Which Is More Scary?

This election cycle is beyond belief.  We have probably the two worst candidates we have ever chosen seemingly intent to self-destruct yet expect us to happily support them in the voting booth.

So really, which is more scary?

This...

or

this?

Wow.  What a question.  When the mask is removed you find nothing has been hidden!  A week from tomorrow one of these people is going to be our President-elect.  The mind trembles. 

I've long thought Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be President of this country.  Her behavior, her attitudes, her demeanor when off camera show her to be as rude and crude as, indeed, Mr. Trump.  She does surpass him in endangering the nation and getting away with breaking laws for which  many have been jailed for less egregious heights.

Then there is Mr. Trump.  If you listen to him you realize everything he says that makes sense is someone else's words.  His grasp of reality is about like mine. Strong on generalities but weak on details.  At least he hasn't yet been so cavalier with top secret data so as to endanger us.  I worry though given enough time...  Who knows.  

As the last week before election day I'll be anxiously awaiting each Wiki Leaks drop and hints from the FBI as to what they've found in the 165,000 e-mails on Anthony Wiener's computer.

This is all surreal.  Who could possible have written 165, 000 e-mails?

Whatever shakes out, we're in for a rockin' and rollin' four years.  Neither candidate will have a strong Congress behind them.  The two parties will be broken, maybe beyond repair.  I doubt either will be as we of a certain age remember them as we grew up. 

We've interesting times ahead.  We've huge problems to address.  I can't help but wonder if either candidate is up to the task even if it were the best of times for them. 

I do know we can't take another four years like the previous eight where the President has done little more than blithely pass the time. War will intervene.  Terrorism will intervene.  Medical expenses will continue to skyrocket for fewer and fewer services and so on.  It doesn't make for an optimistic outlook.

I wonder if a sugar high from all of tonight's candy will make it easier to bear. Nah.  Not a ghost of a chance.

Are There Any Political or Media Adults In The Room?

Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder if there are any adults in politics and the media.  Now I know that's unfair because there are, though few and far between it would seem.

When the Director of the FBI, as compromised by politics as he is, is warning that within the next two to five years expect a Diaspora of ISIS and that we and the western nations need be prepared. Diaspora  means spreading out from their base which, as we all know, they're already doing.  This is serious stuff and needs to be heard and taken to heart.

So what are our Presidential candidates doing?  Name calling like a couple of 6 year olds.  My apologies to the six year olds.  Now it's an aggrieved ex-Miss Universe who Trump called (gasp) fat.  She in turn is taking on Trump's wife. Does any one really care?

Do we care that he hasn't released his tax records?  Is it worse than Hillary releasing a Classic Comics version of her health records?  She's crooked.  His followers are deplorable. She hasn't the stamina for the job.  He's a mysoginist. On and on it goes to the point I automatically mute the TV whenever either appears.

Then the media.  The stories that go untold or glossed over on the networks and the NBC cable outlets for fear of damaging Hillary become hyperbole on FOX.  

Interestingly it's the candidates themselves that advance this behavior. Why shouldn't their reporting be any less ludicrous than the candidates going after one another.  Policies?  Who's interested in that?

Well, I am.  Not the sweeping pronouncements from Trump nor the ignoring of them by Clinton, but real discussion of exactly what they are, and more importantly, how to implement them.  Especially with a hostile Congress that doesn't appear to be willing to assert themselves in any positive manner.  Allowing individuals to sue foreign governments for crimes against loved ones isn't the way to do it.  Just wait until a group of Iranians or some such decide to sue us for crimes against their people.  This may be the one and only time I agree with Obama.  Bad policy.  Maybe Hillary's lack of policy is better than bad ones.  Right.  

Well, time is getting short.  Every time I think there's hope for a nice dignified fencing match it turns into mud wrestling. Will the dirtiest fighter win? Who knows.  How will we tell the difference?

Judgement Day Approaches

What do we have left - somewhere around 60 days before our angst will be governed by a whole new set of circumstances. Right now it's will it be Clinton or Trump.  Then it will be what is the new President going to do.

