Barack Obama will make a excellent President, but not yet. He is only two, or so years out of the Illinois State legislature. He just does not have the experience to be in charge of the mighty nuclear arsenal of The United States. He proved that by his decision to vote against the war in Iraq. Yes, that sounds crazy, but realize that the information he and the rest of Congress had was that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Unless he knew that intelligence was false (if he did why didn't he yell it from the mountain top). If he did know how did he know and why didn't he expose the erroneous intelligence? Remember, Sadam Hussein used poison gas against the Kurds and he was actively looking to by the technology for nuclear weapons. The problem with the democratic voters is that they don't seem to remember that Sadam used Skuds to attack Israel and Saudi Arabia. Unlike the claim that he was correct, in actuality he was incorrect with the information he had. This is not a time for a pacifist to be our President.

There is a strategic reason the United States is in, and has to stay in, Iraq. It is the same strategic reason the United States had to stay in Europe, Okinawa, the Philippines, etc. after WWII. The threat of American military power keeps the larger peace. American military bases in Iraq in the center of the Middle East will deter a possible outbreak of WWIII. This may sound over the top, but the oil from the Middle East keeps the Global Economy running. If for some reason the oil is turned off there would be a world wide depression, making 1929 look like a recession. That is why we need a President who is willing to pull the trigger.

Another reason Obama as President would be a disaster is the same reason Jimmy Carter made a terrible President (which ironically is why Carter was elected) Carter was a Washington outsider and the country wanted change and we were sick of Watergate and Washington in general. Jimmy Carter was a, and is, a good man. But Carter was unwilling to pull the trigger. He could have ended the Iranian Hostage crisis much sooner, if he was willing to put Americans in harms way. Obama suffers from similar difficulties, his vote against the war shows that and he just does not have enough experience of working inside the beltway get things done. Remember, Jimmy Carter had a Democratic majority in Congress. What happened the country fell apart allowing Ronald Reagan to come to rescue, for eight years. No matter how we outside the beltway dislike how things work inside to be successful a President has to have experience of working inside the beltway. If not he will get eaten alive. One of the reasons the Bush administration has failed so miserably is they will not compromise enough, therefore we have had eight years of legislative stagnation and foreign affairs misery.

The reason race is hanging over the Obama candidacy is because he is pulling an inordinate percentage of black Democratic votes (especially since they are against a candidate who has spent the last 35 years supporting the black community) which has made him the delegate leader in the race for the Democratic nomination for President. The problem is he does not have the political credentials to be still in the race. If the candidate was Colin Powell race would not be an issue.

I guess what io am trying to say is we have to learn from history, or we will repeat it.

This is the most disjointed, rambling argument I've ever read.

1. Plenty of people -- and countries -- had doubts about whether Iraq actually had WMD, and even if he did there was a lot of doubt about whether Saddam would use them against other countries. These doubts turned out to be correct. Does that make everyone who had those doubts -- or who doubted Bush's feckless, neocon-inspired "plan" for ensuring the peace -- were all pacifists? They were realists.

2. If your point is that we are in Iraq now and cannot pull out precipitously, I agree. Unfortunately, you can make the same point about Hillary Clinton.

3. What does Jimmy Carter have to to do with any of this? Is your point that he was a Beltway outsider? So was Reagan. And FDR. And Bill Clinton. All two-term presidents. Besides, Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan as much because of the economy as the hostage crisis. Read some history, you might learn the word "stagflation" and about Paul Volker.

4. Can we keep race out of this, please? Obama won plenty of states where there are hardly any blacks (e.g., my home state, Maine). Besides, Hillary wins an inordinate percentage of female voters. Does that somehow disqualify her?

, nit because of the hostage crisis.

Sen. Obama is not fit to be our nominee at this time. Perhaps if he learns more about Americans…

Read his comments:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not," he said.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he also said.

Well, here we go. Myself being from the hill's of east Kentucky (classifying myself as a "Hillbilly" and proud to be) and from what has been said about the small town people in Obama's campaign. I personally think with alla this "hoopla" going on whether it'll be a black man or a woman in office it has been settled on who the next prez will be. I know we don't need another war-man republican (which I ain't) in office, it looks like we'll have another Republican elected to our country's highest office. Being Mr. McCain (I hope I spelled it right). Yep, looks like that's how its gonna be. Have a nice day! Tirezan

Man, "Thesage" had a lot to say! He must be a writer or a comedian or something of the sich'. I wish I had that many big words I could use! Tirezan