1. I support Barak Obama because he is right on Foreign Policy.

There are no Islands in the 21st Century. No country can separate itself from the rest of the world. Isolationism, or simply neglect of the international situation can have deadly consequences.

John McCain:
Does not list foreign policy on his issues page in his website, although he does cover "National Security" and "Iraq." This confirms my concern that McCain's view of foreign policy is strictly centered around military concerns, and that he doesn't think about global situations in anything but a strategic military way. In my view, this is extremely destructive to diplomatic efforts, which will only be undertaken with a mili...

1. I support Barak Obama because he is right on Foreign Policy.

There are no Islands in the 21st Century. No country can separate itself from the rest of the world. Isolationism, or simply neglect of the international situation can have deadly consequences.

John McCain:
Does not list foreign policy on his issues page in his website, although he does cover "National Security" and "Iraq." This confirms my concern that McCain's view of foreign policy is strictly centered around military concerns, and that he doesn't think about global situations in anything but a strategic military way. In my view, this is extremely destructive to diplomatic efforts, which will only be undertaken with a military objective in mind. It is impossible to negotiate in good faith if you never take your finger off the trigger.

Barak Obama:
Has said he will sit down and talk to people, even if we see them as our enemies. I know from personal experience this is absolutely necessary. Today, the dire situation in Iran is because of Bush's unwillingness to talk to a reasonable Iranian leader. His bellicose rhetoric and posturing provoked Iranians into supporting an unstable jingoist out of fear that an American invasion was imminent.

If we view people in the world as our enemies, we will inevitably find ourselves drawn into conflicts. On the other hand if we give people a chance to speak their mind, treat them with respect and equality, we can moderate their radicalism and discredit those who would agitate for bloodshed and isolation.

Barak Obama is the only Presidential candidate that understand how important this is, so I will vote for Barak Obama.

2. I support Barak Obama because he is right on National Security.

If you look at their online platforms, you might be interested to know that McCain's National Security platform speaks mostly in empty platitudes about "strength" and "honor," while Obama offers a very detailed and technical plan covering nuts-and-bolts details like power projection at sea and counter terrorism in cyberspace.

McCain and Obama both support modernizing the military, and both support a missile defense system. Both are commited to giving our service men and women the equipment they need to accomplish the missions we give them. Both want smarter defense spending, and both want to ease the burdens on the service...

2. I support Barak Obama because he is right on National Security.

If you look at their online platforms, you might be interested to know that McCain's National Security platform speaks mostly in empty platitudes about "strength" and "honor," while Obama offers a very detailed and technical plan covering nuts-and-bolts details like power projection at sea and counter terrorism in cyberspace.

McCain and Obama both support modernizing the military, and both support a missile defense system. Both are commited to giving our service men and women the equipment they need to accomplish the missions we give them. Both want smarter defense spending, and both want to ease the burdens on the service men and women and their families. Both want to expand the military as necessary.

John McCain:
Has a better grasp on how to support our troops after their service is done, and is without a doubt stronger on Veterans' affairs. On the other hand, from the vague statements he's made, my impression is that his strategic model is thoroughly Cold-War-era, and his ideas about the projection of US power are more likely to cause more conflict, not less.

Barak Obama:
Has a number of ideas that I really like. First, he wants to "Develop Whole Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability." This is a key idea. Although our soldiers won the war, they are losing the peace because, lingering after the end of major combat operations, they are perceived as an unjust army of occupation, which only fuels the insurgency.

What is worse, there have not been effective civilian efforts coordinated with the military effort to help restore the countries we have defeated, which embitters the populace and makes us look like callous imperialists.

If we can coordinate civilian efforts with the military effort, and provide a a truly better way of life to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, then we might find them more sympathetic to us, and less sympathetic to the terrorists.

2.1 I support Obama because he is right on reforming private contractors used for National Security

One of the reasons for the failure to establish a stable society in either Iraq or Afghanistan has been that many of the rebuilding projects were given to private contractors, who failed miserably at this task because their contracts were not negotiated in a fair or open way, and their motives were not success but profit.