I fear both of them but I think I fear Hillary the most.  I don't like her agenda - too far left for my comfort.  If in fact what she's saying is actually what she will do because she's known to lie. That doesn't add anything to my comfort zone.  Plus the fact her presidency will be all about fulfilling the Clinton's agenda first and foremost.  Being President will just make it easier for them because of the power they will wield.

Trump scares me for entirely different reasons.  The main reason is I'm not convinced he has any real self control nor do I think he takes kindly to advice.  I can understand being politically naive having never before been in politics but refusing to listen to those who have and are willing to help smooth rough edges is probably going to be his final down fall. He's been trying to be sure and is getting better but with him it's always waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I do believe Trump is genuinely concerned about our country.  He has a sincerity about him once you get past the bombast.  But he reminds me of me if I were running.  I have a ton of opinions and darn little to back up most of them.  Especially if it meant running the country with all the special interests bombarding  me with their points of view and defenses thereof.  It would be a tremendous amount of information to sort through and make sense of.  I'm surprised and concerned that Trump seems pretty much in the same boat.  Lots of opinions but little to defend them.  The strength of his personality is no substitute for substance.

So this is where I am.  Still watching and waiting with little to add to the dialogue. When one reaches my age you don't tend to wish time away but I will sure be glad when this is over.  At least we'll be able to figure out what we ourselves need to do to carry on our lives.

After all is said and done though I think I'd rather have a President, as inept as Trump may seem, that cares about the country than one who lies with impunity and expects the country to be okay with it.

Have We Backed Ourselves Into A Corner?

Is this the best our country can do?  I've been trying to figure out why the better candidates haven't caught on and have already forfeited the game to one of these two?

First I look at Trump.  He says he can be presidential if necessary.  I'd like to see a bit of that decorum before hand.  He isn't a " true conservative" by any stretch of the imagination and to my way of thinking thats a plus.  It comes with being a moderate or a centrist or whatever you want to call it.

There are issues near and dear to the Democrats with which I agree; the same goes with the Republicans.  A leader, a true leader, should bring those sides together even if it means each loses a bit.  It's called negotiating and Trump should be a master of it.  What's a mystery however is whether or not he can actually govern.  There is too much at stake for another amateur in the job.

Hillary is another story.  Let's leave all the pending and past scandles aside.  Other than holding the office of Secretary of State what are her accomplishments? Being strident is not an accomplishment.
I ask, too, whether she has the ability to govern.  I see no indication she'd be willing to compromise on anything. Just besmirch those who don't agree with her.

One more thing about her worries me.  If the reports are true her health needs to be thouroughly vetted, to borrow a political term. The headaches, the falls, the cough and the glasses.   She looks her age and she looks tired and this is only the campaign.  Does she have the stamina to actually hold the office?

Neither of these candidates bring youth and vitality to the fore though Trump wins on that score by the power of his personality.

Those who did bring that youth and vitality have already moved on.  Rubio and Cruz are the same age but Cruz is an unknown element thanks to some serious goof ups already.  Rubio looks young and stiff as a board.  He is so scripted I wonder who will be writing it for him if he's elected.  Some would tell you it would be the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commercee and all the other monied suspects.

I probably pay more attention to foreign policy than a lot of people because as goes the world so go we.  For some reason the cream hasn't risen to the top, it's been filtered out and what we have left is sour.  Just look at them.

Buyer's Remorse?

Stranger things have happened! With Obama's poll numbers continuing to slide, one might say that even Democrats are becoming disenchanted with the way his administration is conducting the business of the country. According to the L.A. Times he's barely holding his own against potential Republican opponents, whoever they might be. Heck, he only leads Ron Paul by one percentage point!

It's still early, though it seems troublesome that none of the Republicans seem to be gaining any sort of foothold. So Obama really doesn't have to worry, right? Wrong. Who is out polling every name mentioned? Hillary!

I've been debating with myself about the likelihood of Hillary challenging Obama. I think she just might. Where the Times suggests she's "free of political tussles", I don't agree. As Secretary of State she is steward of a weak foreign policy even if it's not her own. They are spot on, however, when they say she now has an "enhanced resume burnished on the world stage".

