Is anyone glad that obama won?

I sure am... I've been rooting for him since last summer! McCain is just the same as any other republican, which kinda gets old. I want something/someone new with a different personality who's there to run for president for the right reasons. He truly...

believes in changing our country and making it better. All I've heard McCain talk about is immigration and war... Nothing on the Countries behalf such as electric powered cars, environmental changes, and bringing our troops back home since there is clearly no reason for them to there anymore, and there never was... I think Obama won fair and Square. I hated hilary, everytime she lost a state voting, she had to be a baby and tell lies and blackmail barack to try and make him look bad... If she was our next president, imagine if she was on her period!? She would screw up our country...

So basically I want Barack As our next president!

Glad, but not betting on any major changes as a result of his presidency. Domestically he won't do much unless the Democrats make huge gains in Congress and have a broad coalition of support across the country. That's possible, but not likely. I'm mainly looking forward to changes in policies on war and diplomacy.

I'm glad too.

Like I've said before with Hilary being 60 years old I'm sure she doesn't even have a period anymore. And having a period doesn't affect your thought process so how is she going to screw up our country?? Most girls who say being on their period makes them b*tchy are liars, it's really not all that bad especially if you've had them for years & years you learn how to cope with them pretty well.

Me too! Team Obama all the way

Yes yes yes... I am glad. .. very glad... looking forward for him to go to the white house...

Me too. He is a breath of fresh air in our poluted political system.

very glad!

"changes in policies on war and diplomacy." thank goodness. How wonderful that will be.

I think it depends on what you mean by major changes. There certainly will not be much change in the economy. That damage is already done, and it will take time to recover. But in foreign policy I think we will see sweeping changes. He will work hard to restore our image in the world. And just the fact that he is not Bush, or a Bush wannabe like McSame, will be a big improvement. What I really like about him is the way he is handling himself and how he is embracing the subject of national security. He isn't running away from the issue and just conceding the point to the republicans. Even though everyone is touting McCain as the one with the better experience, Obama is more than willing to take him on over it. National Security will be a key part of his platform. When was the last time you saw a democrat do that?

To me, it doesn't really matter. I think that he will defeat McCain in the fall, but I have had problems with him since the beginning. Sure, it's great to see a young black male pose as a possible candidate for this country. However, I don't see how he has drawn up plans to perform this so-called "change". I've read his website and it doesn't go into detail how he plans on doing anything that he has promised over and over again. I don't agree with universal health care, I don't agree that we should pull out of Iraq altogether (even though I disagreed with the Iraq war from the start), and I don't think that he has the experience to sit as the president of the most powerful country on the planet. I'm open to criticism so don't be shy. LOL

"Sure, it's great to see a young black male pose as a possible candidate for this country"

wow..."pose"
what a strange choice of word...

mattman81, What exactly are you expecting him to layout. The most any candidate can do is layout proposals for what the want to do. They still have to rely on congress to draft the legislation, and it will not look exactly as he proposes it. Either you like the ideas he has or you don't. A website is not going to be the difinative answer as to someones abilities.

Have you been this critical of McCain's or any other candidates plans on their website? I am sure none of them have anymore detail than Obama.

Just a few quick repys to you other comments:

Health care should be a right, not a privaledge. It will be cheaper for everyone if we had universal healthcare. The only one who will lose are the insurance companies.

Our presence in Iraq is doing nothing to resolve the sectairian fighting. We are accomplishing nothing, and we need to leave as safely and as quickly as possible.

As far as experience goes, Bush had no experience either, and look how that truned out. Someone with years in DC is not what we need right now. Obama is more than capable of leading this country. He already has proven his ability in the primary campaign. It was no small feat for him to beat the Clintons and to raise the kind of money he has. He has demonstrated great organizational skills along with an uncanny ability to energize people.

He is the real deal!

What am I expecting Obama to lay out? Well, have you read John Edwards 82 page book detailing what he plans to do and how he plans on accomplishing them? Basically, that's what I'm looking for in a candidate. Have you been to Ron Paul's website? If you decide to go there you find out a vast number of things that he plans to do and how he will do it.

