One was a Southern Rebel from Georgia and son of a former preacher, the other was a Northern Yankee who thinks that Sherman's March was one of the most important military campaigns in history and thinks maybe parts of the south should be burned down again. The Yankee had once tried to kill the Rebel when they were both in the Army. The Rebel helped the Yankee load up the moving truck when the Yankee's wife took him from Colorado to Minnesota.

I am not sure where that was going, so I will just quit with the attempt at colorizing the story and say that my friend Ben and I got together after 8 years. The last time we had seen each other was when he was helping load up the moving truck before I moved to Minnesota.

I was in Tampa with my wife earlier this week and Ben drove down from Georgia to hang out for a while. We did forget to drink a Coke for our friend Andy that died in Iraq, but hopefully pitchers of Mojitos count. Although it was only for a little while, it was nice to meet up again and hopefully we will not go another 8 years between reunions. He did almost convince me to get another tattoo, but I didn't. I do want another one (or several) and blaming Ben would have been a pretty good excuse, but we didn't do it. Maybe if we had more time or Mojitos.

An Improbable Tale of Friendship

|

I think that How Much Did Rumsfeld Know? is an excellent piece, but what does it matter. I think anyone with an average ability to think knows that the whole administration was incompetent, negligent, and perhaps criminal. I also think that people who think some magic hand of fate caused the problems in Iraq instead of poor planning will think this is another article written by a heathen of no faith for purely partisan purposes. But, what does it accomplish other then show what we all really know anyway?

Is does show that the administration does not actually care what the generals are saying when it differs from what the administration wants to hear. It shows that this whole exercise in Iraq has not been one of military strategy, fighting terrorism, or liberating Iraq, but instead an exercise to train future "leaders?" the fine art of CYA.

A lot of people seem to think that we have a strong, well-trained military to fight, but we actually have it to try and avoid fighting as much as you want. Real power does not come from using your military liberally, but from not having to use it or only using it when there are no other options. War is not a video game or laser tag where time runs out and you all get drunk, it is real life and people really die. They don't just have to sit out until the next round.

People who push the need to show our strength are the same people who were bullies in school or think that fighting makes you look tough. My first Tae Kwon Do instructor said he had only been in one fight in his life and he tried to avoid that by giving the two guys a chance to just leave and I knew that he was tough. I did not need to see him kick someone else's ass to prove it.

And by improperly using our military and resources, what we have done is show exactly the opposite of what the bullies intended. Our military did well, but has spent much of the time since the initial invasion on its heels because the bullies only plan for the first couple punches and then assume everyone will run in fear. They also used the military in improper and arrogant ways that has gotten so many people on both sides killed. Unfortunately, most of those people have not done anything wrong or evil. Can the same be said about the planners and supporters of this war?

I still do not believe that we should have an immediate pullout from Iraq. I do believe that the people in the Bush administration all the way up to President Bush should be charged with some type of crimes and tried. I understand the philosophy of collateral damage and even agree that it is something that is almost unavoidable in war. But, I also believe that when it is an unnecessary war with incompetence in the planning and execution and an arrogant disregard for humanity, that in turn makes the actions of leadership incompetent and criminal.

The soldiers on the ground, for the most part, have done excellent work in a situation they should not have been in either because we should not have invaded, or because they are not the planners of the war and are doing the best they can in a bad situation. They are not responsible for what has gone on. The same cannot be said for the likes of Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rice, and President Bush. I say that we show the world we are serious about human rights and basic humanity and charge them all as war criminals.

If only I thought this mattered

|

I was thinking about the most important issue facing America today, Rev Wright, and I was wondering what I thought of him. I think that most of what I saw come out in clips is something you can justify. I also think that he has gone the way of so many who become "celebrities" and they make themselves the issue and forget what the real issues are. What we see now is what happens when ego trumps character.

In thinking about his statements that first came out and proved he, and by relationship Obama, hated America, I decided that anyone who has never said "goddamn America" either doesn't really love it, or doesn't pay attention. Just the other day I was trying to help a vet get an emergency loan and she was denied. I think my exact thoughts were, "this goddamn country, fucking America."

Is that because I hate my country? Quite the contrary. It is because I love it and know that it can be better. People who don't occasionally get angry at their country, or family or job for that matter, think that it can't get any better or think it is already good enough. "Good enough" is a term which I can't stand because it just means that you don't want to put in the work to make it better and thinking it is as good as it gets is just idiotic. Unless everything is perfect and there are no problems, nothing is as good as it gets. And since perfection can never be obtained, you either work to make it better or are part of the problem.