The one thing she needs to heed. Being true to the dictates of the administration when she strongly disagrees. If she disagrees. A recent example is the credibility lost by Colin Powell, another who could have been President, by buying into the Bush administration's stand on Iraq's owning weapons of mass destruction. He wasn't sure of the evidence but caved to administration pressures. Had he resigned I think he could have challenged Bush and perhaps won. I would suggest the same could be true for Hillary.

This is political theater that is fun to watch. If she steps down after the 2010 mid-terms I'd expect to see her run. You can expect all the denials that go with the territory. She would want to resign on her terms; have it her show; not Obama's.

I have a hunch she still has a burning desire to be the first woman President. I don't know if she'd be good or not. I think she'd have a very different Presidency than what we're living through now. I think she might right the ship of state to a less precarious angle.

I wasn't a supporter of Hillary, but in a sentimental sort of way, I'd rather like to see her achieve her goal. Especially if Sarah Palin were to be her opponent. Hillary had worked her entire life toward getting Bill to the Presidency. By the time that was achieved the political climate in the country had changed to the point a woman could, too, be a viable candidate and she set for herself a new goal.

I think she's earned at least another chance at it. Unlike Sarah Palin who was plucked from obscurity for reasons that have always eluded me; who's strength is the ability to deliver stinging one liners. No. The first woman to reach that height, if it's to be in my life time, should be Hillary. No one else has come close to climbing that mountain!

Redemption

After the Monica Lewinski debacle I didn't much care for Bill Clinton. I was so angry because he brought such shame to the office of the Presidency. Had he been a member of the House or Senate, a member of the Cabinet or the Supreme Court that's the institution upon which he would have brought shame. Many have never found it within themselves to forgive him.

It isn't my place. When you consider how many politicians have committed similar indiscretions, he certainly does not stand alone. I'm not pardoning it by any means. Maybe these men do live in their own private Hell when caught.

What strikes me about Clinton, though, is that he has become an exemplary ex-President. At least in his public life. His private life is none of my business.

This is a man with tremendous ego and unmatched political skill. I was fascinated as he stood behind Al Gore at the homecoming of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. He did not speak yet he was the hero of the hour.

One day perhaps we'll learn what was said during the face to face with Kim Jong Il but from the body language of the two men I doubt Mr. Clinton, with his jaw thrust forward, was taking any guff!

Putting this accomplishment, the freeing of these two young women, along side all the work he is doing with his Foundation, I think someone has finally trumped Jimmy Carter as the "most presidential former President". No small accomplishment.

It's interesting to me that both these men seem to have come into their own as former Presidents. It's interesting, too, that both men have been far more successful as private citizens than they were as public servants. It's also great to see just how much "seniors" can contribute long after their physical prime and what most would consider the pinnacle of their careers.

The private sector is fortunate to have men such as these. The public sector, as in we the people, are also fortunate for they can "do" without being subjected to the most intrusive of scrutinies.

Just What Are We NOT Abandoning?

I love this graphic by Arthur Hochstein that appeared in Time . It's as ambiguous as the headline that reads Clinton To Iraqis: US Not Going to Abandon You .

What do I see in it? One of two things or maybe a combination of both. One, the Americans pulling the last of their assets from the war torn country or the final putting in place of a long time presence Neither is ideal.

We already know we've built a kazillion dollar embassy complex that's larger than the Vatican. It's unlikely we're going to abandon it. Even without the diplomatic corp in place, merely the manning of it will take a huge American presence. Plus the military contingent that will be assigned to protect it.

On the other hand, we've vowed to keep to our time table on combat troop withdrawal. Clinton did indicate our future involvement would wear a different face. One of reconstruction more so than destruction. It will matter little. One side will continue to destroy what the other builds.

This was in response to the Iraqi government's concerns now that it's evident that their security forces aren't yet up to the task before them. That in itself is disturbing considering all the manpower and money we've invested in training them. Either they are very slow to lear, they don't want to learn or we are lousy teachers! We've been at this how long? Yet, who can blame them? Enlistment in any form of national security entity is inviting an early demise!

