There is no command to issue or button to push that creates paragraphs. What follows is a lengthy reply to your comments, and paragraphs are necessary. I will use the following symbol to represent paragraph breaks … it doesn’t help much, but it is better than trying to read one very long paragraph. Here goes:

---> You said: Hey Mac, I don't understand what's wrong with using his given middle name? …

---> There is absolutely nothing “wrong” with using a person’s middle name when making a political speech, even when that person prefers that it not be used (just as most of us prefer to not be referred to with our formal, full names). It is both rude and, in the case of Mr. Cunningham, calculated to imply connections that do not exist. One must consider the source … Whenever a rabid neo-con talking head makes reference to “Hussein”, in practically any context, you can bet your sweet bippy that he is not intending anyone to look favorably on the referent.

---> Isn't it important that Americans know everything about the candidates, so that we can make the best informed decision with our vote?

---> And what, pray tell, is there of importance to glean from knowing Barack Obama’s middle name? To whom would that bit of information have any importance, and in what way will that knowledge serve to inform that voter about Mr. Obama’s qualifications.

---> Onto your assertion that "anyone who voted for Bush over Gore is hardly in a credible position to now say that experience should be a qualifier." What world are you from?

---> You misunderstood the question … George W. Bush had practically no governmental experience at all, other than his partial term as governor of Texas. And yet people, often the very ones criticizing Obama’s supposed lack of experience, managed to vote for him. The point being raised is that people who voted for Bush (with hardly any experience) are hypocrites if they suggest that Obama should not be elected because he is inexperienced.

---> He [Obama] has said some very shocking things that might cause me to run for the hills, if he becomes the most powerful man on the planet. Here's a list of them: (1) As president, he will take Nuclear Weapons off the table in his decision-making.

---> I read ahead and saw the links you provided to support this and your other four assertions about the “shocking things” Barack Obama has said. I also saw that you proposed those links provide a solid basis to debate the merits of an Obama Presidency. Well, I checked out every single link (except #5, which was broken). Let me combine, then, my comments to both your statements (here) and the evidence you use to support them:

---> (1) The link to this criticism was to an NBC report of August 23, 2007. Let’s set the context from which you paraphrase the quote, shall we? Barrack Obama is shown replying to his critics who criticize him for being (apparently) “weak on terror”, because he ruled out using battlefield nuclear weapons against al-Qaida in Pakistan (of course, he manages to get one of his favorite digs in during the conversation – that it is ironic he is being attacked by those who so grossly misperceived our reception in Iraq). At any rate, the specific words he used were, “It would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance against civilians”, and then he corrected himself by saying that since there was no discussion of using nuclear weapons.

---> Even if we take his comment on the surface (as you clearly did, but the NBC reporters didn’t), My question would be: This bothers you? You would choose someone to serve as President who wanted to use nuclear weapons? This is why all American Presidents have remained purposefully vague about when (or if) they would use nuclear weapons. Obama is being equally vague. He has not taken the use of nuclear weapons off the table, he has taken the TOPIC of using them off the table!

---> (2) He unambigously proclaimed that he will negotiate with Iran, a fledgling nuclear power, but he will consider attacking Pakistan, a Nuclear power.

---> Your link to “prove” this objection is mixed. It takes me to a Democratic debate, and includes accusations aimed against Obama from both Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton. Nowhere in this clip is there a reference to “negotiating with Iran”. Still, I can deconstruct this one for you, even without the direct reference. Barack Obama distinguishes himself from the current President by announcing his willingness to talk and listen to any world leader … to “negotiate”, as you interpret it … though almost anyone familiar with the concepts of conflict resolution knows that the only way to begin to resolve problems between folks is to get them to sit down and talk to each other about what is going on. Talking doesn’t guarantee satisfactory resolution, but it certainly offers far more opportunities for finding common ground than does not talking, at all (which offers NO opportunity) or does lobbing in the occasional insult or covertly working to undermine the other guy’s credibility (or even existence).