Wright also said that America brought 9/11 on itself. I disagree with this in part because that is like saying that someone brought on a rape by their clothes, how they were acting, or past. A crime is a crime and you can't justify a crime by saying they deserved it. I do think however, that our past policies and actions have fostered a climate where people can recruit and get people to believe that we do deserve whatever we get. Nothing the US has done justifies an attack like 9/11, but much of what the US has done causes people to not like us or see us as evil even.

As a nation, we do not take care of our veterans, our children, the sick, the poor, our elders, our planet, or even things are nation is supposedly built on like liberty and all being equal. So yes, I will occasionally say "goddamn America" or refer to it as "this fucking country" and call some of its citizens wankers, but that is not because I hate my country. It is because I love it and believe it could be so much more then it is. If what we have is good enough for you, then maybe you don't belong here.

Goddamn America!

|

I am all for a good fight for the Democratic nomination, but it is beginning to look more like this is all leading to a McCain victory. While he has been able to solidify his base and expand to moderates and Independents, the two Democrats are trying to show why neither is worthy of your vote.

Then you have polls that show that people supporting both candidates will not support the other if theirs does not get the nomination. More supporters of Senator Clinton seem to respond as such and it either shows they are intentionally dishonest to try and sway the vote or they care more about one person (or family name) then they do the nation. I am beginning to lean towards the latter after the way the campaign has been handled, but it could be either in politics.

Maybe this is the opportunity I have dreamed of though where one of the parties implodes and we get a real third party that gives people options. I am far from the Republican side of the spectrum, but I only associate with Democrats because they are closer to me. I do not believe I am a Democrat and the current Democratic Party does not represent my views. To be fair, the only thing either party is strongly for is winning elections, but you know what I mean.

I am a liberal and there is no real liberal party. Actually, I am not even sure I could be called a liberal, maybe a progressive and I do see a difference between the two. I still believe that Senator Clinton's handling of health care as first lady is a big reason we haven't gotten anywhere yet and I do not accept her being against the war now after voting for it before, no matter what her justification is. The administration may have been dishonest, but the facts were out there. She voted not out of love of country, but out of fear of electoral fallout for being against the bloodthirsty spirit of revenge at the time.

Senator Paul Wellstone strengthened his standing for being against it, so many others showed their weakness of character and conviction. It takes strength to stand up to the mob. Cowards are not people who openly oppose war, they are people who think the war is wrong and fail to act because it may hurt them. I cannot accept that Senator Clinton will speak for us now when she had a huge opportunity to do so and failed so miserably. Her and so many of her supporters speak for no one but themselves.

Senator Obama is not off the hook either. This process should have been done, but he cannot close the deal and keeps getting off message defending items from his past. I still prefer him and will vote for him if he is the nominee, but I have concerns about him. I wish he were more forceful in his defense of himself and others. They linger not because people care initially, but because the response to the issues seems forced or slow and it makes people wonder what else is there.

So, maybe I will get my true third party. Then maybe the three parties will realign and have three parties with three distinct ideologies and messages. I am tired of our current parties and become more frustrated everyday that there is not really a choice the lines up closely with what I believe. Maybe this Democratic fight and seeming hostility among the supporters of the two candidates is what helps me get it. The Democratic Party has been broken for almost 40 years and maybe it is time for it to be put down.

Third Party Dreams

|

I demand a fucking recount. It's shit like these bullshit lies saying I curse to goddamn much that hurt. Plus, I wouldn't have to curse so much if people weren't such fucking wanker assholes.

Created by OnePlusYou

Fucking Lies and Bullshit

|

I am still confused by the Rev Wright issue and hope someone can help me out. Although I may not agree with everything he said, I can kind of understand where those sentiments are coming from. I am also one who believes that the only true patriots are the one that question there government when they feel it is wrong and try to push it to be better. Unlike most Americans and almost all of the people attacking him, Rev Wright actually served his country in uniform. And it was camouflage and not a blazer with some school crest on it.
br> Many others, including me, have echoed the idea that although we are not responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001, our policies have helped to create an environment where people see themselves justified in attacking us. How many civilians have been killed by our military? How many more have died or suffered due to policies like sanctions, blanket support for Israel no matter what, or our lack of concern for human life in areas that most need our help? These are the issues and areas where terrorism and anger thrive. That by no means justifies the actions of terrorists, it is just to point out that the issues are not always as simple as simpletons (ie politicians and pundits) would like us to believe.

