I think there is an inherent flaw in our American system and philosophy. I think this flaw is what is making our lives difficult. I think it is the reason that we are not excelling as a leader of the world. I think that it is costing us as Americans too much money. I think it may be a fundamental flaw in interpreting the meaning of the founding fathers. I think that we are mistaking “Equal” (as in “all men are created equal”) with “Same”.

It should be plain to see once you point it out that “equal” is not the same as “same”. “Same” implies that all elements and circumstances are similar or even identical, and when taken as an abstract whole can be considered to have a value. “Equal” does not have the same implication that the whole(s) as in comparison be the same or even remotely similar, but in the end have a comparatively similar value. For example, a person with 10 small American flags is the same as another person with 10 small American flags. However, you could say that the person with 10 small American flags is equal to a person with 1 large American flag. In both cases there is value in the flags, but in one the value is compared directly unit for unit and in the other a judgment is made that 10 small flags is comparable to one large flag. I know it is subtle, but this is important.

This concept it hit me years ago when confronted with Women’s Rights issues that my ex was so fond of quoting. I personally did not have a problem with equal pay for equal work, or consideration for pregnancy and so on. What I had an issue with was that some of these women wanted to be treated the same as a man. I do not care how you cut it, there are ways in which men and women are different and that cannot be changed. As a general rule men are more physical and generally women are more emotional, and therefore there are jobs more suited to each. There are exception on both sides, I am not talking about exceptions except that they prove the rule and I have no problems with the exception either, but when a woman wants a man to treat her exactly like a man, we have a problem. After all, viva la difference! In this way women are seeking equality with men but not parity. Some women have not figured out that equity does not have to mean sameness or parity, but rather equality in worth, salary and respect. I for one like holding a door for a woman, it is polite and recalls more chivalrous days and a higher civility. I do not have to have the door held for me by a woman; she is doing it for the wrong reason and does not get the point of the door holding and Women’s Rights (unless she is doing it for the right reasons [politeness] which I do not discount).

(Oy… all this politically correct speak and such, truly I do not mean any prejudice against anyone, but I still have watch every word and phrasing.)

So in the above example can we agree that women are looking for equality and not sameness? Are we really looking for women to wear pant suits instead of something more flattering? Should women give up what makes them special just to fit in with everyone else? And while we are at it, shouldn’t we as men wear dresses occasionally to make women more comfortable? Hmm… let’s get real about it all and move on understanding that equality does not mean everyone must fit the same mold.

So, let’s move on to a more immediate and potentially more devastating program that is now being evoked within our school system, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. While ostensibly a reauthorization bill with the inclusion of high standards for children and more teacher accountability, it has in actuality become the “every child must go to collage act”. It has now standardized scholastic testing and teacher evaluation and forced these on schools by refusing funding if the goals are not met. It also treats all kids the same and really does not take into account the special needs of some children. But let’s be clear here, it should be obvious that not all children are the same and no matter what we do not every child will be college material, and there is nothing wrong with the child if in the end they are not college material.

Because of this massive educational act we are now treating all children the same, not equal, but the same. In the system now if a child is more academically inclined, good at reading and math and such, they do well because the system is set up for them. On the other hand if a child is artistically gifted (or may struggle with a learning disability or some other issue that impairs their ability to learn) and not as apt at academics, their education is being neglected in an effort to bring these children to parity with academically inclined students.

It is a wonderful idea to think that college is available to all students and if this true it is a great stride forward for the education system in our country, but it is a different thing to say that all student must attend college. To paraphrase Erasmus, “In the country of Doctors, the Plumber reigns supreme!” In fact you can replace Doctors with any single college product and replace Plumbers with any blue collar occupation and still be on the right track. The point of the above is that in order for the country and society to move along smoothly you need a work force that does not have to be college trained. In fact, as is portrayed every year in June as the college grad get ready to look for work, there are far few jobs available for these college grads than most expect. Also, being a college grad with letter after their names they expect a pay rate that is well above those who do not attend more advanced education. This is required to pay off college loans. So where is the fairness in all this? In making everyone the same we are killing ourselves because their isn’t a plumber in the house.

