what more could we want? Someone who didn't have a Chicago political machine operative help him buy a 2 million dollar home. Someone with executive experience. Someone who has served his country in the military instead of organizing for the marxist group ACORN. Someone who isn't going to raise the capital gains tax simply to "punish" the rich. Someone who doesn't look down on Americans who "cling to" guns and religion. Other than that he's perfect

What more could we want?

How about a victory over the presumptive Republican nominee in November!

Now thats something I could get excited about.

Obama is not perfect and doesn't claim such. Hillary and Billy didn't serve in the Military in fact Billy went to England mmmmm I sure hope he raises the taxes on the wealthy as the burden on the middle class has gone on too long. He came from very little and has worked his way up and his statement of people being bitter is truth and good old boys can't handle truth just look at Bush and Cheney or even McCain, look at McCains minister while you are at it then again it you are a white boy you would agree with a man of god talking that way NOT

Obama will be a significant improvement compared to the current "mission accomplished" prez....Three Trillion dollars later.

I can't believe she actually ended her letter with the question, "What more could we want?"

Talk about opening Pandora's box. Just watch the replies come in, detailing exactly what "we" would like to be different about Obama....

Valerie,

I think you need some fresh air. He has no real experience in anything. Two terms as a state senator (WOW) and one year in the US senate with no real opposition. Bring it on. There is no way this guy can win in the general election. The more we learn about this guy, the more he will continue to lose any credibility that he had. Run from conflicts, higher taxes, national health care, most liberal senator in the senate and list goes on. It will be interesting to see him respond to real questions from intelligent people instead to the roses and lollipops that have been thrown his way by the left. It looks like another four more years of republican rule.

Anyone who thinks raising taxes on the 'wealthy' is a good thing is and economic idiot.

WHAT?! What on earth was that rambling drivel? I'd love to know what you were saying, but that was completely unreadable. Try something simple, like this:
Obama is amazing. He'll be getting my vote. The republicans don't have a chance in, well, you know where, of winning this election.

"What more could we want?" How about a President who has the judgment to get himself and his children out from under the influence of a Pastor who preaches racial divisiveness and hatred of the U.S. after sitting in the pew for 20 years?

I'd rather have McCain, but will vote Obama because he sees us exiting the war soon after taking office, not in 100 years or for the rest of my life.

I'd rather spend the money on useful things, education, transportation infrastructure, helping the poor, etc, than down on something that doesn't benefit.

I want somebody who won't take my money and "redistribute the wealth" to make everybody equal.

I want taxes lowered, not a token rebate.

I want domestic oil supplies opened up.

I want nuclear power to reduce the need for fossil fuels.

I want plants built to reprocess the spent nuclear fuel that we have so that we don't have to mine.

I want the US boarders secured.

I want to see more competition in health insurance (this can drive costs down)

I want to see new oil refineries built.

I want to see a president stand up to the environmental movement.

I want to see the US show the world that it has a backbone again.

I want to see the US military run by the military, and not by a political comittee.

I want a president that will give the poor a hand up, not a handout.

Find me that canidate, and I will gladly stand behind them. From what I know of Obamma, the air around him smells worse than the dump in July.

New Yorker is one of those who banks everything on a person's resume.

You're living in the past New Yorker.

Things today are much more complex than your black-or-white critique.

Americans are more politically savvy today than you might think.

Dave, care to include your income in your defense of the wealthy?

---What more could we want?---

We want someone who's wife does not hate America.

I love how liberals (like Ernest Bass above) put Obama on a pedestal by comparing him to Bush. Of course Obama looks good compared to Bush - so does the potted ficus in my living room.

But Obama's not running against Bush, is he? He's running against McCain. So why are you bringing Bush into it?

I've got an idea for Ernest: See if you can express 2 sentences of a political thought without mentioning Bush. I know it's hard - you'll have to really focus. But if you succeed, people will take your opinions a lot more seriously.