I would like to respond to your other comments, if I could. First off, health care should not be a right. I've made a video explaining why it is that I feel this way. It makes sense and provides solutions that help everyone.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/38j0vJf3mMc&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/38j0vJf3mMc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

As far as Iraq goes...I didn't support the invasion of Iraq because the reasons for doing so were false and extremely blown out of proportion. However, leaving Iraq will make things worse, in my opinion. You ask, "Why"? For one, they have a very ineffective police force. Removing our troops now will make it very easy for someone to pull overthrough the government that took almost 4 years to put into place.

Two, history has shown that the Middle East is extremely unpredictable. Having a stable democracy in the Middle East will be extremely beneficial for the United States and other countries as well.

Three, your assumption that our being in Iraq is doing nothing to resolve the fighting between the different sects. I, in response, would ask you to read Steven Simon's article titled, "The Price of the Surge." It clearly states that your claim that the violence has gone up, not stopped, or increased is, in fact, an incorrect assumption. Another major issue affecting the war is the inability to come to a solution because of partisan politics. Lastly, I might as you to consider what happened in Iraq in 1919. Great Britain was in Iraq and was trying to "civilize" the country. There were massive acts of violence and the Britain army suffered many losses. However, the citizens called for a pulling-out of the troops and to let Iraq take care of itself. Well, I don't need to tell how that turned out. 40 years of Baathist control is hardly the outcome that we, or the Middle East, can afford to accept.

Barack Obama is a great man with much potential. However, I don't personally believe that he is ready to take office.

Amoeba...Do I need to clarify what I meant by pose? How about when someone says, "I can't do that because it could POSE as a problem." I hope that clears up any confusion that you may have.

Here is a video that I made regarding Obama's proposed universal health care plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38j0vJf3mMc

Thanks for clearing that up. Your statement pointed more towards the "pretense" definition. Your use is much more pleasing.

Cool. I'm glad that it did. Take care.

mattman, Lets deal with health care first. Why do you feel that only people with enough money to pay for it deserve healthcare? We have a thing in this country called the "commons". This refers to services provided by governemt for everyone one, like infrastructure (roads and bridges), police, national defense, fire fighters, regulatory services like health and saftey inspectors, garbage collectors, etc... Health care should be part of the commons. To deny someone proper health care just because they can't afford it is immoral and unamerican.

If we had a single payer system like medicare, the reduction in overhead would make it far cheaper for everyone. In a private healthcare system, for every dollar paid into it, about 65 cents goes towards actual healthcare and the rest goes to overhead and profit. For evey dollar that goes into Medicare, 97 cents goes to healthcare and only 3 cents goes towards overhead. While the free market works in many areas, health care is not one of them. Adding a profit motive is not always the most efficient means to get things done.

Now to Iraq. first you say this: "history has shown that the Middle East is extremely unpredictable" and the very next sentence you say this: "Having a stable democracy in the Middle East will be extremely beneficial" Given the unstability of the mideast, what makes you think a democracy can possibly develop, especially at the point of a gun. Democracy happens as a movement from within a country. Not through a foriegn army's occupation.

"your assumption that our being in Iraq is doing nothing to resolve the fighting between the different sects. I, in response, would ask you to read Steven Simon's article titled, 'The Price of the Surge.'"

I have read it. Have you? This is from the article: "The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state. If anything, it has made such an outcome less likely, by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni Arab tribes and pitting them against the central government and against one another. In other words, the recent short-term gains have come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq. "

And then you say this: "It clearly states that your claim that the violence has gone up, not stopped, or increased is, in fact, an incorrect assumption."

But I made no such claim and assumed nothing. Your article completely supports my position.

"Another major issue affecting the war is the inability to come to a solution because of partisan politics."

It is not partisan politics that is making bush continue this unnecessay occupation. It is partisan politics and greeed that got us in there in the first place. And an overwhelming majority of americans want us to leave. That is not becuase of politics. It is because Bush has lost all credibility. People realize how truly incompetent he is, and they do not trust his judgement.