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Iraq is still a divided nation at best. We had to "buy" Sunni co-operation. The Shia led government continues to sabotage their efforts to gain a modicum of equality in not only governing, but defending what too is their country. Then we have the "al Qaida in Iraq" influence that reaps the blame and the glory for everything that is not comfortably explained away with other rationales.

The suicide bombings are escalating once again, some of the more rash citizens fear the withdrawal of our troops for they know full well what's coming. Lot's of very learned people have warned of this for a very long time.

When Secretary Clinton says, "There is nothing more important than to have a united Iraq. The more united Iraq is, the more you will trust your security services. The security services have to earn your trust but the people have to demand it."

Sheesh. This is right out of "Idealistic Outcome 101" from the school of "How to Successfully Withdraw from a Mess of Our Own Making" .

Just once I'd like to see an administration, any administration tell it like it is. These people do not want peace, they want power unto themselves - all sides. The same scenario is gelling in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Has Obama learned anything? The indications are that he has not.

Clinton's vision may not be a pipe bomb; it is a pipe dream!

Bill And Hill - A "Two For" Again?

I'm beginning to worry about myself. I think I may actually have morphed into a full fledged political junkie. I'm finding the post election intrigue absolutely fascinating.

The Washington Post , among many other sources, has reported that Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State. I doubt that she'd take it if offered because two women have already held the position, but the idea of it is rife with possibilities.

Especially if Bill should become the Special Envoy to the Mid East. Add to the mix Tony Blair who holds the same position for the European Union! What a power play.

Just think, Bill would be able to truthfully say he has the Secretary of State's ear. Hillary would be able to say she has the Special Envoy's ear. They both, of course would have the President's ear. And remember Tony and Bill got along famously before he went on to become Bush's "poodle"! Think of the "bad cop, good cop" scenarios that could play out! If this duo and Blair couldn't bring all those pesky factions into line, they could sure confuse the bejabbers out of them!

It could be economical too. They could share a plane! Ah, the Clintons. The world is their stage. I wonder how many curtain calls they have left!

Tunnel Vision And Sexism

A columnist for the Coeur d'Alene Press authored a bitter and scathing column on Sunday entitled Sexism is alive and well in America . I couldn't disagree with her more. Two political candidates, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, lost their bids for the highest and second highest office in the land. One had insurmountable baggage, some of her own making, some of her husband's. The other was ill prepared for the position she willingly entered into.

It's easy to say race triumphed over gender and to blame the media but neither is true. Hillary may well have persevered had she had not had that baggage and had she had control of her campaign. Sarah Palin too could have persevered had she known her geography, known what periodicals she supposedly read and hadn't tried to be too cute by half. Listen to the interviews where she was overly familiar especially with "Charlie" Gibson and "Joe" Biden in the debate. Not to mention the lack of substance in all her interviews.

Yes the press picked up on every bit of news it could find about her. That it called into question her parenting skills or talked of her once being a beauty queen or that the campaign spent a small fortune to dress her is all true. It was part of letting the voters know what a total stranger who sought to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency was all about. That she was ridiculed on comedy shows? No one made her appear on "Saturday Night Live". If she hadn't anticipated the "heat" it is no one's fault but her own.

I'm not saying she is not a capable young woman. She obviously has potential, but for the moment that's what it is - potential.

To use those two incidents, however, to assert that sexism is alive and well is an insult to all the women who are high level achievers outside the realm of politics. Take the women written about in yesterday's Wall Street Journal article entitled The 50 Women to Watch - 2008 . Excluding women from other countries, here are a few of our own. Irene Rosenfeld, Chief Executive, Kraft foods; Sheila Bair, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.; Indra Nooyi, Chairman and Chief Executive, Pepsico; Ellen J. Kullman, President and designated Chief Executive, Dupont; Anne M. Mulcahy, Chairman and Chief Executive, Xerox; Ursula M. Burns, President, Xerox; Patricia Woertz, Chief Executive Officer, Archer-Midland Daniels...and so many more.

