> As a sort of liberal, I'm hoping the democrats can at least come up with someone who has a chance.

It isn't so much someone who has a chance but someone I would feel good in supporting. There have been too many recent elections, particularly locally in my state of California, where I can't get behind any candidate but can easily say why I don't want to vote for someone. I'd like to say why I want to vote for someone for a reason other than, "They are (marginally) better than the other doofus who is running."

>But, is this going to work out for us financially, and if so how? He seemed to totally skirt this issue.

Usually the idea of how comes out in more detail later. Whether it is actually feasible is another question but since this isn't a debate, it is up to other people to say how it will or won't work after the speech. Obviously Bush won't say that he'd like to do something but can't.

>
> I don't know much about the government of Iraq, but I hadn't thought that Saddam was all that heavily opposed. Perhaps I'm wrong. As I said, I've been out of the political scene.

Of course he isn't opposed. All of his opposition is either out of the country or dead. Saddam has taught his people to openly support him or face the consequences. I guess that makes a good dictator.

Ferrick