Do We Really Want Another Delusional President?

There was an interesting commentary on Hillary Clinton and her dream in Thursday's Financial Times. It was written by Sally Bedell Smith, author of For Love of Politics: Inside the Clinton White House (Random House).

She addresses much of what we already know from Hillary's pact with Bill for political glory, putting up with his infidelities to the point of denial, "dodging bullets", real or otherwise, and the morphing of her dream to be the first female president into the idea the public "owes it to her".

It troubles me when ambition becomes so intertwined with a lack of reality. Remember back when Bill was President and she had conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt? Her supporters sluff all such talk off as being no more than campaign rhetoric. Yet I look at the most recent episode of the Clinton version of Fantasy Island. Mark Penn, her chief campaign strategist, met with the Colombian ambassador regarding having his firm lobby for a bilateral free trade agreement; an agreement Clinton is against. Yet the campaign sees no conflict of interest. Boy, I do.

So here I have a picture of Hillary badly in need of her Box shots or a new makeup artist. This is the real Hillary. Deep down, beneath the rhetoric, the exaggerations, the half truths, etc. For all woman who hide from reality under layers of cosmetic improvements, it is not that the rest of us don't want a woman as president. It's that we don't want this woman.

Then there is John McCain. He can go on Letterman and slap down old jokes all he wants. He is old. How's his health? Why won't he release his records before we're expected to vote for him? His history of cancer is of concern.

His attitude on Iraq concerns me. Al-Maliki began raiding Shiite militia strongholds. It was to be another "defining" moment for the Iraqi forces. Just last Sunday I wrote a post with a photo showing those forces handing over their weapons to al-Sadr's militiamen. Now the raids have been called off completely.

There are several points to consider. The Iraqi forces cannot or will not stand on their own. And, as Shiia, they do not want to fire on their own. How many times have similar instances occurred and how long are we to wait while Iraqi civilians and U.S. military continue to lose their lives?

War aside, I see little of substance or understanding of the issues, what's more solutions. He has also hinted he may be a one term president. That puts a governor on his efforts from the get go. Plus, due to age and health issues, will we really be electing his vice president? Just who will that be?

True, the unexpected can happen to anyone. I think in this circumstance, however, odds need to be factored in.

We, the people of the United States, do not "owe" either of these candidates the presidency. To believe otherwise is delusional!

Two Sides To Every War Except In Iraq - It Has A Multitude

Snow up to our knees took all the ambition out of us Saturday so we cratered in front of the tube and watched the excellent PBS Frontline presentation Bush's War.

The timing was good. The headlines of unrest are popping up with renewed frequency and General David Petraeus is due to give another update soon. We already know plans for troop withdrawal have been cut. We're hearing one presidential candidate tell us he would like to keep troops in Iraq until it becomes a peaceful, democratic nation. Right.

The current uprising is in Basra, an oil rich Shiia stronghold where Shiite militias are facing off against Iraqi forces who are also Shiia. In what is one more U.S. appeasing show of "toughness", Maliki has demanded the militias give up their weapons. Is that what the picture shows? No. It shows the Iraqi forces handing over their weapons to al-Sadr's Mahdi militiamen. Ooops!

Today's news informs us al-Sadr has pulled his troops off the streets - but who has the weapons? He has made his own demands of the Maliki government to maintain a quieting of violence.

Back to Bush's War and why it is timely to watch. With controversy among the candidates as to how and when to end this conflict, I found a refresher most helpful. The program takes you through the entire time line from 9/11 to when Rumsfeld was forced to resign. It has interviews with many of the major players and speaks to the head games they played with one another. It makes quite clear that Dr. Rice has made a wise decision to not seek the presidency nor accept an offer of the vice presidency. It brought to mind details I had long forgotten but are vital to the decisions that the next president will have to make.

The link above will take you to the site and you can view the entire program online if you have the time and inclination. Most of you won't I should guess because it is long. What it does do, though, is reaffirm how out of sync our own leaders were with one another, how we were duped by ambitious Iraqi exiles, and how totally ignorant we were - and are - about how the Iraqis themselves feel.

As long as we are on their soil we will be viewed as the occupiers. They will resist us and those who support us. Would we not do the same if the tables were turned?