Sorry, but Hillary's "Sisterhood of the Travelling Pantsuit" is alive and well. The glass ceiling has been shattered again and again by hard work, tenacity, and ability. The revolution continues. Nancy Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House. How many women serve in Congress and as Governors?

Sexism or the lack of it should not be judged by the failure of the overly ambitious but rather by the accomplishments of the many truly capable.

When Stereotypes Reign We've Got Worries

Truth will out. First Obama wasn't black enough for the black community and now, as I've long suspected, he isn't white enough for the white community. In other words racism still has a stranglehold on the American public.

An AP poll bears this out. In search of why the Presidential race is closer than it should be and if there is indeed latent racism among the voters, these words were tested regarding blacks. Boastful - 22% agreed, violent - 20%, lazy -13 %, irresponsible -11%. Those percentages may not seem high but lumped together with the one quarter of white Democrats who stated, "if only blacks would try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," it does not bode well.

I find a couple of things of interest here. The fact that the thousands of Black Americans who have achieved great success remain under the radar. And the fact that none of the above test words in any way begin to describe Obama, the individual. Until we as a people can get beyond this, all people of color, any color, will continue to wage an uphill battle. The squeaky wheels like Josh Howard of the Mavericks will continue to get the spot light while the exceptionally able like Barack Obama will continue to struggle. It is not an indication that we as a people are making much progress in over coming our prejudices.

The second point that interests me is how this applies to gender. Hillary Clinton broke through so many of those stereotypical barriers in her quest for the nomination, the pendulum named gender has swung the opposite direction. Her success opened the door for a woman who is minimally qualified for the office she has been offered the opportunity to attain.

I conclude from this that had Hillary been the Black, she'd have not even been in the race and had Obama been white it would be all over but the shouting.

What a sorry state of affairs this is!

Hillary, Where Are You When We Need You?

I've been reading with dismay that in Hillary's campaigning for Obama she is laying off Palin. Why? I hope she isn't falling into the same trap as her supporters; it's a woman's turn. Any woman! C'mon, Hillary. You're smarter than that.

If anyone can put this experience business to rest, it's Hillary. Part of the reason she didn't win is she over stated her case. Who better to point out how Sarah Palin's case, too, is being over stated?

The biggest issue is exposure to reality. In the "two for one" scenario, she was her husband's equal if not more effective in pushing through reforms during her years in Arkansas. They both protected Chelsea from public scrutiny and she has emerged a well educated, articulate young woman with a future that bodes bright.

Ready to be commander-in-chief? Well, Hillary got hammered on that one. However, she did travel to war torn areas and did confer with the Generals. Foreign Policy? I wager she also knows where Russia is even having spent many years in far away Arkansas. I would guess she may actually have met Putin. She definitely had met his predecessor. She had met most of the heads of state, many who are still in power, if even on a strictly ceremonial basis. Can Sarah Palin say the same?

We pooh poohed her being the Presiden't wife as experience, but it gives her a huge leg up on the fledgling governor of Alaska. She's the best one to go out there and say, "If you thought I was inexperienced, how can you possibly think Sarah Palin is anything other?"

Oh, yeah. There is some common ground other than gender. Hillary can also shoot a rifle - and down shooters.

I wonder though, does Palin know where Arkansas is? After all, it's not right next door. There is also domestic policy to consider!

Now, Bill...

Now, Bill. Being a sore loser is unbecoming - especially for you, a former two term President of the United States of America. Not the United States of Clinton.

I give you credit for being loyal to your wife but its all over for this presidential cycle. Your terse indication of support for Obama indicates you're still in a snit. Hillary is handling matters with much more grace.

Just a thought, sir, if you want to remain a power within the Democratic party, get over it. That your popularity has survived this long considering your indiscretions of both word and deed is a gift I'd deem undeserved. I wonder why the Democrats feel compelled to cling to the past, no matter how unsavory. But then the Republicans do the same.

The future will find you fading from the limelight. It is inevitable. It will be difficult for you but if you accept it with dignity and embrace the Obamas of the party you can yet be seen as a grand elder statesman and mentor of the up-and-coming. It is said you are concerned with your legacy with which Hillary becoming President was to be a part. Not everything works out as we'd prefer.