I think it is interesting to watch the Democrats self destruct during an election that they supposedly cannot lose. Obama has primarily won in states that will likely vote Republican. He will get creamed once Republicans begin criticism of his abandomement policy of Iraq - which cedes the entire middle east to Iran. Americans dont like the war and may be furious at Bush for getting us there, but most people dont want a nuclear Iran in charge even less (and the Democratic Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush). Obama is charismatic but has no plan, therefore he will fail.

I want a President who will defend me, militarily if needed. In my mind that's the 1st priority for the Federal Government.

Obama has said there is never a reason to use military action, just negotiation. If he really thinks the military is evil, are we going to be prepared IF someone attacks us? Will we be able to protect our interests here at home or abroad? Will we even be a super-power anymore?

Once the world and Americans see us retreat from Iraq and the ensuing blood-bath, and the United States and it's President just shrugs it's shoulders and says, "We can't do anything about it, they beat us"! We will be even more a joke to the rest of the world and I don't see how we can have any self-respect.

I don't want a President who would guarantee vitory to the terrorist in Iraq and won't live up to our commitments to the poor people there.

We can debate the reasons we did anything in Iraq today, but we are there and we made commitments to the people there. I don't want a President who will just turn his back to the situation and run.

Dave: At some point the "wealthy" can afford to pay more taxes. I have never heard Obama say that we should punish the rich, but there is a point that the "rich" should pay more. I realise that the gop is very good at labeling things like the "death tax" but it was never a tax on death. It was a tax on inheartence. I know we hear horror stories about family farms and business broken up when someone dies but why should some multi billionaire not have to pay taxes on inhearited wealth? There is a point where you should have to pay more taxes. If it is $200000/year or $1000000/year or even $1000000000/year at some point you dont need a tax cut.

Yugo: Funny that YOU wand more refineries built. The oil companies dont and they said as much.
wrz: You are exactly right. What really matters is that the presidents wife not hate America. That and his pastor are my main concerns. <<---sarcasm Your pathetic regurgitation of Rabid Right Radio shows that you would never have voted for him if Christ himself was his pastor. "His pastor is a long haired hippy".

Wow did I ever misspell inheritance in my last post.

"I want the US boarders secured."

Would those be the snow boarders or the surf boarders? People, please, regardless of your ideology, it's "borders". Too many of you fools have been using "boarders" incorrectly and now it's just rampant. Stop it!

There is a good chance Obama DOES see rich white people need to be punished. I'm not sure but I'm watching him to see what his REAL feelings are on this subect.

When choosing a President I have to make some character judgments based not only based on what he says in his campaign speeches, but also from what I observe in his actions past and present.

Obama sat in the audience smiling and agreeing when his Reverend said, "Rich white men are the problem with America". That makes me wonder if he shares that opinion. I'm not sure he does, but it's a concern to me.

I don't agree in putting someone down based on the color of their skin or their income (ie. white/rich). It's just as racist to assume all rich-whites are bad as it is to assume all poor-black people are bad. Color of skin and income don't make bad people, it's what they do that makes them bad. There are bad rich-white people, but to assume all are bad is Wrong and bigoted.

Note: Not saying all white people are good or all rich people are good. Just that color/income doesn't matter.

"What more could you want?"

How about a president that isn't going to sit back and wait for Iran to build nuclear weapons? How about a president who will keep his (or her) thumb on Al-Queada and not wait for another 9/11?

How about a president who has real, concrete solutions to deal with high gases prices? And NO, simply saying, "Tax The Rich" isn't a concrete solution.

How about a president who has a real plan for reforming health care? And no, simply saying, "Tax The Rich" isn't a real plan.

How about a president who has a real plan to secure our nation's borders?

How about a president who doesn't view all small businessesmen as money hungry, robber barons, while at the same time, viewing all trial lawyers as heroes of the little guy?

Barack Obama might be charming, friendly and a good public speaker, but image should NEVER be more important than substance. If Obama wants my vote, he needs to explain his plan for this country that goes far and beyond the usual bumper sticker rhetoric we get from most politicians.

Every candidate is broadsided, criticized, demonized and demoralized. Barack is no different.

