>Did you miss the identity of the author? Are you aware of his history? Are you aware it is only an opinion piece?

Honestly did not bother to research on him, and yes I am completely aware
that this just an opinion which does not represent general opinions of the people.


And a political opinion one at that. The only part that I see should have been written differently is this section:

>
>Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
>
>In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside
>
>he fell into the trap the left and right do of denegrating those who share a different political view.
>
>Of course he espouses his opinion in the piece - it is not a documentary - it is his opinion and he is hoping his opinion carries sufficient weight to cause the democratic party to take notice and make some changes (will not happen). He is also hoping that anyone who puts weight to his opinion will vote for McCain.
>
>He is correct in his assertion that previous presidents who Obama used in his speeches never spoke directly to a foreign leader who was not considered an ally of this country without clear advance negotiations and conditions in place. If you do not agree, then show me any reliable document that states otherwise. That is the way this country has always operated.

Correct,
I am not saying US Presidents should engage in cheerfull conversation and back padding with someone like Pol Pot (It is bad enough that they have to that with Saudi Tyrans), but this peace is directly aimed at possible future talks with Syria and Iran, which might be actually crucial for eventual end of Iraq war.

I find this wrong to begin with, simply because I believe that even unsucessfull talks are always better then complete standstill, status quo or even worse slow sliding into eventual (new) conflict (with Iran).

Reagan did not have to talk to Khomeini back then, but then again he was not having troops in Iraq locked in for 5 years! If he did and there was an issue to discuss and possibility to solve problem, I believe he would (while he was still in his right mind). It is politician JOB to talk and negotiate.

Otoh, one sucessfull round of talks could change a lot!

* * *
And he got me completely confused with Chavez! :0).
Venezuela is now an enemy like Iran, just because Chavez made that Bush stunt at UN ???

>
>Now, to be fair, all candidates have had speeches and support that were similarly done on their behalf. This is not unique to McCain or to this author.

Yeah, all part of ellection scenery; Just like those little paper flags
with candidate's names, that people are given to frenetically vawe on campaign speeches.

Update:
Did little research on him; he was actually a bit bigger figure then I could judge by article he wrote. I would expect something better from someone who rallied together with Gore. But then again ellection campain is a pig, I would not be surprised if 'inspiration' for blasting on Obama came somewhere from Hilary's poetry book...

BTW did she give up yet ?!?