I'm not sure what Barack O'Reagan's diplomacy position will be tomorrow. Perhaps he doesn't, either.

As of today, however, having studied O'Reagan's many, many, statements over the past week, I think I have my head wrapped around his current view of Presidential diplomacy.

O'Reagan feels that preconditions are OK on the condition that conditional conditions are previously agreed upon. Further, under the Conditional Propaganda Clause, there are conditional exceptions to this rule, but only under certain conditions.

Are we clear now?

Perhaps pundits look to the Miami Herald interview and see that, despite O'Reagan's protestations to the contrary, his views on diplomacy remain as identical to Clinton's as their Senate Iraq voting record.

The Clinton’s started this fight now they are on defensive….Talking about distorting issues, position and been silly…How is calling Obama “naive” not been silly…what does it mean when she question politics of hope… is that on itself silly. Do they really think that Obama will just buckle up and go away without a fight….Well the Clinton camp should have avoid her personally attacking Obama and used her surrogate to maitain the pressure rather she fired the first salvo and by so doing she is a fair game…hence her vote on Iraqi and Her changing positions will now be scrutinized for all to see…Personally i used to support her but was disappointed with her firing the first salvo and acting as if Obama started this fight….it is a well known fact in politics that you are loosing when you are explaining…now let her tell Americans why she voted to authorize the war, let her explain why she support sending the troops to war without exist strategy…why is she asking pentagon the right question at the wrong time…five years ago she should have asked the question on exist strategy…maybe that would have make a difference. Right now many of our brave men and women have either been injured or killed and all she can say is that 80% of Americans are for war and that is why she support the war…as American we expect our leaders to make important decision such as going to war based on sound reasoning not just poll numbers…it is pathetic to hear one of her advisers their other day in Hardball failing woefully to answer or address these question…I respect her as a person and would not call her naive or irresponsible, i will not stoop that low but if she failed to explain and answer these important question one may be left with no other reason but to conclude that she is triangulating…when she would have been leading the charge against Bush White house….her failure to stand up at the right time to lead will cost her the election if not the primary then the general election….because if they think Obama is hurting her wait till the republican start going…and for those who think that Obama is not versed on how to do business in Washington…I have one thing to tell you….He have a good vision to stand up and tell 80% of Americans supporting the war that it will cost us lives and money…mind you he is a Black guy running for office…but he tell the truth not minding that doing so, may have ruined his career in public service…. Now thats what i want in my President, a leader who will level up with me and fellow American and apologize when he is wrong….I know a lot of people have difference of opinion on this issue and i respect their opinion but i challenge them to please address the issues that i raised in this post without pandering.

Stan, ellipses aren't periods. You don't add an apostrophe for a plural. The personal pronoun I is capitalized. Paragraph breaks organize the writer's thoughts and improve readability. Following these rules will encourage people to read what you write.

All I know is that the Clinton campaign linked to Charles Krauthammer's column calling Obama "inexperienced" as backup to her claims. That is enough for me never to support her in the primaries.

Its more of an after the honeymoon thing for the media. After months of gushing press they're getting bored and now they want to pick him apart. Obama gave them a substance-free avenue to do so with the 'Bush Cheney lite' attack.

I'm puzzled each time I see Chavez labeled a dictator. This guy has won several free and fair elections.

I don't get the "O'Reagan" thing. What's up with that?

Dale, don't be confused, and certainly don't look to TeamObama to lead you out of the wilderness of American exceptionalism. Obama has been one of the "all options on the table" people about Iran from the start. I'm sure there's a tresure trove of quotes from him and his handlers about the dangers of "populist demagoguery" in Latin America.

Quite simply, Chavez is erroneously labelled a "dictator" because US elites are afraid of him and need to lie in order to make others afraid. While TeamObama may may not be worse than TeamClinton in this respect, the animating force of their respective foreign policies is not all that different: America shall re-write the rules (i.e. International Law) to suit itself and need not follow the same rules that it demands the rest of the world must observe.

So, that means Chavez is a "dictator" who is "dangerous" and whose every move needs to be attacked. Israel is the "lone democracy" in the middle east and is "seeking peace" with its warlike neighbours. Saudi Arabia is a "strong ally" that needs $20 billion worth of weapons to "help stabilize the region".