One given, however, if you cannot curb your narcissistic needs, you'll fade away faster than a bat in the night. That will be your legacy, a narcissistic, undisciplined spoiler. If you really care about Hillary's future and her legacy as well as your own; if you really want a shot at being considered the first family of the Democratic party for the immediate future if not longer, get a grip and grow up while people still care.

It's Obama's turn now. He has earned it. He is the future. If this is something you cannot or will not acknowledge you'll get left in the dust of momentum.

Faded "blue", I should think, is better left to denim.

Talk About The Politics Of Old

Well, here they are together. Looking happy. The self-anointed first couple of the Democratic party.

Lucky Democrats!

Now they have an enemies list! That's showing grace and party unity in the face of defeat! How long are these two actually going to continue wielding power, if they even are? One thing for sure, they can't seem to remain out of the spotlight.

Bill has his list. Hillary has her list. Even their friends have lists. Who are the people listed? Susie Tompkins Buell, a longtime friend of the Clintons included "all the women who sold out Hillary", according to an article in the International Herald Tribune .

Well, I know where I stand! I would, however, rather be included with the likes of Bill Richardson, Senator Claire McCaskill, even Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann than share anything with a Harold Ickes or Terry McAuliffe.

Or for that matter, the Clintons!

Political Theater At Its Best

When Chris Matthews asked Representative Gregory Meeks, D-NY, what he thought of Hillary's speech, all he could say was "Wow!" I couldn't agree more. The speech was a barn burner!

She struck just the right balance between the restatement of her goals, thanks to her staff and supporters and the endorsement of Senator Obama. It was the best speech I've heard her make and it will be talked about for a long time to come. She was more composed than one would have expected, she voiced no bitterness and cemented the fact that she is the most important woman on the political scene today.

It will be interesting to see if Hillary has finally found herself. If she can leave her demons behind she will be a formidable political force for as long as she chooses.

I anticipate an interesting campaign ahead. Here is the Democratic party, often though of as being disfunctional at best, breaking brave new frontiers. They are now the party that put forward the first viable woman and first viable African American as contenders for the job of President of the United States and leader of the free world. That is momentous in itself.

Where Hillary will fit into the immediate future has yet to be determined, but whatever part she may play should, and no doubt will, be prominant.

I applaud both she and Obama for energizing the political process, for energizing youth and prior non-participants and even energizing those tired old white gals of my age that have stood so staunchly behind her. Voters all.

We no longer need to feel disenfranchised. We no longer have to settle for the same old ideas and the same old faces. We can rally for change no matter what demographic we fit in. Thanks to the Democrats, we can embrace impassioned leadership. Neither candidate really lost in this primary season if you widen the angle of the lens. And a whole lot of us who felt we weren't in the picture before now find that we are.

Concession Need Not Be Defeat

I don't know if the headline Clinton Preparing to Drop Out of Presidential Race this Friday on ABC news is a teaser or not. If she actually does, there is no disgrace in shedding a tear.

It was an image of her everyone liked. Even those of us who have spoken against her paused to reflect, no matter how fleetingly, that there was actually a warm, emotional woman beneath the tough veneer.

She put up one heck of a battle. If she had been less self-serving and strident in manner things may have turned out differently. She is, however, who and what she is and in the long run it's what defeated her. I hope, as she reflects on what went wrong, she also reflects on what she can yet become. The intellect and drive and tenacity are all a part of what she will continue to be and indicative of what she can yet contribute.

That being said, it's time to look at this man Obama. He's given us a new page in history upon which to write. He has promised much and we expect much. Of him, and in so doing, of ourselves. His rhetoric is glorious. He inspires hope and change. We all need to help him live up to expectations.

As the political drama continues on toward the general election, I'll be watching him closely. I've invested a lot of faith and hope in him. I hope I'm not asked for charity.

The "Me" Generation

Last night should have belonged to Barack Obama. In his camp and with his family it did. With the media it was split between his historical accomplishment and Hillary Clinton's mean spirited lack of grace.

