See Rezkorama for all the details.

Playing Obama Roulette with the nation's security  just doesn't seem like a good idea.  Usually the parties nominate two candidates with differences, but neither of whom seem obviously radical or surrounded by radicals or corrupt people. 

The sole exception was 1972, and George McGovern was nowhere near as far outside of the political mainstream then as Obama is now.

Senator Obama is himself a radical --though one with a nice smile, beautiful kids and a marvelous eloquence-- and he has a long list of radical friends, Now he also boasts a very close associate --his mentor and home financier!-- just convicted of more than a dozen federal corruption offenses.

A vote for Obama isn't like throwing the dice on him, or betting odd or even on a roulette wheel.

It is like betting the green numbers.  or just one of them.  Do we really think the country is going to take that sort of risk in the era of al Qaeda and WMD?