Blarney

Ah, Hillary, you kissed that stone didn't you?

Okay, okay. The Democratic presidential primary is now looking for kindergarten candidates. One's who understand the need for rest periods and potty breaks. The name calling has sunk to levels that should make everyone but the Rush Limbaugh's of the world blush. Rush, I think, is so in love with the sound of his own rhetoric he no longer hears what he himself says. Just so he hears that voice.

That the candidate's surrogates have chosen to follow a similar path isn't surprising. It's one of the more embarrassing facets of American political campaigns. I'm sure the world often wonders why we elect any of the candidates that have such surrogates speaking in their behalf.

Here we have Barack Obama having to explain away words he never spoke. Not only the Reverend Wright but retired General McPeak who likened Bill Clinton's tactics to McCarthyism. The insinuation that only McCain and Hillary are true patriots was less than subtle. That is McCarthy-like considering the witch hunts McCarthy went on in his relentless search for Communists.

I'm not keeping score but I think the Clintonites are ahead in the mudslinging and name calling department. There was the 3 a.m. phone call commercial, Geraldine Ferraro's comment stating Obama would not have risen to such heights had he not been black. Bill's likening Obama to Jesse Jackson after the South Carolina primary and now James Carville comparing Bill Richardson's endoresement of Obama to being Judas.

Wow. Every evening when I tune on the news I sit with baited breath wondering what will be revealed today. One would like to think this race would be decided on how each candidate understands the issues and how likely their solutions are to work but so far the mudslinging reigns.

I can tolerate that for awhile longer if I must. I listen to the pundits debate which attack is going to do the most damage and most agree these are little more than minor misteps and will soon be forgotten.

They have included in that Hillary's exaggeration of her foreign policy credentials. I can't let this one go quite so easily because she is the one who claims she is tested and ready to be commander-in-chief on day one. If true there is no need to make "mistatements". But she's made a beaut.

On going to Bosnia, with Chelsea, Sinbad and Sheryl Crow it seemed more like a first lady led USO tour. If it was more than that she should have been up on charges for child endangerment for having put Chelsea in harms way! As you'll hear in the video clip, she recalls quite clearly "landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."



She now claims she made a mistake. Right. You'd think if the candidates can't, their staffs would remember there is video out there of virtually everything!

It makes me wonder what else she has misspoken about. Or has she spoken candidly about anything in her lust for power? She told reporters today, according to the AP, "So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."

It's a revelation all right. But not about being human.

Stout-hearted Men

...and women. All sizes, ages and shapes. 4000 of them. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends and lovers. Gone.

I find the timing of the fifth anniversary of this war, the 4000th lost American and Easter an interesting convergence of events.

Unlike the legend of Easter where Christ rises from the dead, these 4000 will not. They are lost forever to their families and to their country. All the potential they carried within them, all the life not yet lived, lost - forever.

That these lives are being lost at a slower pace than before, that there are far fewer of them than in Vietnam or Korea is of little significance. They are still gone. Others step forward to fill their space. That we have such men and women in this country that choose to do so is a testament to the inherent decency of our people. We are indeed fortunate to have that decency as part of our moral fiber.

What might be well remembered, however, is the majority of these warriors are our young hailing from modest backgrounds. Far different from those who created the circumstances in which they find themselves.

We are told the cause is just and that success is vital. I wish I could recall just what that cause is and just what success is so vital. It's partially why I've chosen to look at a new brand of leadership for my country. One that will not take us into an unprovoked war, one that is not driven by personal ideology. One that recognizes those for whom we're sacrificing our soldiers don't care enough about that "cause" to take it on themselves nor agree that "success" means just that. Taking it on themselves.

It's why I agree it's time to end the carnage. Yes. It will continue after we are gone. That is their will. We cannot change that. Perhaps it is time for the rest of the world to step back and let the region deal with it's own demons. The rest of the world seems far more willing to do this than we are; they are far more proximate to it, have lived with that proximity for as long as the conflicts have existed and perhaps understand far better than we that there are some things, no matter how unjust they may seem to us, that we cannot change.

