i should have known! his name is Obama, for God's sake! he's gotta secretly be a terrorist! nice try, Barak!

Okay I like Barak Obama.

But let's not forget besides his vision and his charisma, Obama has not really done anything concrete. Does America see Obama or even Clinton as a possible strong person to run a war on terror? I don't know. How far can they convince the American people that they could be tough on terror? (even if I believe personally the threat of worldwide terrorism is about as empty as the threat of the Soviet Union in the late 80s)

There are also two republicans who could also be running such as John McCain and Chuck Hagel (I hope to God). Both are Army vets. Now I don't like McCain much at all, while he is a war vet his military strategy is entirely flawed as he is pushing for the surge just as much as the Whitehouse is. Hagel has been persona non grata with the Republicans after Kerry dropped his name yet he is the only one who has expressed skepticism about the War in Iraq all this time since 2004, and says that the surge is entirely foolish endeavor. Both men initially voted for the war, however only Hagel has really developed an understanding that it can't work, he's not in the cut and run crowd yet he understands that sending an additional 20,000 troops wont fix the problem.

There is no plan for the surge forces, most of them are being sent to Baghdad to keep the security situation? But how? Will they be used to force a settlement between Sunnis and Shias? Are you going to lockdown Baghdad? All it will do is increase Iraqi animosity and strengthen resistance. Vietnam should have reminded the administration that you CANNOT fight a war of independence for someone else.

What are the Democrats doing? Well they don't want to be labeled as weak on terror so are sidestepping cutting the funds to the new surge, though whether or not they will allow troops to be sent is another matter. Obama himself said that the surge would be a mistake compounding a mistake, however argued that he could not in good conscience cut off funding for troops that are there.

Honestly I think this is starting the race entirely too soon. It really depends on how the so called surge plays out. This is all building up a public persona of a person, however that without real action is merely a paper face still. Furthermore, the Democrats would just as easily divide amongst ties (imagine Obama vs Hillary) and fight it out between themselves instead of joining forces. But I don't think either wants to join forces even when both candidates strengths and weaknesses balance each other out nicely.

Barak Obama has many things going for him; Harvard Law degree, obvious historic pension for charity, a thoughtful and calming orator, very little corporate connections, genuine and friendly manner, and a great smile. He seems entirely genuine in his convictions, and his interest in engaging Americans in putting down their chips and dip for a second and realizing that, over time, we can effect the Washington D.C. situation to make this nation a respectable country again.

He didn't say "I'll be running for the presidency". But what he said was something about filing for presidential exploratory committee. Of course I know that means he's running for presidency, but make it simple Barak! Half the country (the south, cough cough) don't understand your fancy linguo.

I saw a comment from QM about Barak Obama - to be honest I think he's on borrowed time if he keeps that up.