We have to face the very real truth that all children are different, but all children must be allowed equal opportunity to excel. This does not mean they need the “same opportunities” to excel, it means that they are allowed to grow where they need to grow and into a life they need to be successful. An artistic child needs to be guided and enriched through the arts. A child with a mathematical ability needs to be guided to areas of pursuit that takes advantage of these gifts. In some cases the children will grow up and go to college, in other cases they may enroll in a trade school or work as an apprentice in a blue collar field, or finally not attend college at all if it does not suit them. But what is amazing in this scenario is that all these options are available.

It really is about the American Dream, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” The child says “I want to be a doctor.” Fine, we can provide you a path to that. Another child answers that she wants to be a poet, do poets need college? Some would say yes, some would disagree, but the options are there for the child’s choosing. Yes, some, many in fact, will go to college and take positions that our society needs filled. Yes, many in fact, will not go to college and take positions that our society needs filled.

The problem with creating a standardized program where everyone has the same expectations and are required to fill the same roles and everyone is expected to go to college is you get a standardized student. Right now it would seem the standardized student is not good enough compared to with global expectations. It seems to me when you give the student the keys to their own future, allow then to make the choices that they will take into the future, the overall effect was an overall better society.

Break the “sameness” mold, shoot for equality.

You know me; if you read my blog it should be quite obvious that I am a middle of the road Republican; I certainly am not a Democrat, and I register as an Independent. So you can imagine that I am following this presidential campaign pretty closely, being a bit of a politics wonk. So when the John McCain campaign put out an ad trying to scare white fathers and mothers away from Barack Obama, McCain made up my mind for me.

I was truly looking forward to a straight forward, clean campaign promised by both candidates, but what did I get? I got the Republican smear three months out from the election… hell; the candidates are not yet even “rat”ified by the party conventions yet and the mud is piling up. To Barack’s benefit he does not sling it as well as McCain, but he is getting more politically savvy at the backhanded putdown that is more his style.

So what prompted this entry? The Spears/Paris McCain ad that say as subtext that Barack Obama is coming to get your daughters and have sex with them. It is “Birth of a Nation” all over again with darkies waiting in the shadows. The implication is that Barack is dating (or as a radio talk show host say “dating equals porking”) young, vapid white celebrity girls (your daughters; also implying your daughters are not too bright), and having sex with them using his really big black tool (the images of the “Leaning Tower of Pisa”, and the “Washington Monument”). This ad has no other value other than it is meant to scare the hell out of white folk.

So, who played the race card? Well, to be honest, both of them, but at least Barack’s use of the racial issue is fairly self deprecating. Barack has been using the line that he does not look like the past Presidents on the money we use. This is true, and what it gets Barack is that he is new and different for a new and different country, now. Where as McCain use of the race issue is “By the way… he’s black” attitude has no redeeming value other than to scare white people away from Barack using latent racism.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the Republican tactics, they have been doing the same thing for a hundred years. What I am upset about I guess is that the candidate made a pledge to no go negative, was haranguing the other candidates not to go negative, and at the first opportunity flip-flopped on that pledge and went negative. But again, why should I be surprised, McCain has been flip-flopping on issues since the start of the campaign run to appeal to the current constituents he needed to win primary races. Now he is flipping both to the conservative left and trying to roll the center into one campaign and not being effective. Barack, by virtue of his stubborn nature is not really flipping so much as tacking his message to the center. He ran on a more centrist message anyway, now he is correcting course to include moderate and middle of the road republicans, as expected.

So, at this point I can make up a small list of the things that I do not agree with in the McCain campaign. They are:

1. McCain’s gas tax holiday is bunk. I would rather spend the $14 dollars I am going to save and let 300,000 people remain working. This does not help the long term problem; it is just a band-aid and not a very good one.
2. Drilling offshore and in ANWAR is not an answer both because it will take years to gear up and even then will not provide a significant saving to an oil hungry nation.
3. Yeah, the surge worked, but then again, it surely should have for what we are spending.

   (Let me state that at the time I was for going into Iraq and kicking out Saddam Hussein. Once we did that though we really needed to be out of there. And now that the Iraqi government that we installed wants us out too, we should be preparing with all haste to make a victorious retreat from there. Why victorious? Because we not only did what we came to do, we have even set up a government that thinks it is ready to stand on its own. It’s not, but we should not let that minor fact prevent us from getting out of a situation that is more and more looking like “revenge for daddy”. Honestly we should have been out of there six months after “Mission Accomplished”.)