Billions of our dollars have gone into this war. How much better could it have been spent within our own borders? It is lamented that we've never been asked to sacrifice for this war. Go shopping. Yet we can't afford the gas to get to the stores. We can't afford the goods or the foodstuffs when we do get there and can't afford the mortgages on the homes we want to return to. Our phone conversations and e-mails can be intercepted with impunity. We can't board a plane, enter or leave the country without the indignity of searches. You think this is not sacrifice? And when you write a post such as this you will be branded in some circles as being unpatriotic.

One thing we do still have, however, deep down in, is that spirit of goodness and decency. Just look at the 30,000 or so veterans who have come back from the horrors of war mentally and/or physically altered for the rest of their lives. They fight once again, odds many of us would consider insurmountable, because of who they are as individuals and who we are as a people.

Those of you who would be our leaders, look at them, see them, thank the Almighty for them but do not abuse the privilege of leadership by misinterpreting the power of war over the power of peace.

From "New Moon" by Sigmund Romberg/Frank Mandel/Laurence Schwab and Oscar Hammerstein II

Give me some men who are stout-hearted men,
Who will fight, for the right they adore,
Start me with ten who are stout-hearted men,
And I'll soon give you ten thousand more.
Shoulder to shoulder and bolder and bolder,
They grow as they go to the fore.
Then there's nothing in the world can halt or mar a plan,
When stout-hearted men can stick together man to man.

Ah, yes. As is often the case lyrics can be inspirational and true. But be cautious, those tens of thousands are dwindling rapidly!

Senior Moment Or War Mongering

We know John McCain is tied to the apron string's of George Bush's war policy - but to what extent? A lot has been happening on the Democratic side to divert our attention away from candidate McCain.

We best multi-task for awhile. We know he intends to keep troops on the ground long term. We know he thinks anything less than "victory" is unacceptable. What we don't know is just what "victory" is. His view of victory is probably unattainable as long as the current government in Iraq retains power. On the other hand, the Iraqi government's view of victory is to get us out of their country. That they want to annihilate one another is their business, not ours, and one day they will proceed.

What we need to keep an eye on, however, is what he articulates. The AP reported McCain mistaken on Iran and al-Qaida. "Al-Qaida is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran." Yeah. Right. Iran is Shiite, al-Qaida is Sunni. That they despise one another is putting it mildly. Even Lindsey Graham had to wince at this one!

Okay, I'll admit keeping all the warring factions straight takes some doing. On top of that we have to keep track of what deal we've made with which war lord to keep our guys alive. Whew.

What troubles me is he made the statement twice. The quote is attributed to a news conference in Jordan, but he made the same statement earlier to a talk show host. Only after Joe Lieberman, who is travelling with McCain, whispered the error to him did McCain correct himself.

I'm not sure if Lieberman is seeking another shot at the Vice Presidency or maybe Secretary of Defense, but wow. He's nearly 65. McCain 71.

Knowing he will not discount war with Iran, knowing he has a penchant for gaffes, I'm wondering if he truly wants the war to continue because it's what he knows best or if he's trying to remold the Grand Old Party into his image - Geezers On Parade might work.

Are We Still A Nation Of Racists?

It would have been naive to think Barack Obama would not have had to make the speech he made today. Or one similar to it. No matter how much we may think he can transcend his racial heritage; we have shown that as a country we cannot.

He spoke eloquently about the deep divides that exist. Still exist. How we can remain mired in them or move beyond. Yet it is not just a Black/White issue. It is a White/Hispanic issue; it is a Black/Hispanic issue; in some cities it's a Korean/Hispanic/Black issue. No matter where in the country one resides there remains an under currant of racism. I can remember years ago hearing my mother-in-law deliver a diatribe on Blacks. I was stunned. She lived the majority of her life in Montana. She was a well educated and accomplished woman. There were few Blacks living in the state and at the time, none in her town. Where did that come from?

I find it one of the great mysteries confronting our society. If someone looks different, speaks differently, dresses differently they are somehow suspect. Why is that? Are we so uncomfortable outside our personal comfort zone that we eye anyone who differs as a threat?

Remember these lyrics from South Pacific?

YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFULLY TAUGHT

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught.

I find myself wondering if this is the way it happens or if it's so ingrained in our psyche that it's now an inherent part of our nature. Is this why we seem so intent on imposing our way of life, our way of governing, our culture on others who differ in each of those areas to the extreme?

