Firstly, let me just say that the argument that GW is a bad president because he has no foreign policy experience is laughable. He's a bad president because he's an unintelligent, conservative Christian who's unwilling to even think of the possibility that he is wrong, or that he's fallible.

Secondly, I am not a strong supporter of Obama, nor am I a Democrat. It seems to me however that fundamentally a president doesn't have to do many nitty-gritty things. His job is simply to delegate, and make clear and intelligent policy choices, and to get his people to do the details. He's clearly intelligent, and as far as his politics, well, that's up to who's voting for him. As far as diplomacy, he's clearly shown himself to be a well-spoken, conciliatory, eloquent, principled man, who has an ability to attract a diverse group of people to him (see this election and his rocketing trouncing of Billary). If you don't agree with his politics fine, I personally think the Republicans need to stop running, because clearly their politics only make things worse.

Certainly leadership is a skill that must be developed and practiced. But perhaps we don't need a great Communicator or Decider. Perhaps we need an intelligent, well-spoken principled man who's The Delegator.

I blindly support Obama, but I want something different. Billary and McCain clearly represent the old school. It's time to let these fogies retire.

"The greatest sign of madness is to try the same thing over and over again and expect different results."

Well, Abraham Lincoln is widely considered by both historians and the American people generally to have been the greatest president in US history, but his only national political experience prior to becoming president was a single term in the House of Representatives in the 1840s.

I want Obama to be President because he's not as much a subordinate to the Zionist Power Configuration (AIPAC, AJC, CPMAJO, ...) as are Hillary and McCain, meaning that he's less likely to initiate additional disastrous wars for the sake of the genocidal Israeli state. Libertarian Justin Raimondo recently wrote an insightful article on this topic: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12366.

"When Cornell accepts a less-qualified minority applicant, it directly affects only one person — namely, the schmuck who happens to suffer from politically unprotected pigmentation. If enough Americans opt for a less-qualified candidate simply because he’s black, it will affect all of us."

Arguing that obama is doing well simplly because of his race, I believe is a flawed argument. It is obvious that Obama has extraordinary oratorical skills and yes he does have an inspiring story, but to discount his record in the senate, in the illinois senate, as a community organizor, civil rights attorney, and constitutoinal law professor only serves to fulfill the biased "affirmative action". You ironically fail to highlight the same "affirmative action" standards that could be benefiting sen. clinton. Wasn't sen. clinton's turning point in the campaign in New Hampshire after her "emotional" moment, when she teared up because the campaign is "hard" and people don't understand that she's been "victimized" as the person not for the job. could her status as a "victimized" woman be seen as an advantage at this point? I don't find that to be a compelling argument.

I honestly don't think race, or gender are reasons for either Sen. Obama's or Sen. Clinton's successes, their success come from their political savyness, their intelligence, and their record of enacting change. To discount either candidate because of their status as minorities would completely discredit their candidacies' and their records. Its the 21st century, haven't we moved beyond these superficial arguments?

It is comforting to hear frank talk from a student who is exposed on a daily basis, to the inexplicable Academia's liberality. I would go so far as to say, " Their anti American teachings."

Mr. Birbaum is so obviously correct! No furter comment is needed;he has driven the point home !My hat is off to him.

Maybe you should do a little fact checking yourself, and not regurgitate something you heard from someone else who doesn't actually know what John McCain has done politically. He's not "honorable" just because he was a prisoner of War. He's often been regarded as one of the most volatile and irrational members of Congress by fellow congress-members.

As for all the people you've claimed to ask about Obama, clearly you're hanging out with others like yourself who are marginally interested in politics but mostly apathetic and just interested in writing an article that makes you seem a little edgy. Why not actually ask someone instead of referring to an obvious fictitious construction to make our article legitimate. Might be a good plan. While you're doing that, maybe you should also check out McCain's record before you glorify him-- which includes, most recently, key orchestration in sending nearly $4 billion dollars and tens of thousands of jobs overseas for the construction of United States military planes.