Candidates FIRST reaction to situation in Georgia is very revealing.

"other countries are like are kids. You get more with talking then yelling" Now I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I've watched parents who try and talk, or negotiate with misbehaving children. While it may work occasionally, it's often just pathetic. When a parent firmly demands their child stop misbehaving and sit down, the child listens. I really think you are right about other countries often being like children, but I think we need to be firm in how we deal with them if we want to be taken seriously. Was Reagan too old for office? He's been our oldest president so far and he's well known as one of our best. Do you think people would remember his speech if he said "Mr. Gorbachev, I think now would be a good time to show restraint so things in Berlin don't escalate"? McCain's reaction to this is much more similar to the "Tear down this wall" demand by Reagan.

This is why Obamabots are considered mindless robots. Why do you feel the need to "read between the lines" in order to make what your candidate said make sense to you? Obama said that Russia and Georgia should sit and talk about what has to happen for Georgia stability. The answer that would be, RUSSIA, GET YOUR TROOPS OUT OF GEORGIA. There is nothing here to talk about. What Obama can't get himself to say is, Russia is WRONG! Face it, he's a coward and a wimp and the only reason he's taken seriously as a candidate is the press told you to support him... so you do.

"Keep your nose in your own back yard and you should be ok." That pearl of wisdom led to WWII. Nobody batted an eye when Russia and Hitler invaded Poland. Nobody said a word when Russia took over Germany, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia... Boy, I'm sure those countries really appreciated us staying out of their business then. ParaTed's right. Obama's a wimp who would rather see one of our closest allies get massacred than step on anyone's toes.

Even if Georgia was being "provocative"; Russia is the one who crossed the border. If we can get Russia back into it's own boundries; THEN, we can try to get negotiations going between the two countries. BUT, you can't get two parties to sit down and TALK when one of them is DESTROYING the other. And, a lot of people seem to reading things into what McCain said. He said Russia was wrong and had exceeded its authority. He NEVER said "if you don't do what we say, we are going to war"! "War" with the US was NEVER even mentioned. - So PLEASE stick to the FACTS; don't add your "own spin" on what either candidate said.

I didn't realize that the border between Georgia and Russia was an unrealistic black/white line. It also seems that Russia is the one that declared an all-out war as the first resort. I think demanding that Russia cease their full invasion of out close ally is a much wiser decision than politely asking them to negotiate while they massacre civilians. If action isn't taken quickly Georgia will go back to it's Cold War status as a buffer zone where Russia can burn villages to keep other countries from reaching the mainland.

The candidates would, of course, have to precede this statement with, "If I was president, I would say,". I agree President Bush would never say this publically. However, I promise if the Russians withdraw, something like it was said privately.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/world/europe/13georgia.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin At the above link you will find circumstantial evidence that President Bush did step up and make the Russians a promise such as I recommended, only it was done privately.

Realistically, neither candidate has the authority to say or follow up on something like that even if they did want to. Bush does; but, he won't.

Isn't it amazing how fast these protestors jump to these conclusions! You have to state where you stand before you enter into negotiations. In this case, we said "get out of Georgia and back to your side of the border". That lets Russia know that this ONE fact is NOT negotiable; but, everything else is. It lets them know what we expect and what they can get for complying is still open for discussion. But, you have to have a starting place and a clear strong statement is required to make that starting place clear. Obama does not seem to be capable of that yet. He needs more experience and not AFTER he becomes President.

I'm just amazed that we're already being criticized for assisting Georgia in getting troops out of Iraq. Georgia is there helping fight a war that is largely our responsibility so I think it's only fair we help them leave to deal with problems at home. If Bush were the war monger wouldn't we be sending our own troops into Georgia instead of trying to broker a cease-fire?