Plus, Rev Wright is speaking in the wealthiest nation in history where many people are left behind and marginalized. How many of our cities have failing educations systems and where many are left to believe they do not matter. Although it is not just a problem solely based on race and poverty is usually the main ingredient, many of the most rundown areas are also largely populated by minorities. It is hard to get out of that situation when there is little hope and access to good education is not there.

So many people growing up in places where poverty and angst are the norm begin to believe that the only ways to better your situation is through drugs and crime. Which creates a cycle causing each future generation to be worse off then the one that preceded it. It is not because the people are bad or don't want things to be different, but it is a situation where few really care and even fewer try to help change it. And it is rare that a politician gives them anything more then lip service every couple of years. It happens all over our country and anyone who is not angry about it, is either not paying attention or believes that it does not affect them.

I have babbled enough, but anyone who thinks that Rev Wright's words are just inflammatory and filled with hate probably also think that all homeless and unemployed people are lazy and choose their situation. Life is not as simple as that. Too bad people are.

Can someone help me out?

|

I know I haven't been writing much lately and when I do, it is not very in depth, but the Red Cross business keeps me fairly busy. In keeping with short posts on other stories, I have decided to start a new series, "Politicians=Wankers."

let me first say that I like Rep Dan Severson. I agree with him somewhere around 0% of the time, but I like him. I have judged a history fair with him and talked to him as he walked around our neighborhood during his election bids, but him and I just have two different philosophies.

I was reading an opinion of his from today's St Cloud Times and I was wondering if he was looking towards the next generation or the next election. I agree that fiscal responsibility is the correct path of government, but I disagree that opposing all taxes or spending increases is actually responsible. Plus, a big thing of Republicans is fees. They like to claim that they haven't raised taxes, but instead fees.

I think what we have in Minnesota is a governor that is trying to set himself up for higher office and a legislature that is hell-bent on making the opposition look evil. I am pretty sure that none of the sides is focused on what is best for the state or its citizens. Governor Pawlenty seems to have a little George W Bush in him where he will draw a line in the sand and then right or wrong, he will not budge on it. Fighting for what you believe and feel is right is honorable. Just fighting for the sake of fighting is immature and ignorant. I believe those are also two terms you find in the definition of politician in the dictionary.

I know that I am a radical and a heathen, but maybe people should try working together once in a while instead of just being wankers. Anyone that drives on roads in Minnesota knows they are crap. We have serious problems that will probably get worse if the economy stays the way it has been and everyone seems more concerned with their looking resolute and uncompromising of their beliefs then anything else. There are politicians that talk a lot about an "entitlement society" where no one feels responsible for their own actions and someone else should be forced to fix any messes they may have created. I wonder where citizens may have gotten that idea?

Politicians=Wankers

|

I am not a fan of Senator Hillary Clinton and become less so everyday, not because she stays in the race, but because she seems content with just getting the nomination and worrying about the general election later. Unfortunately one side has already started the general election and the other side looks like a bunch of unprofessional wankers. But, to exclude her based on the fact that she lied, makes no sense to me.

Well, it does make sense to me, but who do we choose based on those criteria of not telling "fish stories" or lies? I am not sure there is a completely honest person out there, much less a politician. I would imagine that even many religious leaders and self-proclaimed authorities on morality would not pass such a test. President Bush and President Clinton wouldn't even be allowed to take the test.

Who do you propose we elect?

|

By the time I finish this post, the Cubs will already be 2 games out and I think it is time to start preparing for the off-season. The off-season is the only time that Cubs fans can truly be optimistic and content anyway. Then the season comes along and ruins it for all of us.

Wait until next year

|

I am just pondering out loud here, but could the Democrats work any harder to lose this election. I was pretty sure that you couldn't work any harder to lose then they did in 2004, but they are well on their way to making 2004 look like a well done campaign. If they worked as hard at paying attention and changing things as they do at losing, we would not be in Iraq and maybe New Orleans and the Gulf Coast would be closer to what it once was.