What is more, morally bankrupt profiteers such as Blackwater and Haliburton have been allowed free hand in Iraq, being accountable to no laws and no authority. Legal loopholes allow them to commit crimes with impunity, which damages our standing in these countries, and driv...

2.1 I support Obama because he is right on reforming private contractors used for National Security

One of the reasons for the failure to establish a stable society in either Iraq or Afghanistan has been that many of the rebuilding projects were given to private contractors, who failed miserably at this task because their contracts were not negotiated in a fair or open way, and their motives were not success but profit.

What is more, morally bankrupt profiteers such as Blackwater and Haliburton have been allowed free hand in Iraq, being accountable to no laws and no authority. Legal loopholes allow them to commit crimes with impunity, which damages our standing in these countries, and drives reasonable people to support terrorism.

John McCain:
Despite his ardent convictions about ethics and reform, never once mentions reform of the private contractor system used in the interest of National Security. As far as I can tell, although he plans to expand the military and confront enemies, it has not occurred to him that we might need to change the way our military works, starting with the use of private contractors.

Barak Obama:
Says he will change the system, to provide honesty and transparency in the system of awarding contracts, as well as holding accountable contractors under the same rules and regulations that govern all civil societies. This is crucial if we are to show the world that we are somehow better than the terrorists. (Which is something we are failing to do under the status quo, and something that must change.)

2.2 I support Barak Obama because he is right on Iran

One of my central criteria for choosing a President is one who will not lead us, wither willfully or blundering, into any more unnecessary and unjust wars. As a supporter of our troops, I will not tolerate a politician who wastes their noble sacrifice on a cause unworthy of the nation they are sworn to defend. A war in Iran would be both unnecessary and unjust.

John McCain:
Proposes to use the Security Council to enact punative measures against Iran, to embargo fuel imports and exports in Iran, and encourage varrious international sanctions that will isolate and impoverish Iran. This kind of pressure will not inspire peacefull change, b...

2.2 I support Barak Obama because he is right on Iran

One of my central criteria for choosing a President is one who will not lead us, wither willfully or blundering, into any more unnecessary and unjust wars. As a supporter of our troops, I will not tolerate a politician who wastes their noble sacrifice on a cause unworthy of the nation they are sworn to defend. A war in Iran would be both unnecessary and unjust.

John McCain:
Proposes to use the Security Council to enact punative measures against Iran, to embargo fuel imports and exports in Iran, and encourage varrious international sanctions that will isolate and impoverish Iran. This kind of pressure will not inspire peacefull change, but instead will embitter a nation and provoke a war.

All of these are the same strategies we used against Saddam Hussein, which not only failed to create positive change, but ultimately led to war. All of these are the same strategies that we have pursued against Iran since the revolution in 1977, and they have led us to this impasse, rather than acheiving their goals.

Barak Obama:
Understands the value of listening and dialog. Although that doesn't mean he will provide support to Iranian initiatives, greater openness will show our support for the Iranian people, who fundamentally like America and desire peace. It will also discredit their leaders who use fear-mongering to cement their own power, and depict America as a deaf and violent threat that hears no reason and can only be met with force.

Because he is the only candidate who has a plan that will lead to peace with Iran, I will vote for Barak Obama.

I agree with all those, but I believe issues are only a part of deciding on a candidate.
Despite all the much ballyhooed talk on crowds and celebrity, there is a nugget of importance in them.
A president does not legislate - he can only persuade others to do so. And, in times of crisis, the words of Presidents and Prime Ministers have ignited the hearts of nations and changed the course of history. There is no other platform like White House. Who can forget "Ich bin ein Berliner," or "Ask not what your country can do for you ...," or "We have a rendez-vous with destiny," or "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" (or, for that matter, Churchill's "This was their finest hour).
Some say that l...

