To: GST who wrote (2454 ) 7/29/2007 2:15:58 PM From: Sr K Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317 Who's in favor of negative change? The more I think about this discussion, the more Obama is wrong and Hillary got it, instantly. As a new President takes office and assesses the world situation and priorities, although many here and around the world think Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, or maybe War On Terrorism, WOT, WOT, it would be much more reasonable for that President to go on a "listening tour" and visit our allies (or meet them here), in Britain, France, Germany, South Korea, Japan, South America, and so forth. Perhaps starting with all the permanent Security Council members. Acting in the first year as if he can go it alone in solving major world problems is naive. Even if the only message is "we want to understand your concerns" and to open a dialog, it would be counterproductive without a broader diplomatic effort. It happens all the time. A new player wants to be a star. To act like I'm the new President and I'm going to meet with our enemies to show we're not such bad guys, GWB did not represent the real American people (if the Democrat wins, that will be the case), whatever his or her message might be to those leaders would also be an affront to our allies or those who are neutral or who have varied positions with us or opposing us on different issues. A new President can lead, but it is also important, maybe more important, to work with the leaders of Congress, in both parties, to develop multiple plans and give and take input on them. I disapproved of what Obama said, and it does not reflect a false belief that we are well served by our isolation. I believe meeting with those leaders with no preconditions would be another form of isolation, trying to go it alone rather than working with the world community and the world around us.