Can we afford to have a President in 2008, or any time for that matter, who doesn't understand the first thing about negotiation?

I just saw Senator Obama try to explain why he said he would sit down with Iran "without conditions."

This man is ignorant, dangerous, and terrifying.

Probably because the neocons and republicans want an idiot to be the democratic nominee so the republican candidate McCain can genderly beat another democratic candidate, mano a mano...man to man combat.

It would be unfair if McCain were trying to beat a female candidate, Clinton and lose to a woman. it's just not masculine, a masculine image for a man to have in these high statesk.

But it is fair for two male candidates to go head-to-head (no pun intended) and one of those men loses fair and square to the other man.

now that, is a manly competition.

No girly men needed here, and McCain might be considered a Girly-Man if he lost to Clinton. What would that do to his POW WARRIOR image?

Ouch!

"mano a mano" means "hand to hand."

As much as I have reviled the Clintons over the years, I think Obama would (I can barely even let myself say this) be worse for the country.

I think I need a drink.

Oyeme, viejito!

I DO know what "mano-a mano" means...I speak spanish and that phrase is exactly what I intended it to mean.

Hand-to-hand; "mano-a-man" combat...man to man combat.

Caramba...pero hay alguna gente aqui que no sabe nada.

not "man to man"

I'll give you a Churchill quote:

Jaw jaw is better than war-war.

That Churchill...what a wimp!

seems counterproductive, viz, the Bush Administration

"Who cut that slimey fart?"

ColonelMcPhee:

"Who cut that slimey fart?"

Hard to tell - he was drunk most of the time and had a speech impediment. Mostly, his secretary just made it up.

but it can be extended to mean man-to-man in the sense that in hand to hand combat, each combatant is on his own, independent of anyone else.

is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So by all means, lets continue the "stick only" foreign policy of the past 7 years.

I don't know about "without conditions" but I do know that any leverage we might have had to demand said conditions in the first half of this decade have been squandered. We have a war-weary population, an overtaxed military, and a dearth of allies strong allies. What are we going to do, invade Iran? That would require a draft, and would mean the end of the political line for the GOP, probably for decades. You think Ahmadinejad doesn't know that?

Now I may not know the first thing about negotiation, but that doesn't sound like a strong position to be in.

"Sit down without conditions."

I think it means to sit down for discussions without any preconceptions or prejudices that might hinder meaningful results. It could mean to sit down without first requiring some action on Iran's part.

How would you sit down with Iran to talk out issues like nuclear ambitions? Would you insist on smoking ruins in Tehran and Qum as conditions to talks? Or would you consider for a moment that the other side might have somethingto say that might prove worthwhile, if only we take the time to listen?

Talking, by the way, is not appeasement. Appeasement is conciliation or concessions made at the expense of principle or strategic position. Talking and listening is just talking and listening. What message does bombing send to Iran or to the world? That the US is an outlaw state at Israel's beck and call and doesn't give a damn? Not something I could ever support.

Obama doesn't understand what he's saying. That's the problem. He couldn't define what capital gains taxes were until his handlers told him, and he said today that his policy his the same as Bush's and Clinton's have been, and waffled on his previous statement that he would sit down with FUCKING IRAN without preconditions. The dumb shit doesn't deserve his senate seat much less the presidency.

Obama got caught trying to pretend he's somehow holier than previous administrations who've had to deal with real world issues like adults. So now today he's basically saying "They suck, but of course I'd do it just like them and didn't really mean what I said before."

Hillary was the first one to tattoo him on it, calling him "naive", and as much as this hurts to say, she was right. The man is either too stupid or too ignorant and inexperienced to be president, or both.

And I STILL won't vote for McCain and can't stand Hillary. ;-)

The definition of insanity is:

1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility3 a: extreme folly or unreasonableness b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable

You think the United States of America and the rest of the civilized world that knows Iran must be prevented from having nukes has no leverage? My God you are buying into such media-in-the-tank-for-Obama emptiness of thought it's depressing.

We and the rest of the civilized world simply will not allow Iran to have nukes. The rest is body count. Our "leverage" hasn't diminished in the slightest, but if an idiot like Obama gives Iran THAT kind of stage you are talking about ... shit, what am I wasting my time for. You're right, you haven't a clue about negotiation. That's fine for most careers and it's not a knock, but the President requires such knowledge as a premise for taking office.