I agree with all those, but I believe issues are only a part of deciding on a candidate.
Despite all the much ballyhooed talk on crowds and celebrity, there is a nugget of importance in them.
A president does not legislate - he can only persuade others to do so. And, in times of crisis, the words of Presidents and Prime Ministers have ignited the hearts of nations and changed the course of history. There is no other platform like White House. Who can forget "Ich bin ein Berliner," or "Ask not what your country can do for you ...," or "We have a rendez-vous with destiny," or "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" (or, for that matter, Churchill's "This was their finest hour).
Some say that leadership is the ability to put into words that which many are thinking. Those Presidents who were unable to do so - eg, GWB (known for what he has said, but negatively so), and Carter, found themselves unable to move the Congress, unable to move the nation, and unable to move the world. In time of crisis, that ability can spell success or failure.
And some say "If you want to know if you're a leader, turn around and see if anyone's following." Obama has rallied a new coalition of voters that is unique in American history. That's important.
Leadership without solid positions would be useless, at best. But positions without leadership might be equally so.

Finally, we are at a turning point in western civilization - the hinge between the end of modernism and whatever post-modernism becomes.
Its impact on American culture is enormous. Those characteristics of modernism that used to dominate America, and find now their last refuge in religious conservatism (everything is either good or bad, dominance and submission are the only alternatives, the world must operate by centralized authority, "you're either for us or against us") are fading, and will never be strong again.
Post-modernism's instincts that negotiation trumps force, that change happens from the bottom-up, and that emergence- sudden bursts of progress - can happen when all parties list...

Finally, we are at a turning point in western civilization - the hinge between the end of modernism and whatever post-modernism becomes.
Its impact on American culture is enormous. Those characteristics of modernism that used to dominate America, and find now their last refuge in religious conservatism (everything is either good or bad, dominance and submission are the only alternatives, the world must operate by centralized authority, "you're either for us or against us") are fading, and will never be strong again.
Post-modernism's instincts that negotiation trumps force, that change happens from the bottom-up, and that emergence- sudden bursts of progress - can happen when all parties listen carefully to each other rather than trying only to win, are spreading rapidly in science and culture and even religion. Obama understands this more profoundly than any politician on the American scene. The divide between those who "get" him and those who don't lies right along this line. To the young, for instance, he seems profoundly understandable. To older Americans and especially conservatives (who are moving more slowly away from modernism - especially religious conservatives) his language is unnatural and hard to trust (this is also why Hillary supporters often found him difficult - he did not speak the language of warfare and dominance that previous generations had to speak in order to succeed, so he seemed too soft. Hardly so, tho - it is a method that will be more effective, not less, in the future).
Post-modernism is upon us, and we have an opportunity to elect a President who grasps the worldview, the process, and the way of leading that of the America that is surging ahead, rather than the one that used to be.

Masbury: Too bad its just you and me talking about the issues here!

But from what I know of you from clipmarks and your blog, I think we support Obama for the same reasons: we see the logic in what he's saying because we both spend time on the ideological front lines - or even "behind enemy lines" to extend the metaphor.

Some people isolate themselves ideologically. You'll notice, there are no conservatives making well reasoned and substantive arguments against my views on the issues on this clip. When you isolate yourself ideologically and dismiss all the people who disagree with you as idiots or lunatics, then suddenly the world stops making sense.

So many people lament that "the world ...

Masbury: Too bad its just you and me talking about the issues here!

But from what I know of you from clipmarks and your blog, I think we support Obama for the same reasons: we see the logic in what he's saying because we both spend time on the ideological front lines - or even "behind enemy lines" to extend the metaphor.

Some people isolate themselves ideologically. You'll notice, there are no conservatives making well reasoned and substantive arguments against my views on the issues on this clip. When you isolate yourself ideologically and dismiss all the people who disagree with you as idiots or lunatics, then suddenly the world stops making sense.

So many people lament that "the world has gone mad" simply because they lack the compassion to try to understand another person's logic, and engage with them, even though they are different.

For many, it seems that they view American politics as merely a gedanken experiment, where the opposition is only hypothetical, not proposed by real people for real reasons.

To those of us who move outside this insulated sphere, and have to deal with those real, rational people who disagree with us on the basis convictions that are just as deeply held and justified as our own, then Obama's vision of politics is a revelation.

It is amazing because, in my experience, it is so basic, such common-sense, and yet no other politician seems to realize it.