---> That said, what Obama actually said about Pakistan was that we need to refocus our policies and get out of Iraq, and make sure we help Pakistan deal with al-Qaida within its borders. If we have good intelligence regarding al-Qaida inside Pakistan and the Mushariff government refuses to act, then we need to take the action ourselves. He says nothing about “attacking” Pakistan … he is talking about surgical strikes against al-Qaida in Pakistan only after our “good” ally refuses to do anything about it. It is Senator Clinton who later raises the nuclear capacity of Pakistan, and even then, she refers to what might happen if we destabilize the Mushariff government and al-Qaida types take over and desire to retaliate. I will not elaborate here on our shady history of manipulation inside Pakistan (or Iran, or Afghanistan) – most stemming from the blunders of the Reagan Administration that somehow converge in Pakistan obtaining the state secrets enabling it to develop nuclear weapons AND taking sides with Mushariff in the first place (just one of the many “good” Islamic dictators we will NOT overthrow).

---> (3) He claimed in a recent debate to have personal knowledge that our military is under supplied, but he fails to devulge his source.

---> It is unclear to me why it is important for you to know who the “captain” is … as if revealing the source of this information would give it more credence. The “captain” may be fictionalized, or could be any number of legitimate sources. Does it really matter? There is widespread documentation of failure to provide adequate supplies to American forces fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Have you forgotten the failure of (well-paid) contractors … most of whom are paid a whole lot more than our soldiers … to deliver properly armored humvies? … or body armor? If memory serves me correctly, it was the latter shortage that prompted then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to quip, “You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want" to an American soldier asking him why he and his buddies had to rummage through junkyards in order to find scrap metal that they could weld to humvies on their own for protection against IEDs. During that same interview, by the way (December 9, 2004) … at Camp Buehring in Kuwait … other soldiers wanted to know about new “stop/loss” policies (which prevents active duty soldiers from leaving the army, even if eligible for retirement), to which Rummy replied, the policy "is something you prefer not to have to use in a perfect world." Add to this the fact that tours of duty have been extended to 15 months, and leave time between tours cut back, and we have a different, though related, issue – not enough troops. I will not pursue arguments about whether we sent enough troops into Iraq to secure the occupation and prevent an insurgency … but that, too, reflects on the fact that we entered this war with a very bad plan for what to do after we “won” it. That is, no plan!

---> (4) He stated during a rally that Al Qaeda was in Iraqi after "Bush's decision". George Tenet and other sources contradict this blame Bush parade that Al Qaeda in Iraqi was present long before the invasion. It makes perfect sense, since Hussein was Sunnie, so is bin Laden.

---> Thanks for providing the O’Reilly Talking Points link … you have now documented the primary source of your opinions. First, O’Reilly is neither fair nor balanced. Yes … he showed two clips allowing Mr. Obama to speak for himself. But the references he cited to support his contention that Mr. Obama had better watch what he says are, at best, dubious. Yes, there is evidence that al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad before the US invasion; and yes, there is evidence of a possible link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. But O’Reilly presented both contentions as fact, when on the contrary there is lots of evidence to suggest they are not facts, at all. THAT would have been a “fair and balanced” report. Mr. O’Reilly hides his “fairness” in partial truths and assumed realities. Let’s look at the two points he raised.

---> Technically, al-Qaida was not in Iraq until October of 2004, when al-Zarqawi swore an oath of allegiance to bin Laden and renamed his terrorist outfit … mostly expatriate Jordanians seeking to overthrow the monarchy there … “al-Qaida in Iraq”. Previous to that, he was a maverick terrorist and thug who ran a camp in Afghanistan, but refused to acknowledge bin Laden and operated on his own. He actually met bin Laden once, but actually left Afghanistan when bin Laden threatened him for not towing the line. In Iraq, he used that acquaintance as the basis for credibility to recruit a terrorist gang … a gang that more than once was reprimanded by bin Laden because it fueled a Sunni/Shi’a civil war that was not a part of the bin Laden master plan (at least until after the US was driven out of Iraq).