4. Health care? What health care plan?
5. Education? What education plan?
6. Really, I am not sure where McCain is standing on anything lately, he changes positions so often it is hard to keep track.

That is not to say that Barack has articulated his cases any better. He does not have an Energy plan that is of any worth, there is some movement there on education, but not as much as I would like to see, and he dodges the health care issues with quick aplomb. He is on the right side of the war, he is an inspirational speaker, and maybe that is what the country needs right now.

So, here is my Ballot…

[     ]  Charles O. ‘Chuck’ Baldwin
(Constitution)

[     ]  Robert Laurence ‘Bob’ Barr
(Libertarian)

[     ]  John Sidney McCain
(Republican)

[     ]  Cynthia Ann McKinney
(Peace and Freedom, Green)

[     ]  Ralph Nader
(Independent)

[ X ]  Barack Hussein Obama
(Democratic)

I highly recommend you look at the bios for Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and of course Ralph Nader (my vote in 2004) and make some decisions for yourself. Each has some interesting views that should be considered.

Remember, no one is ready to be president from day one, the amount of experience in the role of President is always zero on day one, so don’t let experience be a your road map. It may be that person with no experience that brings the greatest change and creativity to the office because they lack experience and thus have no preconceived ideas how it is all supposed to work.

... But I guess Hilary has not gotten the message yet. Maybe it needs to be spelled out for her. So, just in case Hilary is reading my notorious blog or even one of her sycophants, here are the reasons it is over:

• Obama will win the popular vote
• Obama has won the most states and you cannot catch him in this.
• Obama is leading in elected delegates and you cannot catch up.
• Obama is leading in super-delegates and picking up more every day.
• Even your wins are losses at this point.
• Edwards delegates are likely to move to Obama now.
• You’re out of money.
• No one is contributing anymore.
• Do you really want to fund your campaign from your pocket? Because if you do we all know you will find some way of gouging the tax payers out of the money so that you can pay yourself back, and lady, I am not a democrat and I do not want to pay for your campaign.
• Everyone else has moved on, your the only one fighting for a position that is not attainable. Just look around you, you’re being abandoned.
• I want to have it over so I do not have to hear your and your whiny voice and the deluded spins from your equally deluded sycophants.

I bet that there are pundits that could find a lot more reasons to have you quit. But you don’t care or you are so self deluded that you are the only one (and maybe your equally deluded, lying, intern diving husband) who doesn’t see that the campaign is over. Just look at you on the interview… I swear you think it is still January or something. Wake up!

Maybe you do not see the damage you are doing… every time you speak you are risking a chance to misspeak and offering the Republican a talking point. Every day you go on you add to the swing vote the Republicans will get as you convince another white urban woman working hard that the black man can’t handle the job so fervently that she will vote McCain rather than Democratic. You are loosing brownie points by the hour, you’re not even going to be offered the VP position (that you would turn down anyway because your ego can’t play second banana).

The wounds that you have created because of your negative campaigning will be felt through the whole year. You have basically written the play book for the 527 groups that will attack Obama; you’ve shown them the way, they will see the light and smear him hard because we now know that Obama is the kind of guy who would rather see the bully walk away than engage too vigorously. He’s going to get slammed so hard that McCain will just have to sit back and watch the whole thing happen and we will be subject to months more of Jeremiah Wright and ridiculous “elitist” accusations. Thanks so much.

So maybe I should do a Karnak and pull this from the pickle jar: [drum roll please...] “Swing some clout, just one shout, then home to pout” and the question is… what are the next three things Senator Clinton will do in this campaign?

Yeah, you’ll be on the road in September, on the road home to obscurity. You won’t bother to campaign for Obama and that will ensure that you will forever after be a non-entity in politics as people remember and see your pandering for what it was ... pandering, and we all realize we are beyond that pandering politics of the past. And you, Senator Clinton are the politics of the past. Study some history, study some sociology, then look back at the changes that happen after century marks and now especially the millennium transitions… you are the past.

When congress asked the oil companies as to why the prices of gasoline were so high, they said that there were two elements, the rising price of oil per barrel and the lack of production facilities. When asked if the oil companies were planning more refineries they said “No, we can keep up with production.” I guess not a single congressman understood that reply was the tip off to why they were making BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of profit per year.