Barack has excellent public speaking skills and public poise, but that doesn't make him a good presidential candidate. There has to be substance to his rhetoric, and I find none. His socialist agenda is outdated and frightening, his associations highly questionable, his wife is a political lunatic, and his 20-year spiritual advisor is hateful, deluded, and rhetorically violent. Plus, his resume' is alarmingly shallow.

In my opinion, many of his supporters are fooled by his polished public speaking and fail to really think through what little substance he does say.

Where does the thinking come into play that because someone is successful in their life and makes more money than someone else that the government is allowed to forcibly take that money and give it to someone else?

That's called stealing. Just because you "think" that someone has "enough" money doesn't mean the government can confiscate it.

Why don't you liberals do more with YOUR money? Nothing is stopping you from giving it away to others. Why do you only give OTHER PEOPLES money away?

I don't need any sarcastic remarks or stupid Bush Derangement Syndrome answers. I want to know how you come to the conclusion that it is ok to steal from one person and give it to someone else by force.

And no, I don't make more than 50K a year.

So, please explain your doctrine of stealing.

I believe in Obama. I'm a big huge supporter of his.

Because he believes in change. And he believes in hope. And because he believes in hoping for change. And because he believes in the audacity of changing for hope. I often have my doubts, but he gives me courage everytime he reminds me that we are the ones we've been waiting for to say "yes, we can."

What a truly great man.

The US has been in Germany and Japan for 63 years, and that doesn't seem to bother anyone, so what is the big deal about maintaining a peaceful presence in Iraq as long as its needed.

Liberal liars love to make it sound like some want to continue the war for 100 years. Shame on you for misleading people.

Obama has shown us his dedication to his work, by being elected to the US Senate, and after only two years, abandoning that responsibility, to go after the presidency. Same as Hillary and McCain. I think if most of us made it known to our employers that we were not gonna be coming to work since we will be busy looking for a better job, we would be unemployed. Therefore, presidential candidates should have to give up their seats in Congress, or wherever they are working for the government, in order to run for office.

The fact that Obama is living off his Senate salary, while actively seeking a better job, speaks volumes about his character

What candidate ISN'T saying they "Believe in change" and they "Don't believe in hope"?

Talk is cheap. He's a "Great man" if he's DONE something great.

Personally, I hope he gets the chance to prove he's a great man but I don't think we can bestow that title on him just because he makes great hope/love/no-war speaches.

He's go to DO something great first.

If he gets us out of Iraq and a flood of peace fills the earth... I will be very happy.

If he gets us out of Iraq, AlQaida takes over after the civil war and years down the road Iran is threatening us with giving Nuclear weapoons to our terrorist enemies and Obama is too chicken to do anything about it... I will be VERY disapointed.

Far too many people cannot make the connection between the Vietnam era and today.

After 10 long and bloody years, the US (under public outcry) pulled out.

Ironically, we are today trading partners with Communist Vietnam. (we were supposed to be ridding the world of "The Red Menace") Another "Mission Accomplished?"

Most of the commenters here, including the previous one, don't have any notion of the CIA concept of "blowback." That is, our meddling in the middle east the last 50 years is the greatest recruiting tool Bin Laden and Co could hope for. We can stay in Iraq another 100 years a la John McCain, but our presence will create more blowback.

And while we're at it, why are we surprised that the toppling of a Sunni gov't in Baghdad led to the rise of an Iranian influence through the Shia majority? The pro-war crowd has never been frank about their agenda.

Be nice, 12:26 - I was being sarcastic.

It's scary, ain't it, how much I sound like an actual Obama supporter? It's hard to tell the difference. DO they recognize how silly they sound?

I actually hope Obama wins the Dem nomination, because if so then we're finished with Clinton for good, and finished with Obama as well when he either loses the general or gets beaten for re-election in 2012.

Obama is such a divisive, far left figure that if he wins the nomination a lot of white blue-collar Democrats will either stay home or vote for McCain, and that will help with the congressional races.

We Republicans have had to spend the last 8 years with the unreflective, unconservative George W Bush at the helm of our party, spending us into oblivion, turning us into the world's babysitters, and opening our borders to invasion. He dealt with 9/11 as a trillion dollar military problem rather than the billion dollar immigration problem it basically was.