So many people lament that "the world has gone mad" simply because they lack the compassion to try to understand another person's logic, and engage with them, even though they are different.

It's awfully easy to remain culturally isolated in much of the US. I have had so many conversations with people here on CM who simply cannot imagine that people of another sub-culture in the US work from a different value system and an entirely different set of cultural possibilities. Hence, there is anger, for instance, on the part of under-exposed white people to inner-city black people: "Why don't they just keep their knees together and not get pregnant?" "Why don't they just get a jo...

So many people lament that "the world has gone mad" simply because they lack the compassion to try to understand another person's logic, and engage with them, even though they are different.

It's awfully easy to remain culturally isolated in much of the US. I have had so many conversations with people here on CM who simply cannot imagine that people of another sub-culture in the US work from a different value system and an entirely different set of cultural possibilities. Hence, there is anger, for instance, on the part of under-exposed white people to inner-city black people: "Why don't they just keep their knees together and not get pregnant?" "Why don't they just get a job like the rest of us?" In other words, "why don't they just do what I, in my circumstance and value set, do?" Since radical difference in circumstance goes unseen, the conclusion reached is that they are doing what I would be doing if I did what they do. Thus, they are immoral, lazy, etc. - for nobody really has it any harder than I do, and they should suck it up and get to work.
How backward we are yet! How critical that education have higher goals than merely becoming productive math and science cogs for corporate America!

Tell me about it. One of my degrees is in Comparative Religion, so I've had to sit on a lot of "Interfaith Dialog" panels either representing evil academia, or more awkwardly, as the token Buddhist.

Although it undermines a certain dogmatic certainty, I would think that religion, as a highly subjective field where conclusive evidence is impossible to find, would embrace postmodernism as liberating theology from the shackles of having to answer what are, religiously, rather boring scientific questions like evolution.

My idea of hell is being reincarnated as a theologian who, after studying deep scriptures, learned commentaries, finally comes to an ecstatic and liberating awareness of the un...

Tell me about it. One of my degrees is in Comparative Religion, so I've had to sit on a lot of "Interfaith Dialog" panels either representing evil academia, or more awkwardly, as the token Buddhist.

Although it undermines a certain dogmatic certainty, I would think that religion, as a highly subjective field where conclusive evidence is impossible to find, would embrace postmodernism as liberating theology from the shackles of having to answer what are, religiously, rather boring scientific questions like evolution.

My idea of hell is being reincarnated as a theologian who, after studying deep scriptures, learned commentaries, finally comes to an ecstatic and liberating awareness of the unifying principle that reveals divinity in the world around us...
..and then...
...after all that contemplation, going out to explain the beauty and profundity that I have found, but the adherents only want to know about is basic geology and whether cave men lived at the same time as dinosaurs!

The Republicans are putting all their chips on their historic practice: winning by metaphor. Sarah Palin's job is to be a tough mom demonstrating the suppressed rages of Family Values.
W and Reagan won this way: not by policies, but by pictures.
Most Americans, Republicans included, favor Democratic positions on issues, surveys suggest, unless those policies are identified as Democratic. Republicans get elected on other bases.
Obama gets this - gets that Americans vote for metaphors of where they want the country to go. But Democrats, as a group, probably don't, preferring to duke it out on issues - which makes them seem like nerds and wonks. It will be intriguing to see what Obam...

The Republicans are putting all their chips on their historic practice: winning by metaphor. Sarah Palin's job is to be a tough mom demonstrating the suppressed rages of Family Values.
W and Reagan won this way: not by policies, but by pictures.
Most Americans, Republicans included, favor Democratic positions on issues, surveys suggest, unless those policies are identified as Democratic. Republicans get elected on other bases.
Obama gets this - gets that Americans vote for metaphors of where they want the country to go. But Democrats, as a group, probably don't, preferring to duke it out on issues - which makes them seem like nerds and wonks. It will be intriguing to see what Obama comes up with to disarm the Palin passion.
You're right, I'm sure, that R's underestimated Palin's negatives (they not only pitch the metaphor, they swallow it!) Yet they may be correct that she could activate, warts and all, a powerful movement back toward their worldview.