I am so tired of hearing how she has the "right" to get used to the idea that her hard fought battle has been lost. Nonsense. She's known it for quite sometime; if she hadn't she wouldn't have had to keep changing the rules to favor her. When Terry McAuliffe introduced her as "the next president" at last night's South Dakota victory speech it was a slap at Obama heard around the world.

We've a president now that has refused to recognize reality for the past six years and look at the mess we're in.   Similar tunnel vision is one reason I've not been drawn to Clinton - that, plus her sense of entitlement for which she's done nothing to earn.

For anyone who does not recognize the Clinton campaign has had nothing to do with the Democratic party nor the best interests of the United States, please, review her speech from last night. It's all about something. Hillary. Pure and simple.

Does Obama need her supporters?   To an extent and I believe most will set aside personal preference for good of party and country.

As much as I like what Barack Obama represents, I would rather see him lose the general election and maintain his integrity than win if the only way to do so is to give in to Clinton demands. And that's saying a lot because McCain frightens me too.

Someone needs to take her ego, lock it back in Pandora's box and throw away the key. Enough is enough.

What If They Throw An Election And No One Comes?

I'm marking time until the results are in tonight and the speeches have been made. I've certainly turned into a junkie.

I see Hillary is still being coy and playing word games. I'm still uncomfortable about the scenario that lurks in the wings. So I'll offer up a few thoughts while waiting.

Did Obama make some judgemental errors by not working harder in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico? It has given Hillary a run of wins and the likelihood of winning South Dakota tonight. It adds credence to her argument.

Should Obama offer the vice presidency to Hillary? Neither she nor her people should demand it. There is no grace in that. If he does I hope there is some sort of agreement that the position is not a twofer and Bill is not welcome. Lot's of luck.

Should Obama help pay off Hillary's campaign debts? Dangerous territory. I know if I had scraped together $50 or $100 several times over to contribute to his war chest, I'd not like to see it going to Hillary, no matter what the circumstances. Besides, why should second place make demands of first place?

Is Hillary's real intention to so weaken Obama he can't win? We don't know at this point. The same could apply to her. Has she weakened herself to the point voters who might have supported her might turn away in disgust. Just as Obama needs many of those who are her fervent supporters, she too needs those who are his.

McCain is less than inspiring. Being his turn is not enough for me to vote for him. His grasp of the issues is disheartening and his condescending comments aimed at Obama are anything but presidential. Obama is not naive. After all, at 47 he is within hours of getting the Democratic nod. How long has John McCain taken to find a field weak enough to make him look good by comparison?

Depending on how things shake out between now and the conventions, we could go from record numbers of new and enthusiastic participants in the political process back to the "ho hum" business of old.

There could actually be record low turnouts. Anyone want to make a wager which it will be?

Brain Trust

Every time I go to the doctor I get a knot in my stomach. Usually for no good reason other than knowing it will be another reinforcement of the fact I'm getting old and have the ailments that accompany the process.

Then I watch the story about Ted Kennedy, a 76 year old not in the best of health in the first place, coming through what was anticipated to be six hours of surgery in three and a half. Plus, he was awake throughout and spoke with his wife immediately after. Wow. Step one has gone well and I sincerely hope his recovery process continues on such a positive note.

The government health plan is extremely generous. In addition, with his personal wealth, Kennedy can afford the best medical care the country has to offer. Then there are the rest of us.

A few weeks ago I had some blood work done. Routine stuff that we elders have done at least once a year. One of the tests was not covered by medicare. Hub wants to know which one and why. Me too.

Obama has promised the American public that we will be offered health coverage to match what those in Congress have. Hold him to that; hold any of the candidates to that! Medicare reimbursements to doctors are being cut to the point they actually lose money by having we old folks as patients. Many conditions and tests are not covered. More and more doctors are declining to take on medicare patients. It's an uneasy feeling.

I try not to bother my doctor more than necessary, but when it is I resent feeling like a financial burden. I don't resent the doctor, I resent the law makers who have put us in this position.

