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

I find it interesting that what you call words of superior judgment also came from the mouth of another important person, President George W. Bush. It doesn't take much judgment to asses this war as being one of undetermined cost and undetermined length, when the very chief executive who initiated it said the same thing. President Bush warned the American people that this was not going to be a quick and easy war. What Bush and other republicans were saying mirrors what Barack and other Democrats were saying with the exception of the suggestion that it was necessary. Republicans supporters of the war felt that liberating the Iraqi people from the oppressive forces that have dominated them for several thousand years was worth the effort regardless of the cost. We put Saddam Hussein in power and it was our responsibility to remove him. In reference to your comment about Mitt Romney, I suggest the following. His suggestion that he would rather double Guantanamo bay, was in reference to the amount of potential terrorists confined there, receiving a quality of living at least equal if not superior to what they had before they were captured by American forces. He was suggesting that imprisoning more potential terrorists and using them to procure information on possible attacks on American soil might provide a useful resource for preventing future attacks. Logically speaking, it is ineffective to address an aggressive action with diplomacy and negotiation. The terrorists who ally themselves with al queda and other radical Islamic fundamentalist groups are not willing to negotiate, they are not willing to submit to badgering, they are not willing to settle for anything other than their own death fighting the west and it's so called "immoral ways", or the destruction of the west and its way of life. This is not a tactic you can meet with traditional diplomacy. So long as our enemies are beheading American troops and civilians working in Iraq, we cannot attempt to use reason and diplomacy. It simply won't work. Governor Romney will address this national security issue aggressively, and appropriately. In reference to Barack Obama's liberalism I say the following: In his speech about reconciling faith with religion, he suggests that he could have taken the response that "every other liberal" would have taken against Allan Keys and his attacks on him. I would say he has clearly admitted his liberal stance. In his speech titled: Taking back our Government, he spent the first 4 minutes discussing his favoring stance on the redistribution of wealth in this country and calling the early American business innovators and entrepreneurs just a bunch of "Robber barons Rail road tycoons, and Oil Moguls" robbing the wealth from the American people. I would say that is a pretty far left leaning statement. I think I can say, without assuming too much, that the liberal party tends to favor idealism suggesting solutions can be found regardless of cost, to all problems no matter how large. His entire speech centered around his declared war against the establishment of big money and its lobbyist practices in Washington, and how he intends to clean it up. While some of the plans he cited for the employment eligibility of his own administration seem to be plausible and ethical, his suggested improvements for congress are idealistic and would be an overstepping of his constitutional power as President. The congressional reforms he suggests are more appropriate for a career in congress, not in the white house. In reference to Mitt Romney's equal education level, I don't think noteworthy academic achievement in the same area as ones degree, such as your mention of Barack's leadership of the Harvard Law review, is quite the same as Mitt Romney's holding of another post-graduate degree in an unrelated field. Yes, both men did go to Harvard and both have Law degrees, but Mitt Romney also has a Masters in Business Administration, one of the hardest and most competitive master's level programs in the American post-secondary educational system. Both men are brilliant and well educated, I was simply suggesting that Mitt has a degrees in two important aspects of American politics where as Obama only has one. For my next argument, let me discuss what you call "factual errors" that seem to be floating around in this debate. Saddam Hussein may not have been a direct ally of al queda; I do agree that the association of Iraq with the happenings on 911 was a botched political move by President Bush to draw up support for the war. That is a deception the American people have dealt with accordingly. However, unless you were at least a Full bird 06 ( Naval Captain for readers who are not familiar with that term) in Naval intelligence I would suggest that your certainty of his lack of Weapons of Mass destruction is as much of an educated guess as mine, and not as educated as those Naval intelligence. Furthermore, we know he had weapons of mass destruction at one point because we are the ones that supplied them to him during the Iraq Iran war in the 1980's. Before we deployed our forces to Iraq, while we were still bickering with the international community and domestic dissenters in congress, if you remember correctly, there was a huge convoy of Trucks that headed out of Iraq and into Syria that was large enough to be carrying everything we thought he had. Moreover were talking about a desert country the size of California, we found Saddam himself hiding in a hole. How is it so absurd to suggest that what we were looking for could have been buried along with him, in the sands of Iraq? It was not a lie that Saddam had weapons of Mass destruction, he had them, we just didn't find them. That does not make it a lie. In closing I would like to offer the following statement to the readers of this argument who will soon be voting to decide the victor. When reading this debate I urge you to take into account the following: I am arguing against the fact that Obama is the best candidate for America in the coming election. Any references to any other topic were prompted by my opponent and not meant as side arguments of the justification of the Iraqi war or the righteousness of either party. So before you side with whichever candidate supports your views, please read the whole debate and consider its merit on which candidate you felt presented the strongest case, not which one you agree with. Barack Obama has shown leadership qualities in his career thus far. While that may make him a good candidate he is certainly not the best candidate for the Oval Office. Under our system, the Presidency requires skillful management of Executive authority. The President must realize the constitutional limitations of his office and the duties he must fulfill as an executive. Barack Obama is a Senator, a legislator, not an executive. Mitt Romney was a Governor, a CEO, and a founder of a successful company. He has displayed executive authority in these roles, Barack Obama has not. Mitt Romney has worked and succeeded in roles in which he had the constitutional and policy limitations of an executive as governor and chief executive officer, Barack Obama has not. Barack Obama has pledged himself to launch a campaign to clean up congress which he may not have the constitutional authority as President to carry out. His lack of previous executive responsibility leaves the American public to speculate on his performance as an executive. Mitt Romney has already shown executive leadership. So long as there is one candidate who has proven himself a safer vote, I think it is unreasonable to present Barack Obama as the strongest Candidate for President in the 2008 election.