The problem with using the price of oil per barrel as an index is that the costs of refining the oil IS NOT tied to that index. In short the cost to refine is constant and while the cost of the oil may rise. The oil companies want you to think they are spending money on development when in actuality they have paid their development cost and are pocketing the profits that would go into new development. They don’t want to open more refineries, they don’t want to search for more oil, and they certainly do not want to perform research that would maximize the efficient use of non-oil based fuels. Some of the oil companies may want you think they “think green”, but really, the amount they spend is a joke compared to what they make in profits. (Also, if they do happen upon a really efficient way of using some other form of energy they can patent it and keep it off the market.)

The oil companies want you to not blame them for making BILLIONS AND BILLIONS because it is “THE MARKETS FAULT”. They want you to think that with all the record profits that they are NOT raking in enough! They are being so self sacrificing by having to accept these BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in profits they do not know what to do… Oh come on…

I heard a new term the other day and I figure that it make perfect sense to apply to the oil companies; WINDFALL TAX! How about we tax the profit to Kingdom Come and see just how fast the price of gas falls.

The problem is that on the quarterly FEC filings under expenditure they can claim things like “exploration and development” as costs of doing business, and who know how much of that is totally made up. Where is there proof of exploration. Where are the results of development? I do not see it making a difference in the cost of gas, so what good is it? Meanwhile the oil companies haul in BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in profits…

I got to buy stock in Exxon or Chevron, because god knows I am paid for the shares at the pump already!

So why is Barack Obama not hitting Hilary Clinton in the race for the democratic nomination? Do you think it is because there is nothing to hit her on? You think that the past is just the past and if that were brought up it would be ignored? No, it is simpler than that. He can’t use negative campaigning because then it will be the big black man attacking the white woman and that does not play in white America.

You think I am wrong? You think that white America has outgrown this type of racism? If so you had better ask yourself if what I say is not true and be honest with yourself.

Barack has no choice but to take the hits and play softball with the attacking remarks. He has to be certain what he says it true and even then it has to have some relevance. Of course it helps when the press points out Hilary’s lies and misstatements then Barack can just “Yeah, that’s right” the stories and not be the attacker. Very neat. But to initiate really vitriolic negative advertising would sink Barack’s chances in a blink of an eye. It is bad enough he has to justify everything and everyone in his life and has done an incredible job of countering every (most) criticism.

But you have to give him credit for keeping his cool. I swear I hear this stuff and I get mad at Hilary for him. More and more women that I know are all moving over to Obama because they are ashamed at the attacks Clinton(s) keep making. Hilary insists the campaign is not about race, but Bill takes every opportunity to point out that he’s black. If the Clinton campaign is a two for one sort of thing (and I pray that in the end it is not) then you got two messages coming out of two different holes. So who do you attack, a former President? It is a no win for Barack.

It is bad enough that the Clinton strategy seems to be do and say whatever you can to get nominated and then apologize later, but he has to contend with two fairly untouchable people. But to his credit he has kept calm and restrained his people and has kept message on target and cleaner than it needs to be.

All I know is that every time Hilary opens her mouth the more and more I’m in Obama’s camp. I am fed up with the whining and conniving. I have had I up to here with the “misspoken” statements by both Hilary and Bill. They know they are lying when they speech, and you know what, it is becoming real obvious to everyone else. I certainly will never believe and “folksy” story she related, and of course that mean how can I believe a word she says.

I’m done… I mean I am really done… is TV Land showing reruns of the Beverly Hillbillies? … No, but MSNBC is.

Hey Dems, you might want to wake up to the fact that the “Big Lie” may kill you in short order and you will have lost yet another Presidential race. The lie: Barack Obama is unelectable. Why? Well glad you asked…

At this point you have a country watching a democratic candidate acting like a real child and her name is Hilary Rodham Clinton. She agrees to the rules of the game and now that the game is not going her way she tries to change the rules. While that may play when you ARE president, it does not fly when you are running for president and in a country like the United Stated of America where fair play is cherished. That’s why we like our sports so much and don’t mind it when the ref blows the whistle. The problem is the refs in this case seem to be deaf and dumb and called the DNC.