Here we are, at one time the greatest nation in the world because of what we stood for. Here we have a man running for President who personifies that, personifies the American dream. If we are to regain our stature in the world it seems starting at home with some deep introspection about ourselves and our attitudes about our own are in order.

We have a choice. We can choose a brave new world or we can stay slumped in the comfort zone of business as usual.

Attention Span And Fatigue

Our economy is on the verge of collapse. Terrorist activity in the Mideast is on the upswing. The Chinese are crushing the Tibetans. Wars, or the threat thereof, are popping up like weeds where the snow has melted.

We are in the midst of the most crucial presidential primary season in recent history. Yet I fear we are back sliding into the "politics as usual" mode. I read an article, As campaign drags on aides put lives on hold. As I read I realized the people quoted aren't concerned about noble causes but more about how the campaigns have disrupted their lives. It struck me that their commitment was to the money they could make or the rush, maybe, rather than about belief in the candidate for whom they are working.

At any other point in the history of campaigns this probably wouldn't have caught my notice. This time it does. I browsed the headlines on the Drudge Report and found these: Many voting for Clinton to boost Republicans, Obama Clinton teams exchange barbs, Former GOP Senator rips Hillary as Bush enabler and my favorite Why does Hillary wear such bad clothes...! Do I care?

Well, you know, I'm tired of it too. I'm tired of the rancor and the meanness of spirit. That can be an end result of fatigue, I grant you. Yet the candidates soldier on. We who are interested soldier on. Aides are finding that the attention span of a two year old isn't enough. This whole process is meant to be something other than their own personal lark.

I must say, however, this is the media's bread and butter. If they didn't cover the spats and the trivia with such glee perhaps there wouldn't be so much.

I don't really care that Hillary isn't a fashion maven. I care very much how she feels about Achmenijad's party retaining power in Iran and what, as commander-in-chief, she would suggest be done about the situation concerning China and Tibet. I care about how Obama feels about both also. For starters.

What Did We Expect?

The evening is winding down. The talking heads have had their day as is usual on Sunday. I've been listening to them worry the subject of Obama and who he is to death.

Here is a man who was encouraged to run now because he has so little baggage, unlike Hillary Clinton. If he waited another four or eight years, what might happen to his idealism, his purity of spirit and yes, his magic? So he's running.

Now the "heads" are touting the possibility of buyer's remorse. We really don't know who Barack Obama is.  He hasn't been thoroughly vetted. What about his endorsements from the likes of Farrakhan and the rhetoric of his own church's Reverend Wright? What did we expect?

Not having experienced what it is like being black in America I would not presume to understand the depth from which the rhetoric comes. Nor will I be quick to condemn it on style just because it is one I'm not familiar with nor in some cases comfortable.

Obama, not to credit Ms. Ferraro's statement, is fortunate to be who he is. And we are fortunate to have him in our midst because he is the first to transcend the confines of his parentage, his race, his cultural heritage, to this level, successfully. He is the first to articulate the need to stop the very divisiveness that is now occurring in this campaign. He is being criticized for not fighting back more forcefully yet it is the very premise of his campaign. If he does, it betrays the very essence of what he stands for.

What did we expect? His issues, the issues of his community are very different from mine. I don't understand the anger, the resentment nor the frustration because I've never had to deal with them. I refuse to diminish them because of my own lack of understanding.

I have only hope that he has the judgement and ability to bring about change at the level for which he strives.  There is no guarantee.  He has the educational credentials, he knows the people better than his opponent because he's rolled up his shirt sleeves and worked with them.

That he can transcend the differences of cultures on the world's playing field I have no doubt. This is one area of experience he owns.  He's been there.  He's lived it.  His opponent has not. Nor have most of us.  

Did we expect this?

Ring-a-ding-ding!

Ah, that pesky phone again! It just may become the icon of what is wrong with the candidates rather than what is right!.

While doing a story for Salon on the implications of the now infamous Clinton ad, Mark Benjamin came across information that surprised even a seasoned journalist like himself.

In his interviews with senior military officials many expressed doubts that either Clinton or McCain should be the one we want picking up that phone. While all expressed admiration for McCain, they find his temperament worrisome.

An example of the quotes should give us pause. From retired Air Force General Scott Gration, "I have a tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."