To these party people, if you are so wise, why has the party been FUBAR since the Johnson administration. Sure, we had President Clinton for two terms, but we also lost the House and his legacy led to the loss by Gore in 2000 and his only real success was not getting thrown out of office for being a shitty husband with a strained relationship with the truth. The only reason anyone longs for the days of Clinton is because President Bush is an even bigger wanker and the "tech boom" inflated the perceived value of our wealth.

I do not believe that many of the attacks leveled at Senator Clinton are because she is female or at Senator Obama because he is black. I believe that Clinton has a long history in politics and a long history of partisanship and scheming that makes finding things to attack her on easy. I also believe that Obama has plenty he needs to clear up, but he has a shorter history in politics and it is harder to attack his political record so you go after his personal history.

Senator Clinton said that Reverend Wright would no longer be her pastor as an attack this week and I don't trust her on it. She stayed with a husband that "allegedly" has a history of trying to sleep with every woman that came within 100 yards of his office or motorcade. I would like to think that it was love and forgiveness, but I have a feeling that it was more politics then anything. I think their whole relationship has been politics and that is why they are fighting so hard now. Because without the presidency, they have no real bond or political goal to bring them close. As always, I could be totally off the mark though.

And Senator Obama, I agree that Reverend Wright does not need to be thrown under a bus. I also agree that the Clinton campaign would probably risk losing the general election just to get the nomination, but as of now, you are the only one of the three candidates that I could see myself voting for. Do not let them make the campaign about why you are not qualified and get you off track. I wish all candidates would do more promoting themselves then trying to win by destroying the other, but you get pulled of message so often by imbecilic and idiotic items, that I am sometimes not sure what it is you are for since they paint you into a corner where you have to be against something. Become a political Buddhist and acknowledge the item, deal with it, and let it go, dwelling on it will not make it better.

Let Bill, Hillary, and the whole Clinton mob act like jackals if that is how they want to win it. When you try to play along, you only make it more likely that neither of you can get elected either and you are just not as good at it. It is hard to trust you being about hope when your campaign just seems to be in fear of what is coming next.

All I know for sure is that when President McCain is sworn in next January, it will not be because he was the best candidate or the one more people wanted. It will be because the Democrats are so tied up in their self-importance that they do not care about the larger issues that effect this nation. Whether Obama's former pastor sees an America of hypocrisy and hatred or Hillary Clinton has Geraldine Ferraro and Bill out there acting like lunatics, neither really matters to a person losing their house or a homeless vet. Maybe it is time for both of you to realize that this election is about us and our issues and not yours. I am all for debate and argument, but quit acting like juveniles and start debating like you care more about America then you do about yourselves.

I am tired of Democrats

|

I have been thinking about how we can handle the current crisis in Tibet and am not sure there is really a good way for the US to influence China. I suppose we could stop borrowing money from them and stop allowing our corporations to pay pennies on the dollar for labor, but then China could blow up our economy. Somehow this nation of liberty and democracy has become indebted to the largest and most undemocratic of countries.

I think we should boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. A total boycott of the Olympics would not do much more good then bad, but just boycotting the opening ceremonies would make a great statement on how we view China's record on human rights and justice. Although I agree that we do need to engage those we disagree with, we also need to provide more then just lip service to what we claim to hold most dear. I suppose we could also add the Tibetan flag to our Olympic apparel and attend the opening ceremonies, but I think the US and other nations not participating at all makes it harder for the Chinese to hide large groups not being there.

It is nations like China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt were I think we should have started our attempts to spread democracy and liberty. I suppose some believe that if you show you are willing to goto war with your enemies over it, your friends will start getting on board, but that does not seem to be true. Plus, that policy seems to make it less likely that others might follow and more likely that they will become more hostile towards us. But, if we were to show that we will not let our friends get away with things that we threaten violence against our enemies over, it would lend credibility to what we say we value most.

I am not just saying this because I consider myself as a convert to Buddhism, but because it is the right thing to do. I feel the same way about Israel and the Palestinian lands. I just think that the differences between right and wrong are the same for your friends and your enemies. And that the Olympics is an event without a global parallel as far as the number of people participating and following it.

Tibet and the Olympics

|

The War Must Go On

I am not exactly like so many of my liberal and anti-war friends who believe that we must pullout of Iraq immediately. I do want us out and was probably as strongly against going in as anyone, but I think we do have some responsibility to leave the Iraqi population, which is mostly innocent of any wrongdoing before or after we invaded, with at least some hope of a future post-US occupation. Anything less would be as criminally negligent as the invasion and occupation were in the first place.

