Obama and his supporters keep saying that the democratic nominee should be the one who gets the most popular votes … not super delegates. But, in addition to Obama accepting Richardson’s delegate vote, even though Hillary won the popular vote in New Mexico … it’s apparent that if Obama’s 20 year association with racist Wright (and indirect association with Farrakan) had been known a year ago by the public … Obama would not have gained a lead in the popular vote … in fact, he probably wouldn’t even still be in the race at all!

The current political situation is exactly why super delegates should vote for Hillary. Obama might have gotten this far, because we didn’t know about his racist affiliations for an entire year … but, from this point on, there’s no way Obama could win in the general election.

I’m a democrat, but I’ll vote (and campaign) for McCain if Obama becomes the democratic candidate!

@Bill Day — My point exactly.

@leblase — You’ve actually taken the time to read the speech, which I haven’t done since I’ve already read two other long Obama foreign policy speeches. I thought I could make an intelligent guess of what I would find there. But now you’ve encouraged me, so I’ll read it the next time I have a few extra minutes….

Your points are excellent, thank you. For point 1) I don’t think it should impress us to find politicians who understand that the root of al Qaeda is in Pakistan and Afghanistan! Isn’t that the very least we should expect? The idea that we are “fighting on the wrong battlefield” is not original to Obama. We need to go deeper with the analysis. I wonder if he takes into account that Pakistan’s national security establishment is an unreliable partner, because it is heavily invested in the Taliban and al Qaeda? I wonder if he is encouraged by the success of civilian, secular opponents to Musharraf like Supreme Court Chief Justice Chaudhry? This is why I will read the speech, though I expect to be disappointed.

I think point 2) more or less answers my question. I didn’t know, by the way, that Karzai was a former arms dealer. I once ate in an Afghan restaurant owned by his brother in San Francisco. At the time, I was a big fan of his—this was in 2002 and my real Afghan hero, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was already dead—so I was hoping they would have his photo in a place of honor. I was disappointed to find that the staff was actually a bit embarassed about the connection!

Moving on to point 3) — yes, the situation is evolving rapidly and a leader should choose to be more circumspect, rather than score points with the pundits or the masses. To be honest, my respect for Hillary Clinton is growing. Obama has been in the news for agreeing to meet the Iranian and Cuban leadership, for taking nuclear weapons off the table against al Qaeda, and for his threat to “act” if Musharraf won’t. I agree with some of these positions and disagree with others, but what worries me is that the only common denominator I see is a desire to grab the headlines, to be bold and break with the past. So your question “conservative or liberal radical?” is right on.

As an antidote to all this, I strongly recommend the speech General Wesley Clark gave yesterday at the Yearly Kos convention of progressive bloggers. General Clark demonstrates exactly the sort of mature, comprehensive, yet progressive foreign policy I haven’t seen from any of the front-running Democratic candidates. He was a candidate for the 2004 presidential nomination but never caught on, and he hasn’t declared his intentions this time around. If he got in the race, I would support him in a heartbeat. I’ve taken the time to transcribe a large chunk of his speech on my blog. The video version is here.

2 Obama’s solutions fall short: the Afghani and Pakistanese authorities are almost as dangerous as the extremists America is supposed to fight : Karzai’s totally corrupt government is composed of ancient arms dealers (Karzai himself) poppy producers, transformers and exporters.
Most of NATO members do not want to participate more actively in the fighting in Afghanistan because they do not agree with the tactics employed (the same than the Soviet used, with a lot of civilian casualties, destruction of traditional culture and compromission with local warlords).
Pakistan is potentially the most dangerous country in the world, and threatening to hit it or partially invade it shows Sen. Obama has no knowledge of the society there, which is a mixture of sophisticated, technologicaly-advanced and backward religious-oriented fanatic sectarianism.
3 Time.
Long before the American election comes, the situation will have evolved very fast, not only in these two countries, but in the whole region. Pointing out his actions now will only nail him down in everyone’s mind.
Barak Obama should have in mind that by election day, most of the people will be so weary of the actual candidates’s babble that he should distillate his bright-and not so bright solutions along the months to come.
The way he goes now, I’m afraid his only future will make him appear as a more and more radical. Conservative or liberal radical?

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Read the rest of it here :

However, it sound like you are interpreting and making an opinion on your own interpretation.

so soon all ameriki man under control the hillary clinton. this just the punish for abdicate duty to wife and the child. he so weak now. just the feminize. this job of usa tv show, depection woman for all power position make him aemriki thinking natural for woman rule the man.

this the natural selection punish the stupid and wicked ameriki letting masters in tel aviv run all usa, for kill and torture him muslim.

ameriki had him chance for resist nazi in aemrika but too afraid. him just want 7-11 nacho and new refrigerator, or the meth. now him to suffer too much become man once again, but terrible suffer all aemriki person first.

stop1984now@yahoo.com

If you are basting our question on what had been reported in the news, I strongly suggest you read or listen to the speech and then if you are not satisfied, write him again. The media misrepresented his words and intent. You have to take what he said about Pakistan in entire context of his speech.

Read it. Better yet listen to it, it’s much better spoken.