From retired Major General Paul Eaton, "I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor."

Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown, who is studying the personalities of the candidates, "The anger is there." About Clinton, he had this observation, "I just gave a presentation on Hillary's temperament for the presidency. I came to the conclusion that it is not really a good presidential temperament, with one caveat -- if you compare it with McCain's." Talk about red flags! Forget the red phone!

Not all, of course will agree with these statements, but we've just seen McCain show arrogance by being late for lunch with the President and testiness when pressed by a reporter regarding a conversation with John Kerry during Kerry's candidacy.

It brings the argument about "experience" full circle - back to the issue of "judgement".

I don't want him answering the phone and I don't want his finger any where near the button!

Feminist Fatale

Ah, the 60s. I remember them well. Flower children, pot, bra burnings and the beginnings of the feminist movement. We are now the geriatric generation. We haven't yet gotten it all and we're not going to quit until we do.

What a mind set. We're living longer too so the possibilities are extended. Yet maybe not and our patience is running thin. Here we have the most historic Presidential primary in recent history. Two very able candidates are facing off against one another. There is so much more to be considered in looking at both than whether a woman is going to be denied.

Guess who is making the most out of race and gender? The women of my generation. Robin Abcarian of the Los Angeles Times lays it out rather well in an article in this morning's Spokesman Review entitled Women frustrated as Clinton slips.

What bothers me about the "sisterhood" is intelligent, well educated women making statements like "And I am worried that if Hillary doesn't get elected, I am never going to see a woman president in my lifetime."

Come on. Put past grievances aside. Actually, if Obama wins you may not live to see another black in that office either. It's a pretty lame reason to vote or not vote for either. Especially this day and age when so much is at stake. There will always be racists, there will always be male chauvinists and female chauvinists too for that matter.

What we all need to be looking at is who is the most able candidate to deal with the world as it is today and will be tomorrow. I know I'm not interested in false claims of experience and leadership; I am interested in presence, strength and judgement.

Just consider four headlines that were on the first two inside pages of the Spokesman. Chavez deploys troops to border with Colombia, Bomber Kills 40 in Pakistan tribal meeting, Abbas suspends talks with Israel and Iran president visits Iraq. If that doesn't chill your blood I doubt anything will.

Our generation hasn't done so well. Just look back. Really look back. Then think about those years stretching ahead of you thanks to the miracles of modern medicine. Is it really all that important in the grand scheme of things whether or not a woman is president?

This Is NOT "Change"!

You've got to love it! Or maybe not. When all else fails - like a campaign focusing on change, bring out the tried and true from the past eight years. The campaign of fear!

I'm afraid. Very afraid that young mothers are going to buy into it. The "experienced" person picking up the dreaded red phone in the middle of the night. I rather enjoy the picture of Hillary dressed to the nines, studiously (note the glasses) working in presumably the oval office at three in the morning. Maybe that's Bush's problem. It is said he's in bed most nights by nine!

Note to Hillary. This is not "change". This is fear mongering. We've been living with it since September 11, 2001. I wish you had stayed above it. If you do pull out the nomination I fear that the campaign between you and John McCain will be no more than that. Fear. The fear of what either of your administrations might bring. The fear that we may never get another shot at hope and change.

Your experience at handling a crisis is just as non-existence as Obama's. You admitted, after having visited the war wounded that the hits you've endured are nothing compared to what so many of we Americans deal with on a daily basis.

Crisis management experience really should be a bit more substantial than dealing with your husband's philandering. Please.

It's enough worrying about whether that phone will actually ring. I should like to believe any of the three major candidates has the judgement to handle it. What I fear is that I may be mistaken.

Once A Parent Always A Parent

I had been picked up and dropped off at airports by my parents so many times over the years I've lost count. One thing was always a constant though. The welling in our eyes upon seeing each other after periods of time, and the sadness of one more good bye. Though never spoken the thought was always with me, "Would there be another time?"

So must be the thoughts of every parent, relative and friend of service people around the world as they go off to and hopefully return from - war.

Perhaps the biggest service Prince Harry did for his country is bring home to so many immune from the emotions just how terribly heart wrenching it is for the families.