Anyway, when Clinton keeps spouting the “Big Lie” and the DNC does not call her on it they are setting themselves up for trouble because people may just well believe it. The fact is that no one knows just how Obama will fare in a race against McCain. In fact if the poles are any indication the race would be rather close and by all accounts a real wonderful exercise in American politics. And let’s face it, there is no assurance that Hilary would win against McCain in any case, and Hilary has a lot of skeletons that can be dug up.

At this point Obama can pretty much cruise to a win of the democratic popular vote and a win of democratic convention delegates. And even though he does not have the majority of “super-delegates”, as the air clears and he is shown to be the true winner the supers will come over to his side. But then there is the “Big Lie:…

OK, again according to poles Hilary has her voters convinced that Obama is the wrong guy. In fact if Hilary is not the nominee like 40% of her voters will either not vote or even vote McCain. INCREDIBLE! Bad enough not to vote, but to go over to the Republican ticket is like losing TWO votes. Wow! And the longer this goes on the more the party is going to separate, the more the Republicans will enjoy the win that is coming and coming fast.

Now if for whatever reason Clinton does get the nomination the Dems are in a heap of trouble anyway. Hilary may have the older voters, but all the new voters and the converted voters are all for Barack and since they no longer have their guy to vote for the likelihood that they just stay home goes through the roof and now the number of democratic voters plummets. Oops. Say what you may about the Republicans, when push comes to shove they back their boy and get out the vote. If they do get out the vote and even engender some new ones the race is up for grabs and Hilary is not as strong against McCain.

The Big Lie, the more you say it the more people believe it.

I hate to be like a lot of the other talking heads around and say it’s all the media’s fault, but I swear the press is getting nastier by the second, and that includes my favorite news outlet, MSNBC. Now with the accessing of passport information at the State Department by some lowly lookie-loos, I have to wonder where the granularity lies between what gets reported and what is deemed trivial.

Do we really need to know all the unseemly details of every candidate that wants to run for an elected position? Will we be rummaging through their garbage cans looking for condom wrappers next? Because if we did find condom wrappers it would mean someone had sex and god forbid we didn’t know about THAT! Or maybe we can look for empty cookie wrappers or ice cream containers, that would prove someone was nervous about something and bingeing on sweet delights to calm down. And of course if they didn’t gain weight we could then prove they were bulimic and wouldn’t that make for a great scandal? Call Chris Mathews, call Bill O’Riely, call your sister and your neighbor and email everyone in your email address book… SOMEONE SNUCK A COOKIE!

Where does it end?

In the case of the passport information, you got to know that yours and mine information is available to many government employees to look at on a whim, and in this case where “Candidate Information was Accessed” it was to be expected. Could you really blame some people for being weak and NOT accessing the info if they could? The temptation would just be too much for some people. So they look, they get their voyeuristic thrill and in honesty the details are forgotten the moment the screen clears and they move onto something else. They get admonished, maybe fined or fired, and that is the end of that.

Why does there have to be a conspiracy behind every corner?

Because we like that there could be a conspiracy behind every door and under every bed. It has gotten to the point that a Governor can’t even hire a hooker with his own money without it being his downfall. Now granted, he was a hypocrite being all Mr. Justice and all and then found out to be banging skanks, but even if he weren’t Mr. High and Mighty he still would have been brought low because for whatever reason he wanted to pork a pro. And the ratings go up and up and up and up…

But there has to be a limit, even if it costs rating points… why? Because in the long run what did Mr. Spitzer do that was so horrible? He paid for a lay, too much, but it’s his money. This may indicate he has a problem at home, or maybe he is just a freak, but should this indiscretion really be brought public? Did this actually interfere with his ability to do the job the people of New York elected him for? Did he really have to step down because he had to have his dick attended to? It makes no sense because we are no better that he is, it is just that he is in the public eye that we scrutinize him so closely. Dare we count the number of men that have stepped out for a hummer or some such and make all these encounters public and report them on the 6pm news for all the kids to hear? Or, should we disclose all the mommies having nooners with someone other than hubby? Where would we be if there was complete transparency in our lives?

I can hear the screams now… how dare the media publish my private comings and goings. But let’s face it, you were being bad person and you should be publicly spanked. No? Well then what makes you think you have the right to know everything about a “public” figure? If the public figure is public for being a slut and that is their thing, sure, report all the seemly details. If the person is famous for being a politician, report all the political things they are involved in, but where is the need then to pry into their private life and doings?