"We really need to stop trying to played the field and stay right on home base where we belong before...because folks, the situation is that serious, while they have so many worried about gas in their car, the American economy is hanging by a string and lost all respect of so many countries." Unfortunately we can not afford to sit back and ignore the rest of the world if we are to fix our own problems. The price of oil affects every nation in the world and if their costs go up, we have to pay more for things made in other countries and that hurts our economy. If it is less expensive to make things in other countries and ship them here, then our jobs WILL go across the borders and we will have higher unemployment here. IF supplies we need to produce things here in the US are reduced or cut off due to wars and fighting in other countries, once again we will face higher unemployment HERE. We have to stay involved to protect our own interests; whether we want to or not. "Russia is playing peacemaker between the two nations" - WHAT are you talking about???? Russia invaded Georgia with full military strength an dis killing everyone, military and civilians alike. They are destroying entire villages, towns, and cities. HOW is Russia "playing peacemaker"? They ARE one of the two nations!

I know; and that is really scary. If Obama is elected to office; we are in serious trouble. It is no wonder that countries that are our ENEMIES are openly endorsing this man. They know they can walk all over him and us; and, he won't do anything. If you think our country has problems now, four years of Obama as President will make the last 8 years with Bush look like a stroll through Disneyland.

Everytime the US has "stayed out" of situations like this they just continue to escalate until we are dragged in and we lose more later than we would if we came in at the very beginning. Just ask any one you know who is still alive and we was around during WORLD War II. We stayed out of that one and many countries paid the price while we sat on our butts and sure enough THEY ATTACKED THE US eventhough we were "staying out" of it. Also a firm stance and statement from the very beginning WORKS! Russia is already pulling out of Georgia without us having to send in any troop just FIVE dasy after they invaded.

I could not have phrased it better myself.

I agree that Russia may be "testing the waters" to see how our candidates react; and, how much Bush will let them get away with. Based on their responses, I think I know who RUSSIA would like to see win.

Actually, I think he lives in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood AND he thinks he is Mr Rogers.

Obama is a master of "words and rhetoric". In addition to his previous books, he already has another book due to be released soon! How is he expecting to actually DO his job if he is elected to the Presidency, when he will be writing his memoirs and publishing them before he even gets halfway through his term of office.

I agree, Martahandey, that typically a leader need think quick on his feet. But for right now I'll settle for a leader who can fix our systematic problems, and hand off situations he is unequipped for. I really want to qualify here, and say I'm not sure Obama is "unequipped" to handle emergencies as they arise, but my point here is that our next leader doesn't need to be all-knowing, or all-powerful, so long as he knows when to say "Maybe I should pass this decision on to someone with more experience?". And I think Obama could be that guy.

I think you and I are just looking for different things in a president, and that's okay. You say that you want a guy who is able to answer the red phone at 3am and make a decision, where I'm looking for a guy who is wants to research and intelligently respond (and at 3am possibly hand the call over to someone more equipped!). I don't necessarily want a great "in time of emergency" president, I want someone who can help work towards our long term goals. But I respect your feelings, and completely understand the desire for a president who is willing to act strongly on a moment's notice.

If a president is not capable of making instant decisions in times of emergency, then what more is he than a figure head? Presidents have advisers so that they can strengthen weak points, but I think it's pretty important that a president be quick on his feet.. I mean, he is the Commander in Chief. I am all for the future of our country, but what is the future if we cannot secure the present?

Thank you taskr36 for pointing out that BUSH & OBAMA were the ones in agreement. So, Obama thinks like President Bush; McCain does not. If you like Bush then vote for Obama; if you want a change then McCain is the one who reacts differently.

"I find it more interesting that the president of the United States took the same road as McCain" Actually, you're wrong. "Senator Barack Obama, his Democratic rival, trod more carefully, a characteristic of his approach to foreign affairs. In an initial statement released by his campaign, he did not directly blame Russia and instead offered a more measured response, which largely echoed the official comments of the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and President Bush." So who's more like Bush now? "If you ever want to know the difference between McCain, and Obama here it is. Obama would rather try to sit both sides down, and figure out an end to a conflict, and a resolution. McCain would rather talk about a subject before he knows what he is talking about, and get us into more wars that we can't support. Does this sound like something you want, AGAIN?" Actually, Obama made statements before getting all the facts. Simply put, he didn't know what he was talking about. He changed his tune once he got the full story. McCain on the other hand spoke with many people including the president of Georgia, the white house national security advisor, his own foreign policy staff, and Mark Salter. He knew EXACTLY what he was talking about when he made his statement.

