Wrong again Dave Sirota... Wrong Again... Your false manipulation of the facts is worthy of what a Republican does... You are a hack, a fraud and should NEVER be allowed to write for any type of editorial or newspaper since you are allergic to the facts and truth.

Considering you are either a member of H. Clinton's bandwagon, throwing punches at the competition, a hired gun for the Republican mafia, or a few (or more) cards shy of a full deck - I will try to make this brief. Barack Obama said that "because we're in favor of a timetable doesn't mean we aren't committed to making sure the troops have the resources they need to complete their mission and come home safely." And since there are not enough votes in the House or Senate to override a veto, Obama said "my object at that point would be, explore passing a new version that also has some sort of constraints on the President's actions." How is this "softening" his position on the war? Because he doesn't want to cut off funding for our troops and leave them vulnerable and defenseless in Iraq? As far as the New York Times article, I read the article, and you happen to have skipped over a very important sentence. This was Obama's direct quote in the NYT article: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." THE CASE WAS NOT MADE. The Bush administration did not do an adequate job convincing Barack Obama, nor the American people in my opinion, that war was the only necessary alternative.

While I don't have the facts these other folks have, I can say that you write about politics like its fashion or gossip. Which doesn't work, exactly.

Iraq is the most complicated foreign policy situation that the US has faced since Vietnam, if not longer.

No one has a good position because there isn't one. And everyone's position keeps changing because the situation keeps changing. We don't even know if Iraq is going to be (more or less)over by the time a new President gets in. Every candidate's "most important" position might be irrelevant by the time they swear in. And won't you feel stupid, on that day, if you've criticised a better but losing candidate for such a position? Maybe you should start feeling that way right now...

why is it, that every time anyone dares to question ANYTHING about Obama, they are attacked, and in a blind, knee-jerk manner. it is a very totalitarian mind set. you don't realize it, but you are actually doing Obama harm. he is becoming associated with blind lock-step behaviors that are viciously attacking when not agreed with. sounds a bit too close to the republican manner of dealing with dissent.

As an African American, I am sorry to say that I am Barrack Obamaed out. I am tried of seeing him and tried of hearing about him.

I have yet to see any negative coverage on him except this weekend, which was very refreshing. Hooray for Daily Kos and My DD. It's like people are afraid to challenge his positions. As if he the second coming of Christ. He's voted identically to Clinton on just about everything but the war vote of course and all of a sudden he's America's answer.

I'm tried of him because he says the same thing over and over. No plan to move this country out the darkness of 'Bush'. No platform. What is his platform?; "The Anti-War Candidate." "Hope" will only get you so far.

This weekend showed his weakness as a leader; a surrender monkey, plan and simple. And if you call him on it you're out of line. This weekend showed why Barrack isn't ready to be President. I could less about how many people come out to hear him speak. Leadership is what America needs, not weakness.

Hillary 2008 (Bill, First Man)