Mr. Miller, one has to wonder if you believe in General Powell, why his profuse and prolific endorsement of President Elect Obama wouldn't have any affect on your views of our new President.

What about Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's last White House chief of staff who told CNN's Fareed Zakaria this week he intends to vote for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday.

Or Gov. William F. Weld of Massachusetts, a moderate Republican who endorsed Mr. Obama, why would you not think his opinion is less effective because he endorses President Obama?

Or Ken Adelman, a prominent conservative who famously predicted a "cakewalk" in Iraq, has become the latest Republican Party heavyweight to endorse Barack Obama.

Or Chris Buckley son of W. F. Buckley of Conservative fame and founder of National Review the most famous Conservative magazine of all time who after endorsing Obama was asked to leave the magazine his father founded.

And there is Doug Kmiec, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel to Ronald Reagan and former dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America. Whose last op-ed is entitled: Obama is the Best Candidate - Final Reflections on an Endorsement Well Considered (By Douglas Kmiec)

and I could go on and on, but for me last night was the first night in eight years I went to bed and slept like a baby because the thought of a President Obama taking over the helm of an America wandering in the wilderness the last eight years with a President who had no idea of what he was doing will finally be taken over by an adult!

I found it interesting that right after the final results came in, Obama stated any change will be slow, at least 3 to 4 years. That is not what he campaigned on. He campaigned for sudden and immediate change. Now reality will set in, and in my view, National Security is going to take priority over everything. By the time any economic policy gets worked on, the existing processes will have worked itself out. By the way, all those mentioned above who endorsed Obama, I do not care of their status, I believe they endorsed a well educated and smart person who in this particular case in my opinion is not really the right one for the job and their endorsement was more of a political statement to the Republican party. However, in saying that, the majority of the country obviously believes he is up to the task. The majority feels National Security is not a #1 priority. That tells me many do not pay attention to international policies and affairs. How many know what Russia is planning to do right now? How many think a major situation in the Suez canal will not have an effect? National Security affects economics and time will tell how far that will go. Gingersnapp, while your comment is very well thought out, it has no bearing on my opinions. My own experience working all over the world and with international affairs does. And I can confidently say there are very serious and well organized people, countries, and groups who want this country and us gone because they simply hate us and they will do anything to try and achieve that goal. National security affects economics and quality of life more then anything. Time will tell how far that will go, and as I stated in a previous comment, we as a country with our civilian population are not prepared. And those who want to take us out know it.

The reason "they" hate us is because of what Republican administrations have done to the other people on the planet. I think most of humanity slept a little better after the results were announced.

I’m still astounded by the morons that keep saying that the world hates America.

Yet, when you ask them “If the world hates America, why does everyone want to come here?” they shut their ignorant mouths.

wildwest expresses more sanguinity than I feel regarding the immediate import of National Security to an Obama administration. I do not have world observer experience with my travel adventures being limited to the countries of our NAFTA trading partners. However, having been on this planet for all but the first 10 months of the FDR administrations, I feel qualified to make observations about the seeming importance of national defense as an issue to Democrat administrations in the past and how that history may be predictive of the early Obama years. Just a note of nostalgia: does anybody else remember the KFEQ 6:00 evening news with Fulton Lewis, Jr.?

My first observation is that Democrat administrations, with one notable exception, in times of national security crises have ALWAYS been initially ill-advised by their State Departments and pursue a military course of action only when it becomes almost too late. One example was the 1937 Japanese Imperial Army conquest in China aptly named the Rape of Nanking which collaterally resulted in the capture and subsequent brutal interrment of scores of Amercian citizens. FDR's State Dept. was not only powerless to secure their release, but failed to recognize the incident as a prelude to events leading to the 1941 Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. The exception I noted was that of Truman who had the courage to use the weapons that ended WW2, an action I don't think FDR would have taken. Truman inherited a red-infested State Dept., but was able to initiate the re-building of war-ravaged Europe. Then he involved the U.S. in the Korean Conflict and, true to Democrat tradition, followed the terrible advice of the diplomatic corp instead of his military commanders, most notably Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur of course was sacked, supposedly for insubordination, but possibly just to rid Truman of a political foe. Later examples include the lack of support by the Rusk State Dept. in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the failure of Albright to support effective use of intelligence and anti-terrorism actions during Clinton's presidency.

