacious ideas by Obama. The mainstream media has held Obama to a very high standard and he continues to live above their negative insinuations. I just wish the other candidates especially Hillary would be asked tougher questions that go beyond her prepared sound bites from her handlers. All i have heard from her lately is why Obama is wrong, I'm interested to hear what her ideas are instead.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

kim, Corning, NY — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:55:25 GMT

Barack Obama took a brave step in speech on AlQueda and Pakistan. Its tough talk and forward thinking...something Ms Hillary is totally unable to do. I remember her advocating the debacle now called the war in Iraq and saying "we have to stay the course", and now she is grandstanding as a senator and asking staged questions to the Bush administration. Ms Hillary...you ain't no leader..you are a follower of despots.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Lee Middleton, Sacramento, CA — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:20:26 GMT

I am so proud of Obama for not being "PC." This country has been waiting for the likes of him since JFK. It's been a long time coming.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

HILLARY — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:25:46 GMT

Wow you guys are so easily led! Wow Obama is all that and a bag of chips. Well I guess I had beter line up with the sheep.
Just no sense in THINKING ABOUT TOMORROW. (or next year)
Obama has my vote!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Bill Plummer — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:27:24 GMT

Obama is stating the obvious and should be applauded and he is winning votes because of this stance.
This particular form of icing those deemd as enemies started in IKEs administration with a VP that was to go down in history as another hugh egotistical blunderer.
When IKE sent Nixon to speak to a new Cuban leader, Castro, who had showed up on a surprise visit after taking over Cuba, Nixon was to report to Ike his findings. Castro was looking for help from afriend a here is how we treated him.
Nixon told Ike he was another communist crackpot and we should ignore him and cut him off.
So in my mind this is long standing error and was amplified by every president since.
There is an old statement to keep your friends close but your enemies closer, where have we gone wrong?

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Tom Fennell, Omaha Nebraska — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:04:52 GMT

He blew it (said as a former big Obama supporter).

Even is such special strikes are necessary. It is repulsive to use them in a political campaign and ignore all the complexity surrounding them.

It is absolutely naive to think that one or two military strikes will make the slightest real dent in Al Qaeda, even if they are successful.

And announcing them in advance causes as much damage to our national security through acting as a recruiting call for as many terrorists as we would take out.

Tragic loss of a brilliant political career.

DRAFT GORE!

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Blade, ATL, GA — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:08:36 GMT

To innovate one must think outside the box, we have a name for these types of people "a Genius". It's not that they are the only ones who thinks the must be a better way, millions of people do as well but a genius or innovator is the one who actually take the risk, pain and criticism of the so called "conventional wisdom experts" for claiming that he has found a solution to better humanity of a problem. While the critics, the media and conventional wisdom experts’ seat in their fat asses and look like idiots for their attacks, the innovator makes his point calmly knowing that most people are not bright enough to understand and appreciate his vision. So let time be the judge, Obama will be proven right, again and conventional wisdom experts stupid as always. Whoever disagrees with Obama's foreign policy or vision is indeed an idiot.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dan, Republicans Rule, Texas — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 05:02:01 GMT

Obama is definitely the best candidate. A sure sign he won't get the nomination. Fortunately, Hillary will get the nomination and I can enjoy for more years of my Republican majority

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Dan, Republicans Rule, Texas — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 05:02:01 GMT

Obama is definitely the best candidate. A sure sign he won't get the nomination. Fortunately, Hillary will get the nomination and I can enjoy for more years of my Republican majority

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Mike K. Harrisburg PA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:46:37 GMT

Finally, the voice of thoughtful reason and wisdom, Only fools go on about their tough stance-which has proved a dismal failure.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

HOT DAM — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:00:10 GMT

TROLLS you can stop posting we stopped reading.

'Conventional Washington' v. change

Ik_Bali, Rocville, MD — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:05:53 GMT

YES YES YES! GREAT! BUT HOW TO MAKE THIS GREAT NEW THING GOES TO THE PEOPLE IN THE AMERICAN STREETS: DEMOCRAT ST, REPUBLIC ST, INDEPENDENCE ST, ... ALL AMERICAN STREET!