1. The world loves the Clintons. So I don’t know that resetting the button is what you want. If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it sorta deal. Still, if Obama ends up being just as positive on the world scene as the Clintons (which is a near impossible feat), I’d welcome it. I just haven’t seen it yet.

2. I think Obama has run the most negative campaign I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. He blames Democrats for the war instead of Bush by saying “I was right from the start”. Right there, he’s someone that goes against his own group. He never voted against the war because he wasn’t even in the Senate and has said that had he been in the Senate, he would have likely voted the same way as everyone else. So it’s trite to claim that Obama was right from the start. As a foreigner to your country, this does nothing to calm my worries that stemmed from the Bush administration. Specifically, Bush’s tactic of claiming people are divisive and don’t support the troops if they criticize the war effort. Right now, Obama is doing the same thing and saying that Clinton is being divisive if anything about Obama is brought up when Obama is doing the criticizing first. The first thing you lose when these kinds of tactics are used is accountability.

The recent picture that’s in the news shows this dubious use of doing-one-thing-and-then-blaming-the-other-side-for-what-you’re-doing more than anything. Is Obama saying that Muslims are divisive? I don’t get it. Plus, that picture has been out since the time Obama announced his candidacy and has also been printed in some tabloids before Super Tuesday. So the rhetoric is lost on me.

His Rezko association of 17 years where Rezko would set up a front to take money that was supposed to go to low income African American communities is likewise disturbing. There’s no way Obama could not know. Even after Rezko was under investigation, he still did not cut off ties and bought a house with Rezko’s wife’s assistance. How do you know who he will and won’t turn against?

The negativity goes on and on. I simply cannot fathom how it could get any more negative than Obama’s campaign. It’s not so much the attacks, but the doublespeak such as when he boasted about voting against anti-abortion bills and the doing-one-thing-and-blaming-the-other tactics.

3. As a foreigner, I have universal healthcare. All industrialised nations have it except for the US. So I know that what would change your society for the better more than anything else is healthcare. The problem is that US citizens don’t know this. If you did, Hillary would win hands down. No other issue would even matter. Not even the war. The greatest Canadian who ever lived, according to Canadians, is the father of Medicare, Tommy Douglas, who beat out Terry Fox. That should show you how meaningful this is. I would give my life without hesitation if it came down to my life or universal healthcare. It’s that significant. Hillary has the better healthcare of the two candidates by FAR. But it’s still a failure compared to what we have. Nader’s healthcare plan is better, but he actually states that he wants a system that is like Canada’s. That’s not going to go down well with US citizens that have national pride (something I consider good BTW).

4. As a Canadian, I have a big concern about friendly fire from American soldiers. It would calm our concerns if your military has a knowledgeable and strong leader. At the last debate, Obama showed that he has no knowledge of the military structure of your armed forces. His foreign policy is quite naive too.

These are just a few points to consider. Originally, I did not care who you elect or don’t elect to the White House. But Obama is now the third person after Cheney & Giuliani, who scares the bejezus out of me a million times more than Bush because of the destabilizing effects they will have around the world. Also note that the above examples are simply a few items on the tip of huge iceberg for Obama.

For me, the racist and sexist undertones of this election by some in the general population and in the media are repulsive. It makes me proud to be a Canadian.

Using this kind of logic, perhaps we should exclude Christians - after all Tim McVeigh was a Christian and until 9/11, he was responsible for the worst terrorist act in our nation’s history.

Until this country discovers an end to stereotyping individuals based on their race or religion, we will never truly be a free society.

Is this really how far this has come? Is being associated with a certain religion enough to be declared unelectable, maybe even worse?

Is it desirable to expect Obama to clearly distance himself from a religious belief to be more … more what actually? Trustworthy? Good? Perceived as standing on the “right” side?

I am Muslim by birth - not any more or less religious than almost all of my Christian or Jewish friends.

I don’t care what people around me believe in or whether they believe in anything in particular. It is about being a “good”, ethical person that is important - and for all I know, there is a set of interestingly and surprisingly similiar convictions, not bound to any religion or nationality, that make any sane person consider other fellow human beings as good.

We should strive to make religion a highly private and intimate matter (once more), that has nothing, truly nothing, to do with a secular state.

We should have learned a little more from history: policy and religion are a defective, dangerous mix.

If he doesn’t go with Richardson as a VP, perhaps he will choose him as Sec. of State and go with John Edwards for AG. Those would be good starts!