Obama, to my knowledge, has not advocated war with Iran and seems to describe the decision to attempt to declare the Quds arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as 'terrorists' to be dangerous sable rattling.

Obama did not vote when this matter came before the Senate. Clinton, who Lupe supports, voted in favor. While not voting is not the same as opposing, voting in favor is an obvious 'pro' stance.

Lupe would be better to oppose Hillary and question Obama's failure to vote, but to support Hillary when he opposes Obama out of concern for Iranian policy is DEEPLY MISGUIDED.

As for what you post, Obama's position as near as I can tell supports a limited force remaining in Iraq. Considering the largest U.S. embassy in the world has now been built in Iraq, some U.S. military presence there is to be expected and pretty much every mainstream politician who is to the right of Kucinich would fall in line there (I believe Kucinich, a staunch anti-imperialist, wants total withdrawal).

Not voting for Obama will not hasten total withdrawal. This is a bit of compromise...in that Obama is the candidate both likely to be able to win AND likely to significantly draw down forces (although he will not totally withdraw).

edit: the author of the article linked above is conflating missle strikes with all-out war on iran...while i generally oppose missle strikes b/c of their tendency to cause high civilian casaulties and their general ineffectiveness militarily (afghanistan '98, anyone?). however, missle strikes are generally supported by centrists such as obama and (bill) clinton. i'm not expecting obama to radically alter the way our military operates and no one should expect any major presidential candidate to do so

*excessive political talk snipped*

um, i can talk about this for ages. but this is still the lesson. i'm an obama guy. folks with questions, hit the inbox.
___

myspace.com/spiritequality

"the aim of an argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress" - Joseph Joubert, essayist, 1754-1824