Taskr, The point of my post was to show that Obama didn't come out and attack Russia when we didn't have all the facts. McCain came out, and attacked Russia before he got all of the facts, making himself look like an idiot infront of the world. The last thing we need is another president that shoots first, and ask questions later. You say that Bush's response was more like Obama's, but the quote I used above was from the White House, and the last time I check the White House speaks for Bush. The statement from Obama, and Bush/The White House are different. Now, days later all sides changed their minds on what happened, but the knee jerk reaction of McCain did nothing to help the crisis, and may have made it worse. Obama did not have all of the facts when he made his statement, but what he said was he would not send our military first, he would send envoys instead. McCain made a forceful statement that didn't help the matter one bit. You are correct that Obama changed is tune when he got all the facts, but so did Bush, and McCain. I would really like to know how it is that McCain was able to talk the all of these people including the president of a country at war in the little amount of time that he did. The other thing I would like to know is why it is that if McCain knew EXACTLY what was going on, when the president of the United States didn't know EXACTLY what was going on? And, why did he have no problem sitting next to Putin while this was going on? Interesting questions isn't it, I find it very hard to believe that a presidental candidate has better intel, and a better foreign policy staff then the president of the United States, but we are talking about Bush here.

Exactly; and, a president needs to be able to make that decision quickly; presidents don't always have time to "run it past their advisors".

Even someone who wants to be known as a "piecemaker/negotiator" has to give a firm statement so that the other parties know where they stand. Then the other parties know what is and what is not negotiable. This gives them a "starting place" for negotiations. Unfortunately for Obama, he has no "firm stands" on anything. He is like a blade of grass and bends at the first breeze. ANY one who started to negotiate with him would expect him to give in and sooner rather than later. Obama still has a lot of growing up and maturing to do; someday he may be ready for the Presidency, but, not with what we are facing today.

I have to agree; a good leader has to get the facts and make their statement. They can't keep changing statements as facts trickle in. Also, McCain was in office throughout the collapse of the USSR and is more familiar with the situation and the players. Obama has not even been in the Senate for a full term AND he has spent a lot of time running for a different office! Of course, you also cannot act like George Bush and refuse to make changes when it is obvious the facts were incorrect or have changed. McCain has changed statements he made in the past when he found out that he facts he was given were incorrect or the situation changed.

Sorry, I have not seen any articles about Hilary's response to this situation. Of course, by now, it would no longer be her 1st response. But, perhaps, someone else has heard somthing and will post it here.

"I think that Obama is a kiss-a**" - I agree - most politicians are. "I think that McCain is as honest as a politician goes and that's what I want, honesty." I am glad you added the qualifier, "honest as a politician goes", to McCain. After he lost the nomination in 2000 and was forced by Bush and the Republican Party to remove his support from his friend Kerry in 2004, he has "changed" many of his stances and TRIED to toe the party line so that he can get elected. That is why immediate responses are a better indicater of his, and other people's, true characters. They are far more likely to say what they realy mean and feel at that time then later on when they have had time to think about and be advised about ALL the implications of their comments.

The way people overcome being naive is to read and examine everything they can get their hands on - that is why I published this post - to provide one more source for people to hear what is going on. I personally believe that the first reaction a person has is far more revealing that the ones that come later. Right now, we not only have fighting going on in many places across the globe; but, in the last few years we have also had major natural disasters - earthquakes, floods, killer tornados, hurricanes, etc. A President can hire advisors for areas he is not strong in - economics, law, etc. - but, you cannot have a President who reacts to a crisis one way and then after he has time to be advised by his staff changes his position. In a crisis you do not always have the luxury of time. You have to act NOW and you HAVE to be right. Changing your position later can cost people their lives. We still have plenty of time before the actual election - so keep your eyes open and make a little sheet with both candidates names and start putting down little pluses and minuses along with little notes about why you rated them plus or minus. By the end of October, you should have a clear view of which candidate you believe is best for our country and you will be making an informed decision when you go to the polls.