That being said, if the Iraqi government does not start taking leading a nation seriously, it is past time to leave. They use our presence not only for security, but as something to blame so that they don't have to take any real responsibility. Yes, we did break it, but our soldiers have also been dying trying to fix it. They deserve better then what the Iraqi, and their own government, is doing.

I think the lesson learned should be that you cannot force liberation and democracy on someone. Those types of movements have to be started by the people themselves to have more meaning. How would our own Revolution have gone if the French had invaded to "liberate" us from Britain? We would have probably ended up trying to fight Britain and France. We forced the Iraqis into a position where they not only had to fight followers of Saddam, but also al Qaeda, and each other in a struggle for control.

So, hooray for progress. Billions spent; thousands of Americans dead and thousands more wounded; unimaginable numbers of Iraqis killed and injured; a stronger Iran; a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan; violence in Tibet, Sudan, Somali, and Kosovo; Americans losing everything due to poor financial times; soldiers returning home with inadequate support and treatment; and a globe full of countries that have less respect for us now then at maybe any time before. But hey, the surge is working and all those other things are apparently irrelevant to our leaders.

One of my favorite Queen songs

|

This is just my opinion, but after watching a few weeks of "Saturday Night Live" and "Real Time With Bill Maher" and various other shows, I think it is time for the writers to go back on strike. Watching reruns of bowling from the 80s is more entertaining then this crap.

Boo TV

|

I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.

It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.

-- George W. Bush, during a video conference with military briefers in Afghanistan

If only there was a war when President Bush was of military age for him to have those feelings for himself. It must be hard to never have had the opportunity arise for you to serve your country on the field of battle. I mean, damn, why could we not have invaded a country that did not want us there just so President Bush could have volunteered to go fight. It is too bad the the 60s and early 70s were such peaceful times because with his sense of duty and patriotism, he would have been the first in line to head into harm's way in defense of democracy and liberty.

So hard to believe, it must have been said

|

I agree with Roland Martin

What is this strange feeling?

|

I just recently found out some news that I wanted to share with the rest of you. Senator Barack Obama is not only a Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, but he is also black. Geraldine Ferraro, on behalf of the Clinton campaign, said so. I knew he was getting off easy and life had been too easy for him and now I know why. Like all black men in America, he gets a free ride and has an inherent advantage because of his race. If he were getting pulled over by the police like white women everywhere are just for being white women, then he would know what it is like to live in an unfair world.

The irony is that I have met Ferraro before. I was a young political operative working on my second presidential campaign at the age of 11 and she was the nominee for vice president who many thought only got the slot because of her sex. Because my father was a member of a union that was as corrupt as it was influential, I got to meet her and walked in a parade with her yelling, "Mondale/Ferraro, the voice of tomorrow." I still have yet to support a winning presidential candidate. Do I know that Ferraro was only chosen because of her sex? No, but since people were saying it, it must be true. She has even said it herself. And it did not lessen the importance of her being there. Luck is not just about magic and chance, it is about putting yourself in a position and at a time where magic can happen. If that means being Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton at this time and this place, or being Ferraro in 1984, you have to be more then black or a woman to get the shots one got and the other is getting.

I actually think that John Edwards was the best candidate, but he was pushed to also-ran status early on. It didn't' matter what he said or how well he said it, it just was not his time because there was history to be made. I think the campaign was not so much about issues early on as it was historical precedent.

It is true that Obama might not be where he is in this election if he was not black, but where would Senator Clinton be if she was not a woman and wife of a former president. Take that away from her and she is very similar to many of the other candidates who ran for the nomination and did not make it. One thing that Obama has that Clinton does not is an apparent ability to inspire. With all of Clinton's knowledge and experience, she just does not have the fire of an FDR or JFK that makes people believe they can do more and do it better. She may be a policy genius and might even have ideas which would be good for our country, but after the last couple decades, we need something more then that.

Instead of trying to divide and frighten us for political gains, we need someone who tries to make us believe in the American spirit and people again. I do not know for sure that Obama will do that, but everyday I become more sure that Clinton cannot. My opinion is not based on his race or her gender and not on her marriage to a former president who seems to want to make himself more insignificant every time he speaks or whines about something, but just based on what I hear and see from both of them.