Continued below

Other than making as early an exit as possible from Iraq and possibly making a show of trying to capture bin Laden, I think the early Obama years will be dominated by domestic issues with the legislation dictated to him by Pelosi and, to a lessor extent, Harry Reid. Some of the issues will be petty to the public, but important to the rabid leftist Democrat base. One would be reauthorizing the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an attempt to limit conservative talk radio. The Kennedy Health Plan will get early attention while he is still capable of advancing it. The $2 trillion deficit in the 2009 budget year may slow other spending plans, but don't count on it.

At least two key Democrat legislators, Murtha and Franks, have recommended military budget cuts. The State Department will probably be populated with pacifists such as Richard Haas and Strobe Talbott. I just don't see National Security receiving the attention it needs until a disaster is nearly upon us.

Democrats or Republicans have nothing to do with how some in the world feel about the US. Before Bush even took office on his first term, there was a lot of turmoil out there and because of the military cuts during that time, radical factions festered and grew. I disagree with the "why everyone wants to come here" viewpoint. That is not the case with all out there. This country has alot of very real and very serious threats to its core values and infrastructure and if we as a whole do not pay attention to it, address it, and make our National Security a #1 priority, at some point in time, everything we ever stand for, all of our freedoms, and the way we live will be severely challenged. What that means is all the incidental stuff we now argue over for legislation and all the name calling we use for those who do not agree with not even compare when someone or a rogue nation decides they are going take a major effort to strike at us. I find it very interesting how the economic markets have reacted to the election results as well. What is up with that? That was not what was campaigned on. Things are supposed to be going the other way, but the confidence level is shaky. That is not only with our financial world, it is global. Wright_Winger makes a very valid point about this country previous conflicts and we were almost too late in some of them. I agree we will not react until a major crisis evolves and the damage is already done. For those that "hate us and still want to come here" they come for a specific agenda, either to start a political coup or some other conflict, promote an issue they could not in their own country, or take advantage of some of the most lax systems in the world for illegal immigrants that thier own countries do not provide. And then they do not want to be "Americans" they want to promote thier own country values within our and undermine our core values. Most of the country has already forgotten how 911 began, it took those people years to coordinate and they had one mission. To take us out.

The aftermath of the next attack, when it happens under Obama's watch, will be handled much differently than was 9/11. Investigations will be conducted to see what WE did to make the enemy so angry as to have no choice but to attack us. The NEA will instruct schoolteachers to send notes home with their students asking parents to report any neighborhood activity by known conservatives, especially the dreaded neo-cons. Nothing will be done to determine the origin of weaponry used in the attack as we already know that yellowcake uranium is not being purchased by any suspect organizations. In the end we will decide it was all just an innocent mistake and invite the miscreants to join our choral groups in chanting Kum Ba Yah, Rockchalk Jayhawk and other melodies which enable libs the like of gingersnapp to feel good about themselves and the world in general. All is well.

I would like to see the Obama administration include some of the people who warned the current administration about
the danger of an attack before 9/11 and were ignored. I hope that the new people don't repeat the mistakes of the
former people. I also hope that the new people avenge 9/11 and get Osama Bin Laden who has mostly been forgotten by those in charge in 2001. They were too busy attacking our former ally of the late eighties named Sadaam on borrowed money which has contributed to our financial problems today!

In response to Mr. Davis's letter. Heartland has no competition in this area. They can charge as much as they want as there is no other hospital system here. Heartland has stifled every attempt for another hospital to locate here. Competition is good for the customer.

God Bless America.
God Save the Republic.

who says you need military experience to run this country. Looks good on a resume but definitely not a requirement. Obama obviously made a couple of suggestions about the war and then low a behold GW ended up doing things that Obama had suggested.

Yeah right horhay, the proof will be in the pudding.

It's going to be a lot different once a man is sitting in te presidential chair. Everything Mr. Obama does will now be scrutinized by everyone in the world. Now elected and once sworn in the press will become quickly disenchanted with him. Now all of the innuendo and questions about Mr. Obama that the press supporters turned a blind eye to will rise to the surface. Turn on the TV, he's not in office and it's already begun.

I pray Mr. Obama can do a great job. It's not a job that I would want. Although I did not vote for him he was elected and will become my president.

horhay,
Yes, because we all know that the President of the United States always seeks advice from a junior Senator with no military experience when making decisions about a war.