Barack Obama is the best major political candidate to lead the United States starting in 2009.

Judging from your response, however, I am not sure you understood the topic. The topic is not "Barack Obama is a perfect candidate for President of the United States. " The topic is "Barack Obama is the BEST candidate for President of the choices likely to be available during the 2008 election cycle. " My argument isn't that "Barack Obama has shown PERFECT judgment during each and every moment of his life. " My argument is only that he has the BEST judgment of any candidate in the field. This is an important distinction, because the reality is that the President of the United States is a human being with human flaws. So in your next response, I hope to read about why you feel another major contender (Romney, etc) would be a better choice for President than Barack Obama. From reading your response, I have the sense that you agree with me that the primary criteria for judging who should be our next President are the following character traits: 1. Judgment 2. Leadership Ability 3. Integrity 4. Overall Character If I have misunderstood you or you would like to add to or subtract from that list, please make that clear so that we can have a focused, productive discussion going forward. 1. Judgment Barack Obama is the only frontrunning Presidential candidate who had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it started. At a cost of over 1.2 million lives (according to an Opinion Research Business poll concluded in August of 2007, counting the number of "violent deaths" that have occurred as a result of the Iraq war), the invasion and occupation of Iraq has turned out to be one of, if not the greatest, foreign policy disasters in U. S. history. As a U. S servicemember who left active duty only two years ago (and who completed a deployment to the Middle East), I am somewhat ashamed to have been a part of the mechanism that has wrought such destruction on human civilization. Yet I am proud of my service at the same time, because of those with whom I served. You say that Barack Obama exercised poor judgment by calling the war in Iraq a "dumb war" in 2002 because of the effect that such a comment would be likely to have those serving in uniform. I am offended by your assertion that servicemembers are so thin-skinned that we would allow a comment by an Illinois Senator to distract us from doing our jobs. We are professionals. Most of my colleagues in uniform are apolitical and don't have any idea what our own Congressman thinks about the Iraq war, let alone a state senator. So your argument that American troops would feel "condemned" upon reading that Senator Obama had warned against an invasion of Iraq tells me that you have either never actually served in uniform or have not served recently enough to know how most American servicemembers really think. The reality is that we are such a large and diverse group with so many ways of looking at the world that no one can claim to speak for "American servicemembers" or offer a legitimate opinion as to how they are likely to be affected by reading that Barack Obama called the Iraq war "dumb" in 2002. That said, let's not lose sight of the fact that Barack Obama was the only candidate with the courage and character to speak the truth about the Iraq war before it started. .. and did so at great risk to his own political career. The reality is that the Iraq war IS a dumb war. 3,800 U. S. servicemembers have been killed in this war. And for what? So we can have fewer troops to look for and kill Al-Queda, the group that actually DID attack us on September 11th? When I was commissioned as a military officer, I thought the oath I was taking was to defend America against our actual ENEMIES who actually threatened us, not people who merely annoyed us or had oil we wanted for ourselves. Now I have lost friends in this war. They were great people who would have gone on to have amazing lives and made incredible contributions to our country. But they were killed by roadside bombs or shot down flying helicopters. Why? For what? Because George W. Bush had a beef with Saddam Hussein for making an assassination attempt against his father in 1993? Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I think we all had a sense in the back of our minds what was happening. We all kind of knew that something wasn't quite right with this decision to invade a country that had not attacked us first. But no one had the courage to actually stand up and say it, because we were all too scared of being branded "unpatriotic. " No one, that is, except for Barack Obama. Let's look at the full text of the speech you cited in which you say Barack Obama exercised "poor judgment:" "I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. . .. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. " AND HERE'S THE KICKER: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U. S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. " Hasn't Senator Obama's prediction largely come true? Doesn't the fact that we are in fact now in a war "of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" demonstrate exceptional wisdom and judgment? Now I would like you to consider the personal risk Senator Obama was taking at the time he spoke these words. It was not fashionable to say such things in 2002. Remember the uncertainty of the times we were in. What if it turned out that Saddam Hussein DID have a few of the types of weapons we were looking for? What then? Obama's career would have been finished after making a speech like this, and he knew it. But he was willing to take a stand for what he believed in. That's integrity. That's what we need in the White House. What we don't need is someone whose "leadership ability" has only been proven inside the Alice-in-Wonderland environment of Washington. I'll get to that later. PS--to the commenter who felt Senator Obama does not show proper reverence during the anthem to be President, am I correct to assume that you believe George W. Bush should not be the President for the same reason? Please click the link below to see what I'm referring to: . http://img.photobucket.com... Do you think it is "respectful" to leave your hand between your navel and your crotch?