Debate #2: 10:22

Obama says in relation to foreign policy:

"We have to be proactive. We've been reactive for the past 8 years."

That's not a direct quote, but it's close enough. Look it up.

Except in Iraq, of course. Where Bush took the proactive step rather than waiting for Saddam to act. That, of course, was a mistake according to Obama; Iraq posed no direct threat to us.

Am I wrong in thinking this doesn't reconcile? Have I missed something?

Not to mention his comments on Georgia! What he says is misleading. He did not take a hard stand against Russia and gives us no reason to believe he would.

I am trying to be open to Obama, but I do not trust him on foreign policy. I do not like the positions that he holds and I do not believe his policies are workable.

In addition he speaks of energy independence taking petro dollars from the Russians. The problem being that it isn't US consumption driving the Russian oil industry; it's Europe. It's petro Euros. The US got about 1% of our crude oil from Russia in 2007. Energy independence is not the answer to everything.

And the thing that makes me the most skeptical? The talk of intervening in Darfur to end genocide and, in the same breath, denouncing the invasion of Iraq. A country and a regime with a proven history of genocide.

So, what's a voter like me to do? I'm disappointed by McCain's economic policies, but I like Obama's foreign policy even less.

The third party candidates have insane platforms, but I could vote for one of them as a protest vote. A successful third-party candidate could force change in the big two parties.

BUT none of the current third party candidates have the strength of numbers to push such a change.

You don't have to read this. I'm just rambling through my thoughts.