Concern about this area of our lives seems to be one of the Democrats strongest issues. One thing for sure, we are all going to face the need for greater and better medical care as we age. We all strive for that rather than the alternative. Science is obliging us but funding the service end of the deal is failing us.

I don't know if Hillary is going to eke out the nomination or not. If Obama prevails, as expected, I can think of one area in his administration where she would excel. Health care. She has the experience albeit it a bad one. If she is as smart and capable as her legions believe she is, she'll have learned from those mistakes and would make one ferocious champion for those of us who increasingly need one the most and are the least able to fend for ourselves.

Being the best niche player out there could leave her with a better legacy than being president!

Taming Of The Shrew?

Not a chance. Harold Ickes made that perfectly clear at Saturday's Democratic Rules and Bylaws meeting.

Has Hillary overplayed her hand? Maybe, but my wager is she is not going to fold.

I've been reading Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice. I should have finished it weeks ago but after three or four chapters I get so exercised I have to set it aside for awhile. What I am learning, however, is that everything we have been witness to during this primary season follows Hillary's pattern since childhood. When she gets in hot water she turns to the victim strategy. She does not accept defeat. Period. And, in truth, she is an elitist.

Had she been of a different generation, she may not have attached her ambitions to Bill Clinton. Every choice she made since the day they met was calculated to elevate him to the presidency. She had the instincts, the drive and the discipline he lacked. She sacrificed hugely for the effort. He had the ability to schmooze. He sacrificed little and benefited mightily.

Time and again during their tenure in Arkansas it was suggested perhaps the wrong Clinton was being supported. That was probably a correct observation. She mastered the art of compartmentalizing her bruised feelings, inflicted by Bill's inability and unwillingness to curb his own weaknesses. He, and her ambitions for him, always prevailed.

Now it's her turn. It would seem she has some weaknesses of her own. An ego without check. A campaign staff and spokesmen, including Bill, who are less than warm and fuzzy. A penchant for miscalculation - the primary would be over super Tuesday. Rules don't matter unless they are to her benefit.

She has said all those against her are misogynists, haters of women. Does that mean the women who so fervently back her are misandrists? Haters of men? Sometimes I've wondered! They certainly have no comprehension of fair play, truth or rules. Nor do the have any comprehension of the fact that people who don't back Hillary have very valid reasons. That she is female has nothing to do with it.

I'm guessing if Hillary does bow out of the race before the convention it will be with a great deal of reluctance and no poker face. I'm guessing she'll do no more than absolutely necessary to bring the party together or to help Obama beat McCain.

We know by now she's not a team player. We know rules are not meant for her. We know that the Clinton to be feared is Hillary, not Bill. What we don't know is whether or not she will have expended all her political capital by the time this is over.

Will she rise from the flames like a phoenix or has she driven a stake through her own heart?

My Stars!

So. Bill now thinks Hillary has "earned" the right to be Obama's choice for vice president. I'm sorry, but that's just plain laughable.

This is the 2004 red state/blue state map. The states with the stars are the ones Hillary won in the primaries that she uses as the reason she should be the nominee. Note the color of the states! With the exception of Michigan they are all Republican states! So she has a devoted cadre of elderly of women who will stand with her until the bitter end. Under-educated, white working class men voted for her in large numbers in West Virginia and Kentucky. This is not the makings of a landslide victory in November!

I realize state demographics change over time; never-the-less this was the pattern four years ago, not from when Bill ran.

On that basis I really don't understand the argument! Maybe it's just me but I have a hunch not. Now she's going to bus her loyal ladies to the credentials committee meeting. To do what? Picket? Protest? This will be a new high in lows.

The biggest reason out of dozens I can think of for why Obama should not choose Hillary is the fact she brings little to the ticket - especially Bill. It is going to be a reach for either Obama or Clinton to win. Obama because of the resistance to his race - which is real. And Hillary because of her negatives and her gender - which is also real. Why would any sane person want to see these two sharing the ticket? It's not a dream; it's a nightmare!

Perhaps it's time, as suggested on the Huffington Post Daily Brief, it's time to stop pressuring Hillary to drop out and start pressuring the superdelegates to step up.