Prince Charles, one day he will be King, is first and foremost a father whose son went to war - and came home. "It's an incredible relief to see him back in one piece," he said. "It is obviously marvellous to see him back and I'm enormously proud of what he's done."

Words any father would say. More important, though, is the dose of reality that was brought home by Harry's deployment. "I do so understand what it's like for so many other families and loved ones of those serving on operations, what they have to endure.

"Having met so many of the families when I go to visit some of my regiments, I know what it's like when they're so far away and don't know what's going on. It's much worse in a way for those left behind."

War is horrible. Prince Harry did not have to go. But he did. We all owe both Harry and his Dad a vote of thanks. They have shown that no matter what level of privilege one may enjoy they "get it". They understand the obligation and the emotions that come with it and in a most human manner, acknowledge both.

They are true Princes .

What's Next?

This is one of those unsolicited forwards that always seem to be filling my mailbox. It was titled something along the lines of why Bill is like he is. It's one of the few I opened and I laughed. It also brought to mind the question that if Hillary gets the nomination which Hillary will we get.; Shrill Hil or the warm and fuzzy model women seem to fall all over.

I must say I've found this Democratic primary season energizing. I, like most of you, have a preference. Both candidates are strong, their positions vary little. The main difference is a matter of style rather than substance. Whether you want to admit it or not, both have substance.

That they might share the ticket I find highly unlikely. The "Bill" factor is the main reason. I can't see Barack wanting to be a "co VP" any more than wanting one. Nor do I see Hillary wanting the number two slot. Though it isn't over until it's over.

My reasons for preferring Barack over Hillary for the presidency is a matter of temperament. Using teary eyes to soften up the sympathy vote is one thing; I don't see it working on obstinate middle eastern leaders who think little of women to begin with. A willingness to listen and talk rather than throwing down ultimatums seems to be a tactic untried of late. The tactic of ultimations has been weakened by lack of follow through by the current Administration. Ummm. That would mean "hope" that a "change" in approach might be more successful.

With McCain's current image problems taking front and center, the cozyness with lobbyists past and present, the "maverick" reputation; stubborness, concerns me as to how he would play on the world stage.

Policy differences can be addressed by those we elect to represent us. How the world views us will be addressed by who we elect as President. We can only "hope".

Commander-In-Chief - Of What?

As the returns of yet another defeat rolled in last night Howard Fineman, Newsweek, talked of how Hillary's campaign staffers were bickering among themselves as to placement of fault. Not a good sign.

Today they've come out with a new strategy - the Commander-in-Chief Offensive. Mark Penn, her chief strategist, is quoted as saying "She is the only person in the race who is both ready to be commander-in-chief and would end the Iraq war and start to bring troops home within 60 days, compared to both Senator Obama and Senator McCain."

Wow. Where did this come from? At the outset she talked of keeping a presence in order to have an orderly withdrawal, etc., etc. Forget the fact that no one knows what the status of the war will even be if and when she takes office.

But desperation calls for desperate measures. She's tested and ready to go from day one. There was a time I'd refute that but in looking at the situation, she may well be tested and have experience. She's falling further and further behind. Her campaign is in chaos, her team is fighting amongst themselves, she never could and still can't control her husband.

Such circumstances would test anyone and she is certainly getting "experience" in dealing with it. The upshot is we're not looking for a Commander-In-Chief of Chaos. We already have one!

What we do need to be wary of is guerilla warfare. It's a fighting style we have yet to master. The Clintons are known for their ability to get down and dirty; I hope our "hope" doesn't get mired in muck.

Just Who Is This Guy?

Is John McCain becoming a caricature of himself? And in so doing is he diminishing his image as a true American hero?

One can never take away the loyalty he showed for his men while a prisoner in Vietnam, but there is more than an act of bravery that defines a man's character. I'm beginning to wonder about this one. No. I have been wondering - but the spiral is on a downward trend and that is the tragedy.

Remember when John McCain said this, "Waterboarding is a form of torture no matter how it is done and should be a prohibited among U.S. military interrogation practices.

Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak.

People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”

Yesterday the Senate voted on an intelligence bill, guaranteed to get a Presidential veto, that included banning the use of waterboarding by all 16 of our intelligence agencies. Candidate McCain voted against that bill.