Remember West Wing on NBC? There was an episode where a reporter had some salacious information about one of the characters and CJ asked him why he didn’t report it. He replied, “It isn’t news, it’s just gossip.” It was a statement of journalistic ethics that I could get behind. He was not after the cheap shot or interested in seeing someone maimed by lurid rumor, he wanted to report something of substance. I think this level of professionalism is what is needed now. Chief Editors need to look beyond the almighty ratings point and pick up a higher level of journalistic ethics.

We all need to curb our curiosity and know that while we will not know everything about our public figures, we will know the important things about them that would affect their ability to do the job we are “interviewing” them for. I really do not care if Barak Obamas’ preacher is an extremist, is Barak? I don’t care if McCain can’t remember the details regarding Soonies and Shiites and such, the confusion stuck in his head like a bad song, will that actually stop him from doing the job we need him too? I could careless if Clinton has a “gal pal” (as is rumored), this would not prevent her from doing the job or president. However, I might want to know about her total involvement in “White Water” as that may reflect on her decisions and maybe be a point of compromise for her.

Yes, the news may be a bit less interesting, yes that titillation factor would be gone, but at least we would be free of the tasteless minutia that is being reported today.

The first thing I would love to have removed from all candidates talking points is that they would be ready from day one to take over the Presidency.

I know television is not a substitute for reality, but if even the novelized reality as presented in “West Wing” is even fractionally true, there is no way that anyone coming into the role of President is going to be up and running from day one. From what I understand there is no “Presidential Handbook” and each has to learn the role for themselves. Isn’t this why we have the “Presidential Honeymoon” or “First 100 Days” as the President learns the role and grows the cabinet?

When I hear Hilary Clinton say that she will be ready from day one (and remember Bill will not be there, he is not our elected President) and that the terrorists will not attack us because she will be ready from day one, I get scared. No, she will not be ready, and Yes, they will attack us if they get the chance. What deluded notion makes her think she is that special. If anything, the terrorist are going to try to attack hard because in their eyes she will be a weak woman in the highest office.

The office of the President is never the same twice, and the person assuming the office is never prepared for the stress and the routine at the time of assuming the office. We have all seen the interviews with ex-Presidents, to the man they say they were not prepared and to the man the stress changed them.

Please all, let’s accept that the office of the President is not as easy as any other temp job.

“When I am elected I am going to fix the budget, lower taxes, fix the schools, change health care for everyone, raise the minimum wage, deal with the immigration problem and see too it every baby has a lollipop.”

My response… “Yeah, but what are you going to do?”

The devil is in the details isn’t it? But from the above statement (the kind that we hear incessantly during the campaigns) all I get is the same old line and no real details on how any candidate plans to accomplish such goals. In fact when American start to hear the details it strike a chord and draws attention.

It occurred to me that the winning candidate over the last 20 years are the ones that presented details on the plans for change. We hear “Change, change, change” so much but rarely do we hear how change will be accomplished.

Traditionally it has been the republicans giving us the details. In the last campaign is was George Bush’s education details that helped him. He had a vision of what was to happen in Iraq. No other candidate knew what they would do should they become president, all they said was they would bring the troops home and never really considered what that may entail.

So, who should we be looking at in this campaign. Tradition carries the day here and John McCain is the man talking specifics. Ron Paul, for all the “revolution” hype and, let’s face it, lack of personality, is talking specifics. Barack Obama sometimes talks specifics, but he does it so rarely that we forget about that.

So, I am going to keep an eye on the three above and cast my vote for the most unlike of the three (Ron Paul) and watch the fur fly.

You know that occasionally I do get political in my blog, and if you have not figured it out I lean to the Republican side of the ticket. I will seriously consider the Independent and Green Candidate and can happily say that the last elected President I voted for was Ronald Reagan. But this comment comes from the Democratic side of the aisle, and it is the self destruction of Hilary Clinton.

It all started with her lose in Iowa and the sudden rise of Barack Obama. She is now so desperate that her whole tempo and style is thrown out the window. In fact she has appeared tired and weepy and to be honest she appears very un-Presidential. I once thought she may be something in the political world, but one setback seems to have shaken her and shown what she may be like in office. This person we definitely do not need in our highest office when things get tough.