None of the inconsistencies in the USA-centric view of the world stands up tp rational scrutiny, and so "reality", both unfortunately and necessarily, never actually comes into the equation.

Tomorrow, if Obama were to throw off the bonds of his handlers and fundraisers and reveal himself to be a coherent, decent human being who rejects the militarism that is the lifeblood of both political parties, he would be instantly dismissed as a nut and his campaign machine would disinegrate within hours.

So, Dale, stop being confused. Be unhappy and despondent about your country and the future of the world, but never doubt that it is malevolence and not misunderstanding that motivates your idiotically counterfactual foreign policy.

I don't understand this line of reasoning that seems to be bandied about all over the blogs, that Obama hasn't had good press coverage, or has had less good coverage than Hillary. It's absurd. Obama has been an absolute media darling while every move Hillary makes is scrutinized, including her wardrobe. Obama has made a series of small flubs on the trail that would be major headlines had Edwards done the same like telling students at a rally to "pony up" because no one "is so poor they can't give $5, $10, $20", or telling Iowans he can't believe the price of arugula at Whole Foods(never mind there are no Whole Foods in Iowa nor that money is not much of a concern for you if you shop at Whole Foods), or that he will walk the picket line with union members as president (he won't and that is not what unions need, they need support for good policy). The media has not looked critically at Obama at all or his policy positions, or even his own books, or even the fact that he gave a different answer to the pre-conditions issue only a day before, or what he means by "no pre-conditions", and how that would play out as a policy. I think Obama has had fantastic press coverage, and alot of the buzz he has recieved has been from the media's willingness to stick to Obama's narative and his message. Also, if it were as you suggest why has Obama seemingly lost support in South Carolina(especially) and Iowa, 2 states where he has spent heavily on advertising, spent much time, and has a strong base of operation. Your theory that it is the media that has depressed Obama's support doesn't hold. He may very well turn it around but he can't ask for better coverage than he has had thus far.

Melanie, better coverage would be for a Democratic candidate to get even one half of the coverage that McCain has gotten in the past. Now THAT was a media darling.

Somehow I don't see ANY Democrat coming even close to the man-crush that journos had for McCain.

TimW, agreed. But, I'd say Obama is or was the second runner up media darling. Here's why, both McCain and Obama have(had) played well with the media because the media loves a man bites dog story. Both Obama and McCain are percieved as Mavericks (McCain more so) by taking stands not popular with their Party, telling the "hard truths" to their constituents like McCain on immigration or Obama on merit pay. Also, both have a unique narrative that the media finds compelling. The more Obama sounds like a Democrat the less they have to say about him, but they still are not examining him critically as a candidate, in my opinion.

TimW, Melanie: I think it's important to distinguish the differing natures of the Obama and McCain mancrushes. Obama has been lauded by the media for his rhetoric, his "message of hope," his personal image, etc. The media has never really fallen in love with his actual policies the way they did with McCain's "maverick" behavior.

This is why Clinton recieves better debate press, whereas Obama recieves better campaign trail press. To the media, Obama's strength (for whatever reason) is in more direct interactions with people, something not possible at debates.

But when it comes to debates, Clinton is percieved to be more closely aligned with the foreign policy pundit consensus, and thus Clinton is portrayed as righteously agressive and is lauded for going after Obama when he deviates from that (even if only in rhetoric).

Tim P. I disagree. Obama can have exceptional rhetorical moments however he is not consistent and he doesn't always connect. Both Obama an McCain get their most positive coverage when they are being mavericks, though they are different types of mavericks. McCain a crusty, straight talker, Obama a passionate truth sayer. Obama has recieved excellent coverage by the media, absolutely glowing, and mostly superficial. This one incedence the media was undecided between the two candidates.

Obama as much as said he won't end the war, either. He said it just yesterday. And yes, that is what " I won't end the war immediately" means. IT means he's going to drag it out as long as possible for the benefit of his campaign contributors. The same as Hillary.

Seriously, why should any of us waste the time to vote for this shitty little party? On every issue I care about, they may as well be Republicans.