I 100% agree with everything you said. By the way, we need a feminist in the white house? What does that even mean? I don't see any legal discrimination against women anywhere in America, women have the same opportunities as men. The fact that she's a woman really has nothing at all to do with her experience or capability to be our country's leader.

Governing the state with the largest landmass isn't really an accomplishment if it has one of the lowest relative populations. It's so small in fact that they can hold caucuses instead of primaries. She ran a small business renting equipment, then ran an extremely small town (pop. about 6000 I believe), and that qualifies her to be the Vice President? I honestly don't even trust her to preside over the senate in which her only power is a tie breaking vote, and I for certain don't trust her to take over in the event (god forbid) that something happens to McCain in office.

Palin is basically a puppet used by the McCain campaign to get the votes of women like you, and crazy baby loving churches who somehow find the fact that she didn't have an abortion qualifies her to have a role of consequence in our government. It's quite ridiculous to me.

I'm glad to see another Obama supporter that actually knows what he's talking about. Saying that he's the candidate for change is the simplest way to reach the average American. If people really care about what that change is, they should do the research themselves. He has a website, you can read it and see what reforms he plans on making, and then decide if that will help or hurt the country.

I sincerely respect your opinion, but I have to say a lot of your reasoning is flawed.

One, in regards to experience, it's not everything. Everyone has to get their start somewhere. Obviously the Democratic party as a whole found Obama to be a competent candidate that best represents them, so he must be doing something right. What Obama lacks in experience he more than makes up for in intellect, logic, and a demeanor that most people find agreeable, which is an important attribute for the Chief of State to hold.

The fact that John McCain knows we must not fail in Iraq doesn't really mean anything. Barack knows that just the same, as well as every other American who follows the news. Setting a time table is not a sign of weakness, but of strength. The fact that we are so confident in our victory that we can tell them exactly when we are going to win seems quite imposing to me. And we're not pulling out just to let the terrorists reign free. We've trained thousands of Iraqi troops while stationed there for the specific purpose of taking over when we leave. It doesn't make sense to waste several billion a month in war funds when Iraq itself has a $80 Billion surplus in its treasury.

Withdrawing troops on a schedule is not the same thing at all as ignorance of the threat from foreign nations. It is clear that several countries are out to get us, but what keeping our troops in Iraq has to do with that I'll never understand. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Afghanistan is where Al Qaeda was based, going into Iraq, a completely different country, was an obvious ploy for their oil, and a shameful period in our history.

Also, Israel can take care of itself. We really don't have to worry about it's safety, because as of now their military capability has actually surpassed ours. In fact, we should be going to them for help right now, not the other way around.

Again, we are in no position right now to start another war, especially with such a powerful country such as Russia. The last thing we need right now is another Cold War, especially with our economy in shambles the way it is right now. The best we can do about the Georgia situation is just to wait it out, and if other nations want to intervene they can go ahead. But, I do have to give you the credit on the Georgia reconstruction thing. That is hypocritical.

And about Sarah Palin, she is probably one of the dirtiest politicians around at the moment. I'm not going to get into the specifics right now, but if you really want to know you can look up some of the crap she's done and been involved with while in office.

And to your last point, unless Bush suddenly turned Democratic too, the Democrats having control of both houses doesn't really mean much with that veto power looming over their heads. When we have a democratic president AND congress, then we can experience some real change, and hopeful restore America to its former glory.

Wait, wait, wait... Let me get this straight. Did you honestly just say that Obama raising taxes will somehow take away the teen's ability to go to the movies and getting new clothes?

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Soren on this one, that is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Someone who says something like that obviously has no understanding of his policy and simply bases their opinions on attack ads from other candidates. Not only that though, making an inference that raising taxes for the group of Americans who make $250,000 a year or more (which is his actual plan for those who don't know), will somehow set up an invisible forcefield around movie theaters and clothing stores around the world that only effect teens is quite ridiculous. I know that's not what you said, but I'm making the point that we can both quite easily make up wild statements based on the comments of other people.

John McCain likes to focus on Barack wanting to "raise taxes," when in reality he wants to lower taxes for the middle class who need it the most, and raise it for the top 10%, people who can take the hit and still survive.

And on DRILL BABY DRILL, McCain's policy is flawed. Seriously flawed. First of all, any offshore drilling won't yield any oil for the next 10 years, 5 or so if you're optimistic. And, by investing this money in offshore drilling over research in alternative fuels, we are only deepening our dependence on oil as a resource, giving the oil companies more control over our economy. Although Obama now supports offshore drilling, which I disprove of, his stance still supersedes McCain's in the fact that he ONLY agrees to drill under the condition that it will provide opportunities to research alternative fuels. Not a necessarily conclusive stance, but it's better than nothing.

I guess I'm trying to say that without any support, your claims are moot, at best.