I was asked if I thought Senator Clinton was a good candidate yesterday and I said no. She didn't take the campaign seriously in the beginning because she thought she was the automatic choice. Now, she wants to blame the media and everyone else for her own inability to properly plan and run a good campaign. She is not behind because she is a woman or because Obama is black, but because she failed at the outset to build momentum and support. She started with built-in supporters and did little to add to that huge group of people or even keep many of them that started with her. She is not the person I want answering the phone at 3 AM. I want someone that takes themselves a little less seriously and others a little more. We have had enough of a president that believes just being president should get others to do what you want them to do.

But what do I know, I supported the white guy over the black man and the white woman so I must be racist and sexist. Although I tend to believe that the people discriminated against the most in this country are the poor of any ethnicity, religion, gender, or age. And in my opinion, only the white guy was addressing poverty seriously.

So, maybe Obama is the front runner because he is black, maybe Clinton is where she is because she is because she is a wealthy, white woman and former first lady, maybe President Bush got elected because of his name and family friends, and maybe President Clinton only won because he was a Southern, white governor that not only convinced women they should vote for him, but that he should be allowed to grope them also. Unfortunately that is the way politics in this country and life in general works.

Ebony and Irony

|

I want to say a couple of things about that. First of which is that I am happy as hell that Drake University is doing better in basketball recently then Iowa is. I was not happy when they fired Tom Davis and now the team that Dr Tom went to and helped turn around is being coached by his son and doing well. Playing the type of basketball Iowa used to play before it decided that it could do better then Tom Davis. I guess going to the NCAA tournament and winning a couple games every year was just too much.

Second, it seems that my former campus did not give Karl Rove a very warm reception. I would like to apologize to the asshole for the rudeness of my fellow Hawkeyes. That being Said, although I am not a big fan of interruptions and general rudeness for speakers, I think Rove and many others in this administration deserve it. Especially since they have spent so much time trying to make dissent and disagreement look weak, cowardly, and supportive of terrorists.

I saw one of the comments said that this proves Hillary's point that Iowa is irrelevant. Of course, it was only irrelevant when they realized they would lose, but let's see how irrelevant it is if it is a close election like the last few and she(if she is the nominee) needs some electoral votes. It will not matter if she wins all those big, typically Democrat leaning states if she can not win a few of those "irrelevant" states.

I am a Hawkeye

|

but, I am not the best thing to ever come out of Iowa.

This may come as news to some

|

"Yes We Can" against "We could have, but we were doing something else."

I still don't know that I like Senator Obama as president, but I still do not like Senators Clinton or McCain. It is just my opinion, but I don't see Clinton and McCain as being all that different. I think that with a few exceptions, their policies would not differ all that much when it got down to actually doing the job. I do not think there is no difference between having a Democrat or a Republican in office, just that the difference in these two people would not be all that great. As can often be the case, I can be wrong though.

I just want a leader to inspire me and the nation and don't see Clinton or McCain being able to do that. It is true that Obama could fail to inspire and lead also, but even his detractors would admit that people want to follow him. The only reason I can see voting for Clinton is because she is a Democrat.

I also like Clinton even less since her "3 AM" ad. Democrats do not need to be the party of fear. Plus, the president would not be the one answering the phone and I would hope that the president would choose advisers more intelligent then they are to help in those situations. I have seen Senator Clinton in the late afternoon and evening on TV and I imagine that she is not someone I want to wake up at 3 AM. Regardless the amount of experience, no one person is qualified to make all the decisions that effect our country alone.

I know that I seem to be piling on Clinton, but there is just one more thing about her and the Republican race is over. When she used her number of years of experience and talked about McCain also having that experience, but not Obama, how does that not hurt her in the general election? I will not accept the argument is valid now but things are different in November. If she is more qualified then Obama, then by her own logic, McCain is more qualified then her.

As far as McCain goes, I probably would have voted for him in 2000. Now, I think he sold out to get the chance to be the nominee and so much has been sacrificed because so few have been willing to stand for what they believe in. There are a lot of politicians who have made decisions based on their electoral future over the future of the Republic and McCain is one of them.

My View on the 2008 Election

|

If so, this opinion makes sense.

And I do often wonder where we could be if people had listened to President Carter when he said we needed to start planning and stop lying to ourselves instead of just hoping for the sun to come up.

Does knowing we are the best country ever make us arrogant?

|