He sure looked prepared to me.  So did Hillary Clinton, by the way, on "This Week."  So did John McCain on "This Week."  Now, if you want to see someone who's truly unprepared, check out Mike Huckabee's rough (to put it charitably) appearance on Meet the Press.  The guy's outwardly amiable and all, but I am convinced he'd be a disaster as President.

I thought that Tim Russert sent in some softball questions to Barack, and Barack himself keeps side-stepping his views on lobbyists.  Also, Barack was left on a final note of "will you run for President again?..."  That's never good, especially when the interview is conducted in an NBC studio in Iowa!

I say Obama 2016.  Hillary 2008.

B-A-R-A-C-K.

But I don't like diaries that do nothing but attack good Democrats.  Especially one that could be our nominee in a few weeks.  Why don't you talk about who you're backing and why, instead of trying to tear down Barack Obama?

the Op-Ed makes a few perfectly valid and appropriate criticisms of Obama (and I'm one of those Edwards-Obama wafflers, so I've no interest in tearing him down).  The author is exactly right when he says that it'll be the substance, and not the look, that makes the difference in the next administration.  Further, one trip to Europe as chair of the subcommittee on Europe?  That just strikes me as . . . something's wrong with that (and I'd expected to hear from the Obama campaign that that wasn't true, but . . . crickets.).

In any event, I think it's not only perfectly valid to criticize our candidates, but that it's necessary.  We, as Democrats, have the power to hold them to account right now, and the candidates should worry about that.  If Obama hears that we're worried that he's more style than substance, he'll have to step up his convincing us that he's got the substance.  Nothing wrong with that at all.

"Reza Aslan is an assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California at Riverside and the author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam."

Obama's no Carter and the crap in the op-ed can best be considered by this line that says the author knows best.  

"That is how the post-Bush "war on terror" must be handled. Not by "re-branding" the mess George W. Bush has made, but by actually fixing it."

The  word "experience" seems to have taken on new life since the tragedy in Pakistan.  Even before that it has been used, misused, and made close to meaningless.  How do we separate experience from being part of the establishment for a long time?  This is a touchy question, because there is an illusion that experience can be measured in terms of lists, events, etc.  However, what matters most to me is the potential for creativity and intelligent leadership.  Clearly experience contributes to that, but can it not also detract from the ability to see things in a fresh way?

in another posting on RK, Something does not feel right and I am sticking with Hillary and if it is not Hillary, I want it to be Edwards. There is a fat chance on my next Pick, Biden, but I would feel better with Biden.

There Lowell, no bashing just plain good old fashion "Something Ain't Right"

Edwards cannot even approach Obama on grasp of foreign policy nor does he try to.  Your contortions are inexplicable.

Obama has a fantastic grasp of politics.  Some of his supporters may have oversold him.  In the realm of reality, however,  I don't think there is much to worry about here.

Clearly, other candidates have more foreign policy experience. On the other hand, Obama is brilliant and he has assembled an excellent foreign policy team. He has already demonstrated a willingness to hire the best people in their field of expertise.  He won't be intimidated by people 15 years older or more knowledgeable about a given subject.

Huckabee is on the decline because he wants to go into Pakistan, with or without Pakistan's approval to get Bin Laden.

Do you know anyone else that said that?

that's not why Huckabee's currently imploding, and in any event, saying that you'd unilaterally act to kill OBL is probably still one of the safest things to say in politics.

Something may have to be done about Pakistan, but, hey, what candidates have been most willing to use force?  Even when force turned out to be the wrong approach?  C'mon.

It seems that Reza Aslan, the creative writing professor, has been putting his creative writing skills to work when he wrote this screed against Obama.

He creatively came up with a ludicrous foreign policy for Obama. Who will disagree that a marketing campaign in the Middle East is not a solution?

My favorite part is when Reza gives the real solution for the problems in the region. He proposes that the next president should seek an economically sustainable Palestine, safely leaving Iraq, negotiate in the region, curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, get Russia and China to help us stabilize the region, safeguard Afghanistan from the Taliban, and keep Pakistan from self-destruction.

So what is Obama's real position on these issues?

[On Iraq]
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea nuclear programs.

[On Iran]Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push - working with Israelis and Palestinians - to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

Let's review what Obama is planning on doing. He wants to leave Iraq and leave enough troops to prevent Al Qeada from setting a base there. He wants to bring other countries to help us curb nuclear threats like Iran and North Korea. He wants to further pressure Iran to give up on nuclear ambitions. And he wants a bring into existence a Palestinian state.

It seems that Obama's policy for the region matches Reza's plan, except for a few details.

Reza could have learned that Obama agrees with him had he spent 5 minutes doing a quick visit to Obama's campaign web site.

But, what is the fun in facts when you have the skills just to make things up?

Quick.... Which Democratic candidate with so-called foreign policy experience said this....

"If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow,"

"He could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election,"

The elections in Pakistan are for parliament.

Kim Priestap at Wizbang wondered why the media didn't pick up the story until now, and if it'll gain any stream - although she thinks it should.

Senator Clinton is looking quite foolish after setting up her foreign policy experience like this because she has set an expectation that she didn't fulfill. Not knowing that Pervez Musharraf is the president of Pakistan who won reelection in October and that the elections on January 8th, which will probably be postponed after Bhutto's assassination, are for Parliament is really unacceptable, especially since Pakistan is such an important hot spot in the War on Terror.