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

To say that Senator Obama's early opposition to the war was not "good judgment" but was instead merely "good politics" is just plain wrong. If you read his speech you can tell he is genuinely speaking from his heart because he passionately cares about America. He got it right, and no one else did--including Mitt Romney. Senator Obama warned us that invading Iraq would lead to a war "of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Ted Sorensen (special advisor and speechwriter to John F. Kennedy--he helped advise JFK during the Cuban Missile crisis), one of our country's brightest and most "experienced" minds and a man of unquestionable patriotism, had this to say about Obama's judgment: http://www.youtube.com... The U.S. is at a critical juncture in its history. The subprime mortgage crisis, combined with George Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies, have pushed this country to the brink of an economic recession that, if it materializes, will have global implications. The goodwill that we had from the rest of the world after September 11th has been squandered in Iraq; even our British allies are pulling out. George Bush inherited a budget surplus and managed to take the worst elements of conservatism (tax cuts without spending cuts), combine them with the worst elements of liberalism (the most expensive prescription drug plan in world history), and will leave office with a budget deficit of somewhere between $400 and $600 billion, a dollar whose value lower than that of the Canadian "Looney," and a people badly divided between idealogues on both the right and left. The country needs more than change: it needs transformation. Transformation from the partisan bickering and "you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us" swaggering attitude that can be traced back to the 1960's (as Senator Obama brilliantly describes in his book, The Audacity of Hope), but seems to have dramatically intensified under the tenure of our current President. Abraham Lincoln taught us over 160 years ago that "a house divided against itself cannot stand," yet so many Americans today seem to have forgotten that critical lesson. Barack Obama understands the importance of focusing on what unites us as a people instead of the much smaller number of things that divide us...in stark contrast to Mitt Romney, who would rather "double Guantanamo Bay" than bring the world together. We have to realize that the world is too complex for us to waste time trying to neatly categorize everything into "us" vs. "them," "Liberal" vs. "Conservative," "Good Guy" vs. "Bad Guy," and "American" vs. "Everyone Else." I can understand the temptation to think this way, though. The world's complexity and uncertainty can make it seem scary to some people. So it is natural to want to "pick a side" or worldview that helps us explain what is going on to we can go on to think that it is possible to have some control (and therefore predictability) in our lives. So let me correct some of the factual errors that seem to be floating around in this debate. Saddam Hussein was not an ally of al-Queda, nor was he complicit on the attacks on America on September 11th. Saddam Hussein did not harbor weapons of mass destruction at the time of the 2003 Iraqi invasion, nor did he directly threaten U.S. lives when George Bush made the decision to start a war that to date has killed 3,800 U.S. servicemembers. Senator Obama called the administration on its dishonesty at a time when few others had the courage to do so. Admittedly, some important gains have happened in Iraq this year, but those gains have happened in spite of the Bush administration, not because of it. In light of the fact that the original justification for the Iraq war (Saddam's possession of WMD) turned out to be a lie, there is no outcome possible in Iraq that could justify the lives and treasure that have been spent. In a recent talk, Senator Obama inspired us all to imagine what the U.S. could be like after Bush leaves office: "We can tell the world we are back...we want to lead not just with our military, but with our values and ideas." http://www.youtube.com... You say "I don't think either of us needs direct proof to show Obama's extreme lean to the left." I'm sorry, but I do need proof. I had the opportunity to personally meet Senator Obama last month and listened to his views on tax policy. His views on nearly every issue are moderate and progressive. For instance, at the luncheon where I met Senator Obama, a member of the audience asked him whether he realized the importance of business-friendly tax policy on being able to afford his other ideas. I recorded the Senator's response--it is not "extremely" left-leaning at all: http://www.youtube.com... It is fair to assume that if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will try to paint him as a "tax and spend liberal," as they have done with every other Democratic presidential candidate since the time of Ronald Reagan. This would be a mistake, because Senator Obama is not a "liberal" at all. He stands for Progressivism: fiscal responsibility, interdependence, strong family values, and efficient government--the very things that have been calling cards for the Republicans for so many years. You are correct that Mitt Romney has demonstrated strong leadership skills during his career. I regard him and Senator McCain as two of the better Republican candidates. However, you are incorrect that Mr. Romney is better educated than Senator Obama. Both men have law degrees from Harvard, and truthfully are about equally well-educated. Mitt Romney has an MBA, but Senator Obama was the Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Senator Obama also has 10 years of experience teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, also an extremely noteworthy academic accomplishment. But Mr. Romney lacks the critical quality Barack Obama has: judgment in foreign affairs. I say this because Mr. Romney is on the record in a June 2007 debate as saying "some people are sayin' we oughtta' close Guantanamo. My view is we oughtta' double Guantanamo." America needs a President that will bring our allies back to our side, not continue to give the middle finger to everyone who disagrees with us. This view isn't being "soft" or conciliatory: it is being smart so we can create a world that works for all human life--including, especially, the lives of Americans. And in the eyes of the rest of the world, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are two of the brightest images that prevent the U.S. from leading an effort to bring that sort of world into existence: http://en.wikipedia.org... I commend you for your desire to serve in the military, and wish you luck. The U.S. military is a wonderful organization with some of America's best and brightest. But once you do start serving I think you will realize that the world isn't as black-and-white as it seems you would like to believe, and that not everyone in the service thinks the same way you and your friends do. If your military friends were "disgusted" by Barack Obama's denunciation of the Iraq war before it started and think he should have kept his mouth shut, they should take a closer look at the 1st Amendment of the Constitution they swore to defend. It takes courage to stand up and say what you believe when it isn't popular or might one day end your political career. Barack Obama did that, and in the process demonstrated that he has the integrity to be our next President. I am afraid that you do not know how "servicemembers feel" about things as well as you think you do--as evidenced by this video of another servicemember who is also taking a stand for Barack Obama: http://video.google.com... Veterans support Obama.