---> Certainly, George Tenet realized this … he had access to the same information that I have. Instead, he cherry-picks data and uses only that part of it that supports his opinion. In that sense, he is not “lying” … but he is not being truthful, either. I am sure this is why Mr. Tenet … who oversaw an intelligence agency whose gross mistakes the President subsequently blamed for such “little” inconveniences as no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons program, no direct al-Qaida connection, and no plans to attack (or support an attack on) American property … was awarded the Presidential Medal of Honor: for keeping his mouth shut and enforcing the Code of Silence.

---> As to the second claim made by Mr. O’Reilly … that ABC News reported on March 23, 2005 that documents captured by American forces show contact between bin Laden and Saddam (and the authenticity of the documents confirmed by the 9/11 Commission) … is equally dubious. Yes, the documents exist, and yes, the 9/11 commission made reference to the meetings described in those documents (but it did not have them, at the time, and described the contents only as “unsubstantiated evidence” … which casts yet even more doubt on the veracity of Mr. O’Reilly’s statements). But let’s look at the documents, shall we?

---> First, try to find them. After exhausting an effort to find the newscast where they were described, I settled for this print announcement (made on March 23) which you can find at http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490. As you look them over, and then read the editor’s comments, you will see that there are real questions about not only the source of the documents, but also their integrity (funny that you would question the “source” of Obama’s “captain”, but accept Bill O’Reilly’s sourcing at face value, or accept something as gospel when the source, itself, is questionable). The claim that Saddam Hussein met with Osama bin Laden is patently false. The claim that a representative of Hussein did so is corroborated by one of the documents O’Reilly refers to – but it occurred in 1995 and resulted in only one known outcome: the broadcast of a religious program on Iraqi radio; whether subsequent al-Qaida terrorist attacks represented agreements made at this meeting are unknown. The second document is even worse. In it, an unnamed Afghan informant is described in an Iraqi intelligence report (dated 9/15/2001) as having had a conversation with an unnamed Afghani “consul” who heard from some unnamed source while traveling in Iran at some undisclosed place or time that there was a shadowy relationships between Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and the Iraqi government to cooperate in attacking the US. Even the signature on the document is illegible, making it impossible to track down the Iraqi agent to verify the authenticity of any of the information. The third document refers to French politics …

---> Back to your statement, for a moment: even if you are still willing to accept the propaganda that al-Zarqawi was “al-Qaida”, he was not in Iraq “long before the invasion”. According to George Tenet – your source – he showed up in Baghdad in 2002. I don’t care how you parse time, even from Jan 1, 2002 to March 20, 2003, is NOT a “long” time. But, as I have shown, al-Zarqawi did not have bin Laden’s trust to proclaim an “al-Qaida in Iraq” until October of 2004. In short, al-Qaida was NOT in Iraq until well-after America invaded and created the conditions that enabled it to develop (e.g., eliminate the ruthless dictator who broached no encroachment on his power). As to the fact that Hussein and bin Laden must be allies because they are both Sunni … give me a break! King Abdullah is a Sunni, and Osama bin Laden wants him overthrown! I could give lots more examples of the ludicrousness of this claim, but won’t. Instead, just recognize that Saddam Hussein was a secular ruler who utilized religious splits to his advantage, and Osama bin Laden seeks to overthrow all secular Muslim governments. Duh!

---> (5) California can't afford Universal Health Care due to its budget constraints, yet Obama and Hillary demand it!

---> The link that you provided to “prove” this point is broken. Still, I can say a few things about this topic. California cannot afford universal health care because people are already overpaying for private health care insurance. Eliminate insurance companies and eliminate for-profit health care, and universal single-payer health care becomes extremely affordable and makes a lot of sense. Even if people paid the same amount to the government that they now pay for private insurance in the form of taxes, no one would be out anything. They won’t have to pay that much, however, because the profit motive will be gone. There will be enough money to pay health-care providers a reasonable salary (they won’t get robbed, though they may not earn as much as they currently do), but stock holders and boards of directors and greedy CEOs won’t be milking and skimming money off the top for their incredibly obscene incomes. Don’t think it will work? I’ll give you one example that does … on a wide scale and with very little out-of-pocket expenses for those covered. Think VA.