What possible explanation can explain away this "flip flop"? What possible nuance could make it acceptable in any form?

While this bit of information is sinking in, rumors have begun that McCain may resign his Senate seat this summer so he can concentrate full time on the campaign. Remember Bob Dole? Though he says he has "no current plans" to do so, the caveat sounds like Larry Craig telling us it was his "intention" to resign his seat. We all know how that one went!

Of course, he just may. By so doing he would be able to avoid future votes that might prove embarrassing and perhaps quell our probing of the man and his motives.

The Republican Strategy?

It took me a long time to decide that Barack Obama would be the candidate I would support should he win the nomination for President. It's not that I agree with all of his policies. I don't. I have been a small government Republican for most of my adult life.

But you know what? The man has a vision and a healthy dose of realism. He knows achieving the goals he has set forth will take time and be difficult. He can lead the Congressional horse to water. Making them drink will take leadership of a different sort; one we haven't experienced in this country for far too long.

I skim headlines from several different sources on a daily basis to see what is happening outside the realm of election politics. Governing by fear still seems to be in vogue. Three from today read Bush orders clampdown on flights to U.S., 'Earth shattering' events worry Chertoff, Pentagon charges September 11 suspects.

We want the death penalty for men who we've admitted torturing. That should make al Qaeda back off!

I expect to see more and more of these types of headlines as we near, and actually get into, the general election campaign. More fear mongering to boost the militaristic candidacy of John McCain. And if McCain should win, it gives credence to the legacy Bush would like to have. Justification that his policies were correct.

It works. There is a nagging knot of fear constantly eating away at me. I try to ignore it, minimalize it, but it is there. It's more than a fear of terrorism. That is the least likely of them. It's how it permeates my life. The constant, uncomfortable edginess from not knowing what this adminstration is likely to do next. How many more personal liberties are we going to lose? When will writing a blog stating these thoughts come back to haunt me? Something so silly as seeing a hit from Washington D.C. with a .gov behind it sending a chill through me. It's there, and it's exhausting. I'm sick and tired of it.

That's why I harbour within what Obama is offering. Hope. Hope that he means what he says, hope that my judgement is sound, that he has the ability I believe he has, hope that he can deliver us from evil - without more war.

Words Can Come Back To Haunt You

The experts who do little more than sit around and speculate about everything politic say it's much too soon to be worrying about the Vice Presidential choice. That's out of one side of their mouths. Out the other side has been rampant speculation of McCain /Huckabee and McCain/Romney. On the Democratic side most of the speculation has been around whether Clinton or Obama should head the ticket; that having them both on it would be ideal.

Not being one of those experts I feel quite free to say I don't think any of those scenarios are likely. While party unity is important to the powers that be, and though the candidates speak of their deep respect for one another, I don't think any of them like each other all that much. That doesn't make for smooth running from the top.

I mentioned in a previous post I thought McCain's running mate will be a huge factor in his success or lack of it. Mostly because of his age. In his description of what his criteria is likely to be, he brought forward a few more points.

From the AP, he is quoted as saying, "The fundamental principle behind any selection of a running mate would be whether that person is fully prepared to take over and shares your values, your principles, your philosophy and your priorities."

On the surface that sounds reasonable. According to what Hillary has been saying, it would preclude Obama from being her running mate. On McCain's side it would be someone who's first inclinations are militaristic and would also preclude both Huckabee ad Romney on a host of issues.

So where does that leave us? With McCain it would seem to be an open field of a lot of names little known outside their states or long time political insiders. The Democratic side is more interesting. Who would Obama choose to add strength to his slate while at the same time keeping "change" and "hope" at the forefront?

One name surfacing for Clinton is Wesley Clark. Is it wise for a candidate trying to play down her war vote to choose a former general for a running mate? Secretary of Defense, maybe. V.P. I'm not so sure.

Then too, with Hillary you have the Bill factor. He had this to say in a recent interview, "I will do what I'm asked to do, I will not be in the Cabinet. I will not be on the staff full-time. I will not in any way interfere with the work of a strong vice president, strong secretary of state, strong secretary of treasury".

What happens, if in his opinion, the people in those positions are not strong?

Then again, back to the Republicans. Last year when asked if he would consider the vice presidency McCain had this to say, "You know, I spent all those years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, kept in the dark, fed scraps - why the heck would I want to do that all over again?"