"Lastly, I might as you to consider what happened in Iraq in 1919. Great Britain was in Iraq and was trying to 'civilize' the country. There were massive acts of violence and the Britain army suffered many losses. However, the citizens called for a pulling-out of the troops and to let Iraq take care of itself. Well, I don't need to tell how that turned out. 40 years of Baathist control is hardly the outcome that we, or the Middle East, can afford to accept. "

And how does this relate to today. Are you saying we are there to civilize them? If that is what you think, that is pretty arrogant.

What is your fear of us leaving? Do you think they will be taken over by al qaeda? Do you think the Iraqi people have any say in it? Because a large majority of them want us to leave. And now the government is even saying they want us to leave:

From the AP just the other day: "Iraqi lawmakers told Congress on Wednesday that they have serious misgivings about a long-term security agreement being negotiated this year with President Bush, putting themselves squarely in line with Democrats who say hashing out a deal before Bush leaves office is bad timing... In a letter to Congress last week, some 31 Iraqi lawmakers — representing parties that constitute a majority in parliament — said they will insist on ratifying the agreement as is required by their country's constitution. They also pledged to reject any agreement that "is not linked to clear mechanisms" obligating U.S. troops to leave "with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters."

It sounds to me like they want us to leave. We should honor their wishes.

Jimahl. Thanks for responding and I will respond as soon as I finish my finals. I should be able to respond after this hectic week. Take care.

Looking forward to it...

Jimahl-
Ah, it feels good to be done with finals. I was going to respond to a few of your points. I don't feel that healthcare should only be for those rich enough to pay for it. However, I feel that it should be for people who work and I also support FREE healthcare for children of US citizen parents. Children cannot choose who their parents are, but a lot of people in this country can choose to work or get an education to pursue a better career. I think that healthcare should be available for employees working at least 20 hours a week and that the government should help their employers get reduced rates for providing healthcare for their employees. People choose what to put in their bodies, people choose to work out or not work out, and people choose to take unnecessary risks in their lives. Why should I pay for people who are negligent and irresponsible? If people want to live a better life they should know that hard work pays off and that laziness and bad choices have consequences. Sure, there will be plenty of exceptions with this. However, I think each of those exceptions should be looked at very carefully to see whether or not it is truly an exception.

Regarding the article that I "quoted"...complete mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. I was responding to my friend's blog and I was reading my latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

A lot of people blame Bush for the Iraq War and I can see their argument. However, it was the elected politicians that voted to give him the authority to use force as he saw fit.

Hypothetical situation: Would you let your neighbor's kid, with a history of causing mischief, baby-sit for you or housesit for you? No, you wouldn't. Bush only exercised the power that OUR elected officials gave him. You can say that war is only war if Congress votes for the use of military force. However, by giving Bush the power to use force only took the war based on Congressional powers out of play. I don't approve of Bush's performance in office, but I feel that the public is greatly misinformed regarding how this whole thing came to be.

I didn't agree for our reasons for the invasion. However, the United States is there and it is OUR responsibility to ensure that Iraq is left with a functioning government and an effective police and military force. To leave now will only jeopardize their autonomy and we would be leaving a very unstable and powerless country to be taken over by Iran or overthrown by some radical Islamic regime. Iraq must be able to defend itself and it is our responsibility to ensure that that becomes a reality. Look at the Middle East, how much of a chance would a vulnerable country have in that part of the world? Look at Iran in 1979 and 1953. Iran has always had problems with Iraq. What makes you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't have a plan to take over Iraq once the US military forces leave?

I believe that Iraqi people’s opinion matters, but only to an extent. They don’t understand what an accountable, democratic country is or how it will work for them. It will take time, education, and patience to ensure that this takes place. Pulling out now jeopardizes this.

Which voter would you have more faith in: A voter who merely looks at the candidate and votes because “he looks trustworthy” or someone who has read the issues and fully understands how the politician will function when elected? I hope you see my point.

In response to your statement that we should respect their wishes to leave: If they want us to leave, they should be able to demonstrate that they can control their own country, punish those who violate the law, protect their citizens and those in power, have a functioning economy, and have the ability to take care of the citizens. If they can’t do that or provide proof that they can, we need to stay.

I respect your opinion, but I think that you should grasp the seriousness of the situation in the Middle East.