How about you Mr. Bacevich? You seem pragmatic and not particularly partisan. I like it!

Your comments are absolutely correct. Even if Obama wanted to change the culture in Washington, there is little he could by himself. It will be up to us to provide the political backing for him to do the right thing. He has definitely surrounded himself with some nasty characters. We should make sure he doesn't give Dennis Ross some important ME policy position, or to appoint someone like Holbrooke at state. I see an Obama presidency as a beginning for a new kind of political activism; we will now have an administration that will at least listen to us on the important issues of war and peace and an overly militarized society.

Professor Bacevich THANK YOU

Thank you for your latest book
Thank you for your Moyers's Interview
Thank you for your AmCon articles
Thank you for your son

We know what to expect from McCain.

We already have the first inklings of Obama's intent, with his hearty support of the bailout and the Afghan war.

If he should win, I would hope that Obama would break the seeming precedent of Democrats having a Republican Secy. of Defense. After Les Aspin, Clinton went there. It cedes the "tough on security" mantle to the Republicans for no purpose. Sam Nunn is an obvious choice but there would be many others. Let Gates go back to Texas.

A strange phenomena I keep seeing is that so many people fervently believe that Obama is a strong progressive Democrat. Nothing I have seen or heard from him supports that. He is the ultimate centrist, seeking to get rid of the partisan battles that erupt all over the place in Washington. He will govern just about like Clinton did, with better speech giving. Compared to Bush, of course, Obama is a flaming lefty, but just about everyone would be.

Just read Obama's writings and his positions, and listen to his speeches. Nothing there supports him being other than a moderate, a centrist.

I second the motion of asking Mr. Bacevich to join the Admin. Not that it will happen...

I will vote for Obama, but agree with Hoppy above - Obama's plan is to be a cautious centrist. Just look at his large contributors, his advisors and the people being mentioned for his cabinet. Being of the firm conviction that the financial crisis has only just begun (its being papered over with a wall of money now, just to get us through the election), and that an economic tsunami awaits us on the other side, events will force him to be other than a centrist. Question is, will he be FDR (only if we push him to be) or will he continue to go along with the oligarchy's insane hyperinflationary bailout? Everything else, I'm afraid, will be of secondary importance.

Suits me fine if Obama is as I expect a conventional politician.

In this respect.

His fierce campaign rhetoric about mounting a full court press in Afghanistan terrifies me- if he means it.Which I dearly hope, and believe, he doesn't.

Given its history ,there's even less reason to expect we could be successful there than in Iraq. Which I believed even before Rory Stewart (whose "The Prince of the Marshes" demonstrates his grasp of Middle Eastern affairs )published his Times op ed opposing it.

If Obama were truly some sort of new model reformist president he'd no doubt feel morally obliged to actually implement his "committment to the American Public". While I thoroughly approved of that as a useful campaign ploy to balance his get-out-of-Iraq posture it was on the expectation that post Inauguration he would refer it to a Commission of the Great and the Good who could angst over for a year or two while Obama tries doing something sensible there. As I expect he will.

The last thing we need is a president encumbered by the foolish commitments which are a necessary campaign feature.

Trying to control Afghanistan as a way of getting Osama is boiling the ocean to cook dinner. As I'm sure Obama has always known.

Let's hear it for hypocrisy. And common sense. And no more futile deaths.

Afghanistan is going to be tricky. There really is no short term solution in Afghanistan.
Obama will inherit the Clinton problem with the Pentagon. Pres. Clinton finally ended up appointing a moderate Republican as the Secretary of Defense. After the first six months, Obama will have work on reducing the US involvement in Iraq. Right now no one knows for sure where Sec. Gates stands on that. He is former CIA and perhaps not a good long-term bet for the position. I think a fresh start at the Pentagon with a new Secretary who understands the Military would be better. I would vote for Gen. Wes Clark.

Obama will have to act on improving the healthcare system. He will also have to do away with the tax breaks to the upper middle-class and the wealthy. These two items may be too leftist for the Republicans but Obama will have to act on them. They just can’t remain election promises.

What about Wes Clark for SecDef, as someone above suggested? He knows how to do the job and would be loyal to the president, who sure as hell better get us out of these wars.

Damn that preview function!!!

It should have read,
I think all of you give yourself too much credit for thinking you know exactly wheat cards Obama is holding, but it is a lot of fun to speculate, no?
Obama has repeated the mantra that "trickle-down does not work" that things have to move from the bottom up. Obama has said that giving tax breaks to oil and gas companies, companies who need very little help to make large profits, makes no sense when it funds a region that is tenuous at best and provides an avenue for a large transport of our wealth. Obama has said that ensuring that loose nukes are accounted for and in control is an important aspect in protecting our security in the 21st century. Obama has said that our healthcare-system needs to cover the un-insured, that we need to provide healthcare for all children. Obama has said that we will need to create new energy jobs, competitors against oil and gas, to ensure America’s competitiveness in the future global economy.
None of these things are radical when you look at the necessity and rationality of the problems we are faced with as a nation. However none of these goals will be easily accomplished, especially by one person. I have a sense that if any of his ideas are to be put into action a number of community leaders, state leaders and congressional leaders whose voices have been less than warmly received will find an ear should Obama get elected. Only with the help of the voters and the actions of local communities will America be able to create a more sustainable, regionally diverse future for America's next generations.

But what the hell who can spmell correctly these days anywaye?

Everyone's voting in a few days. Their minds are made up. Barring some massive event (like a stroke), nothing is going to change between now and Nov.4th. Anyone undecided at this point is ignorant and impulsive anyway. They are either going to cast a knee jerk vote for McCain or against Palin. Obama has made his case, and convinced those he's going to convince. So... essentially, the campaigns are over.

CAN we begin to focus no the next real issue?
WHOEVER WINS
Round up the corporate thieves, take back their stolen money, balance Bush's bull**** budget,
Spit upon all of them as we throw them in jail! OIL Goons, Bank Leaches, and the Executive Admin that paved their way. Pitooooey!

http://thetruthburns.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/put-these-wall-street-criminals-where-they-belong/

Clintons picks on national security were a disaster mostly.
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2008/10/29/americas-defense-meltdown/

Defense and The National Interest is going to put out a report on what they term "The Defense Meltdown". We are spending more than we have at any time since WW2 and we are in worse shape than ever. I hope at least somebody will read the report when its finished. The executive summary is available now.

Madison believed that we should have separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and local. There was a fascinating moment during the congressional debate over what became the First Amendment. How could the beloved First Amendment be harmful to religion? Huntington feared that it would overturn or interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have state-supported religion.
Chat | Chat