If you assume Clinton and McCain, who in their right mind would want the number two spot!

Terror Of A Different Sort

Imagine this scenario. A large agricultural based conglomerate hiring non-citizens to do the work U.S. citizens won't. Right. All those "illegal" pickers that swarm across the Mexican border and fan out across the country like mosquitos over a stagnant pond.

Wrong. Try the citizens of the Marshall Islands swarming to a small town in northwestern Arkansas to work for Tyson Foods. Why? Because it's a better life than they had.

It's not that they as a people aren't welcome. It's what they've brought with them. Leprosy. Yep. The town of Springdale, a bit over 60,000 strong, has an outbreak of leprosy, not to mention 100 cases of tuberculosis.

How do these people get in? Politics mostly. In a nutshell, if approved for entry they may live, study and work in the U.S. for an unlimited amount of time.

Their "traveling companions" get a free ride and as I see it, the way panic and misunderstanding begins. The imagery of leprosy conjurs up thoughts of leper colonies. I shuddered at the thought. Then did a little research.

It seems the disease is more disfiguring than fatal. This is an extreme, untreated case. Though it can be spread, it is not done so easily and it it can be treated effectively with antibiotics.  The progression can be stopped, the damage can not be undone.

It is a disease slow to develop and symptoms may not appear for up to seven years after infection, according to the Merck Manuel. So here you are. The Marshall Islands have the highest incidence of leprosy anywhere in the world. The Islanders are flocking to Springdale looking for the American dream.

All concerned are living a nightmare.

Lest We Forget There IS A War Going On And On And On...

Well, the Republicans are rallying around the one candidate who has made a career out of thumbing his nose at them. I find myself wondering if the American public wants another "maverick" in the White House. Or have the last seven years been quite enough, thank you.

McCain is an old war horse who got lucky on an immense political gamble. The surge. It's working, he insists. Is it? Politically it seems the Iraqis could care less. Militarily, McCain's area of "expertise", remains iffy. Consider the headlines in this morning's Spokesman Review. U.S. troop casualties on the rise in Iraq and Reserves, Guard called unready for threats in U.S.. Here we go again.

I was under the impression that the consensus of public opinion is that the war was ill conceived in the first place, and we want out. We're told it's a war we must win!

We've heard so may different explanations of what winning means from our current President my head spins. I'd like to hear McCain's definition. If it indeed includes the Iraqi government stepping up to the plate, which they have yet to do, how does he intend to make that happen? If his idea of victory is from a strictly military standpoint, we'll be there long beyond my remaining years.

Beyond the war, what is his vision for the country? Not meaning to diminish his service to his country and loyalty to his men under horrific circumstances in Vietnam, I don't necessarily consider those attributes reason enough to elect him to the Presidency.

When the flak jacket comes off and the armed escorts are no longer surrounding him, I'll believe progress is being made. McCain makes me nervous. I don't trust mavericks.

Players Not Ready For Prime Time

Two candidates have blamed misstatements on the fatigue of campaigning.

The first was Huckabee bemoaning the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Part of his statement included this, "...have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our border, and particularly to make sure, if there's any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country. We just need to be very very thorough in looking at every aspect of our own security internally."

The second from Bill Richardson in an interview with John Roberts discussing water boarding, "... standing against terrorists like Musharraf."

There are two issues in play here. One, if careless statements are brought about by being tired from campaigning, what is likely to come from these minds bent from the stress of the Presidency?

Two, like it or not, Pakistan is an ally in our fight against terrorism. For all the rhetoric, especially from Richardson, about the need for negotiation and diplomacy, calling Musharraf a terrorist doesn't help.

We'd do well to remember Ms. Bhutto, as well as her husband, had their own ethical problems while both in and out of power. Her rhetoric wasn't to be trusted any more than Musharref's. It just fit better with our goals!  Neither faction will win awards for political sainthood!

Look at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. If we have any hope of crossing it in our pursuit of the Taliban, al Qada and bin Laden, we don't need a new leader with a mouth preceding the brain.

What we need is a President who will move away from the "our way or no way" mentality and realize that just because we think our way is right, those we're dealing with may not agree. And at times, they may even be correct.