But why did she loose, and why is she tumbling in the polls? Simple, the Independents and Fence Sitters finally realized that Barak was more than just an upstart contended and broke for him. The problem is there are a lot of these Independents and Fence Sitters and they are enough to turn the tide.

Let’s face it though; Iowa and New Hampshire are not the whole country. The problem here is she has now shown a personal strip that really is at odds to being the President. I for one do not want an emotional and confused President when things get rough.

Advice: Buck up Hilary. Take the licks. Stop being an emotional person. Oh, and your coy humor, stop it, it comes across as disingenuous. Believe it or not you still have a chance but get back to where you were before the elections. Start talking about specifics of what you are likely to do if you are elected. Finally, stop using historic figures as comparators to your opponents, you are not good at it and are offending large groups of people.

Sorry Hilary, if I have to vote Democratic I would vote Obama at this point.

“Hey Karl, I here you’re going dove hunting?”
“I sure am Dick, want to come awong?”
“Sure, let me get my shotgun…”

So it was that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney opened dove season in Washington D.C. and set about stalking the “Wild Dem” doves on Capitol Hill…

“Shh, be wary quiet, were huntin’ Dems” said Karl. “Oh but wouldn’t be gwait to bag the biggest dove of all… Owh Gore!”

“I hear he lives under the steps of Capitol Hill. Let’s sneak over there…” suggested Dick.

“OK” said Karl. “Hmm maybe he is behind that tree over there?”

“No, he couldn’t get any support from those branches on the hill.”

“How about behind that big rock over there?”

“I don’t think so, otherwise he’d be hugging it.”

“Well, there is that bush. Could he be behind the bush?”

Karl and Dick look at each other and say, “Nah, he’d never be behind a Bush. Ah ha ha ha ha!”

“Maybe we should go inside for the doves?”

“Good idea Dick… Get weady to open fiwa…”

And as they rounded the door they were greeted by a scene of doves and hawks and set about shooting at just about anything that moved. When the smoke cleared and Karl and Dick went about to see what they had bagged, they found they hit nothing at all.

“Damn…. I forgot the one comedy rule that must apply here…”

“Watt’s that Dick?”

“You can only shoot your friends in the face.”

Ah-beh-ah-beh-ah-beh… That’s all folks!

Timing is everything.

Let’s play the “What if” game.

• What if George Allen had not said “macaca”?
  
  
• What if Dick Chaney had not shot someone?
  
  
• What if George Bush withdrew one third of the forces from Iraq?
  
  
• What if the CIA pulled Osama bin Ladin out of a hole?
  
  
• What if the Troops left after the proclamation of “Mission Accomplished”?
  
  
• What if Donald Rumsfeld resigned one week earlier?
  
  

All the other what if don’t matter, it is the last one that really has to have you shaking your head. All along I said that for the Republican to retain control of the House or Senate one of the following would have to happen: Pull out troops from Iraq, pull bin Ladin out of the hole, or fire Rumsfeld, and the Republican retain the control they want for the next two years. Well, the troops are still in Iraq, and bin Ladin is still in a hole, but Rumsfeld is out, a week too late.

If Rummy wanted to fall on his sword, don’t you think he could have done it seven days earlier? Doing it after the votes are counted, votes that were glaringly obvious from several weeks out, did nothing but make our already bewildered President look even more out of touch than he already is. For these political beasts not to see the eight hundred pound gorilla jumping on the bed of the upcoming election is about a myopic as a teen in puppy love. Well, at least Donald poked his head out from beneath the covers finally, but really, couldn’t he do it seven days earlier? I guess the snooze alarm was too tempting to pass up.

What if he had awoke to the need to retire seven day prior?

• The House would still have gone to the Democrats.
  
  
• The Senate would have remained in the control of the Republicans.
  
  
• The Dems in Congress while subpoenaing everything and everybody in the next year would in the end be ineffective.
  
  
• The troops would be out of Iraq in two years, but now I fear the troops will have to stay the course because our President will feel threatened and have to prove he was right.
  
  

In short, the Dems are going to force Bush into a defensive position. Bush will not want to admit now that his plan and lack of planning was wrong. He is going to want to retain his pride, and for this President pride is everything. Had Rumsfeld left a week earlier, bush would have a split House/Senate and he could “Work it out”. But now, once the investigations start, Bush will retreat to an “is not” position and that will be that.

Donald, you’re a week too late.