With conservatism's reputation so badly damaged by someone who IS NOT conservative, it will be nice to see liberalism's reputation destroyed by someone who IS the very essence of liberalism.

I'm not all that convinced that Bin Laden is really alive.
I've seen on tape where the 'actor' clearly is NOT him.
And all we hear are odd audio tapes.

Politics can be a dirty, nasty, and deceitful business. Especially when the leaders are all CEO's with the bottom-line business mentality rather than Statesmen.

*** "Most of the commenters here, including the previous one, don't have any notion of the CIA concept of "blowback." That is, our meddling in the middle east the last 50 years is the greatest recruiting tool Bin Laden and Co could hope for." ***

1) Even if we didn't meddle with them for 100 years they'd still hate us. Heck, they still hate us for the Crusades, yet that was 700 years ago and THEY WON those (sort of - we got the Americas, Australia and NEw Zealand as a consolation proze, which is a bargain I'll take any day).

2) We are so dependent on oil from the Middle East that the cost of not meddling would be high, too. We can yammer about our dependency on oil, but if one tyrant managed to gain control of the whole Middle East he could slowly strangle us to death. Our policy has been to keep that from happening. The modern economy DEPENDS on that oil. It's easy to talk about alternative sources, but they ain't anywhere near a reality.

>>But Obama's not running against Bush, is he? He's running against McCain. So why are you bringing Bush into it?<<

It's called redefining the opponent. The Dems would like to define McCain as a mirror image of Bush, the plan being that when the voter thinks of McCain they think of Bush.

I have to agree with those who don't see enough substance in Obama's resume. We have to examine the past of our candidates for insight into how they will act as president.
As an example, I'll use our current president.
By looking at George W. Bush's past and at his work resume one might have seen the innumerable failures that characterized his life.
His abject failure in almost every facet of his job as Commander in Chief should have been abundantly predictable to anyone critically assessing his fitness for the job 8 years ago.
Would that the reds had been in the "resume examining" frame of mind 8 years ago....

My biggest problem with McCain is that he was on the losing side of the Vietnam war (today, ironically, we are trading partners with Communist Vietnam) and I think like so many, tragically has some sort of a weird axe to grind about it.

A third Bush/Cheney termer for sure.

When are you Democrats going to stop campaigning against George Bush? You know he's not running for President don't you?

You lost to Bush twice! I would think you would want to drop it and move on to compare Obama with someone who is actually running for President TODAY instead of wallowing in the past.

We know Bush is everything evil, we got it. But you can't keep attacking Bush and hope that negative feeling rubs off on McCain. All Republicans are not alike just like all Democrats are not alike. Just because someone has an "R" by their name doesn't mean they will make the same decisions or mistakes Bush did, just like we can't assume everyone with a "D" by their name will get it on in the oval office with an intern or run and hide if they drive off a bridge leaving their pasenger to die in order to protect their political career.

You can't campaign against McCain by attacking Bush.

If you really want a breath of fresh air and want Obama to win... quit campaigning against George Bush and focus on McCain!

The GOP nominee John McCain complains that it is judicial power that is excessive and is unduly limiting the powers of the president.

I suppose neo-reds don't see authoritarian ideology such as this as a potential problem as they voted in the Bush/Cheney mess that has this country headed for economic disaster. I see it as same ol', same ol' and am not the least bit enthusiastic about "staying the course."

I think the original writer got it right.

Obama and his ideas are nothing but air.

I guess all of will just have to wait and see what happens come November, won't we?

But let's just say I have a gut-feeling big changes are in the wind. And I believe they will be positive. (we currently have nowhere to go but up)

Before Fox, Savage, Limbaugh and the conservative media elected Bush Obama and Hillary would have never seemed so presidential.

Why don't you act like good conservatives. Keep following orders. Hopefully, Rush can get McCain elected. This will ruin the Republican Party.

If Obama wins, they will try to sick democrats with their legacy of failures.

Last night 28% of republicans voted against McCain. Mike Hukabee receive twice has many has Mitt.

I should go out and join a political party that hates my religion too?

If you want radically different you should have supported Ron Paul (just joking).

Bottom line, any man who says "Electing me will change the world" is trying to sell you something he can't deliver. He's not the messiah. No one man can change the direction of the the United States Government (it's specifically designed so one man or even one branch can't hijack the government). If you had the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches working together you could see change, but that will never happen. There are too many people in Washington (on both sides) who are too invested in the other party's failure to see any substantial change based on one person's being elected or not.

That may sound pesamistic but I think it's reality. Believing these feel-good speaches and thinking electing one man will change the world is nieve.

The only way to have change in Washington is to get rid of partisan politics, and Obama can't do that unless he has a plan to bring down those barriers, and I haven't heard that plan. His plan is just like every other politician's... Elect me and my party and we will vanquish-the-other-party's-plan make your life better.

ALL-politicians-say-that.

Bringing Bush into it makes perfect sense as McCain is just more of the same.
McCain = Bush, not McCain > Bush.
If you want more of the same: a massive deficit that will need decades to repair, if you want a never ending war, one which will hasten the bankruptcy of the U.S., if you want more families at the poverty level, then vote for Bush III...err...McCain.
Why is it that Bush's/McCain's economic policies have added 5 MILLION additional families to living below the poverty level?
So, yes....bringing Bush into the equation is fine because Bush and McCain are one in the same, although McSame is slighty more intelligent than a retarded monkey, which is more than we can say for Bush.

A vote for Loose-cannon McCain, is a vote for the Bush/Cheney Third Term.

"So what"? say the neo-reds.

"We did it before. And we can do it again."

>>The fact that Obama is living off his Senate salary, while actively seeking a better job, speaks volumes about his character<<

You're absolutely right!! Both Obama and Clintion should have given up their Senate seats to run for president... Like Romney, who gave up his governorship to run. The only honest candidate.

I think you better find a way to move beyond your Romney daydream, wrz.

He's been out of the picture for some time now.

Where have YOU been?

Seems as though the GOP faithful want it both ways. When there was a whole squad of candidates (all of them white men) running, none, with the possible exception of Paul, was willing to put any space between himself and GWB, even though they never mentioned his name and all claimed to be "Reagan" heirs, which is nothing but a pander. Now there's only one left, but what were McCain's weaknesses? Unswerving devotion to an open ended war (Bush) and a willingness to actually do something besides complain (and scream "amnesty!") about illegal immigration (also Bush). Yesterday McCain said his favorite kind of judges are Roberts and Alito, ALSO from Bush. So, until there seems to be some difference between the two, then ripping Bush IS ripping McCain. Also, wrz's complaint about taking a Senate salary is ridiculous. McCain takes his, too, and all three have campaigning expenses that FAR exceed Senate pay. Romney's term as governor was over, and he already had a quarter billion dollars!

does not glitter. Looks fair-feels foul. Why do these old sayings pop into my mind when contemplating an Obama presidency?
Feel don't think- Michelle O

>>I think you better find a way to move beyond your Romney daydream, wrz.<<

If I were to daydream it would not be about Romney.

>>He's been out of the picture for some time now.<<

When he was in the picture he gave up his governorship to be fair to the folks of Massachusetts. He could have kept the job, perhaps, but that would be dishonest.

>>Where have YOU been?<<

To London... to visit the Queen.

Valerie Guymon’s effusive and superficial praise of Barack Hussein Obama ends with the question “What more could we want?”. Here’s some answers:
- How about a candidate who believes in America’s greatness?
- How about a Presidential Candidate who looks at America and sees strong capable people eager to realize their fullest potential?
- How about a candidate that does not see victims everywhere in America crying for “change” that can “rescue” them.
- How about a candidate whose wife and pastor see an America . . . they can be proud of.

A few months ago, in the Deseret News, Valerie Guymon asked if U.S. foreign policy was comparable to Castro’s Cuban human rights record. That question was fatuously ridiculous. Her latest question continues the tradition.

Ms. Guymon, if nothing else . . . you’re consistent.

Lee Padron
Draper, Utah