Personal Attacks, a Republican Trademark

Weeks after the Republican National Convention that showcased VP candidate Governor Palin, her absence from the news media and her debate with Senator Joe Biden have given the American people a chance to digest what McCain-Palin stand for.  How have the people responded?  They have pushed the Obama-Biden ticket to the top of the polls with Obama-Biden leading in most so called battleground states.

 

So now both McCain and Palin are doing what define Republicans best: personal attacks against their opponent. As I have written before, Republicans can not articulate where they stand on the issues, so they turn to vile personal attacks.  

 

Obama is and will continue to handle the trash talk better than John Kerry did in the 2004 election against his Bush.  Every time McCain-Palin open their mouth the American people get a preview of just how radical they really are.

 

Their personal attacks are a sign of weakness and a inability to be civil at a time when our country and its people face serious problems.  Contrary to their campaign logo, McCain-Palin are not putting America first.  The American people must beware of those who are desperate to win.  

Sarah Palin vs. Joe Biden

Governor Palin brought a smile and a wink to the VP debate, but unfortunately it was no substitute for substance at a time when the American people are looking for real answers to their real problems.  Palin can be folksy all she wants in an attempt to connect with voters, but voters don't want "cute" behavior from their leaders, they want to hear solutions.  

 

On the other hand, Senator Joe Biden answered the questions with substance, knowledge, and a command of the facts.  He also showed civility and respect toward Governor Palin, and in return, to the people who are looking for answers.

 

The day after the debate Republicans said Palin handled herself well.  They also commented how her folksy talk would go over well with the people.  But it was Biden's performance and knowledge that showed he is the one ready to be President should that ever come to pass.  That is what a major part of this election is all about.

John McCain: Not Maverick; Erratic

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Who said this?  When did they say it?  If one was watching the news as of late, the guess could be made that Bill Clinton said this during the 1990s when the economy was prosperous and both Wall Street and Main Street were satisfied. 

But it wasn't Bill Clinton who said this.  And the person who said this wasn't talking about the '90s.  John McCain said the above quote on Monday, September 15, when Lehman Brothers collapsed and the stock market had its worst day since 9/11.  The American economy, ever since that fateful Monday, has been in a steep dive with no end in sight, leading many to believe that a depression is on the way.

Yes, on Monday the "fundamentals of our economy" were "strong", but by Tuesday John McCain reinvented himself as a the modern day Teddy Roosevelt, rallying against the corruption of Wall Street Barons.  

John McCain continued that theme through last week and into this week when talk of a $700 billion bailout plan was proposed by the White House.  John McCain, sensing a political gold mine, decided to suspend his campaign, call off the debate, and fly to Washington to save the day.  

There was, of course, a few issues to be had with the above statement.  For one, is it really fair to say that your campaign is suspended when your television ads are still playing, your campaign personnel are going on cable news 24/7 to attack Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin, your Vice-Presidential pick, is holding campaign rallies across Pennsylvania?  Secondly, why call off the debate?  Isn't a crisis time like this a time when the American people most need to hear from their leaders, especially the two men who could inherit this economic crisis?  More on the calling off of the debate in a minute.  Finally, John McCain was not needed in Washington.  He is not on the Senate Banking committee, the Senate committee negotiating with the White House.  John McCain, putting it bluntly, went to Washington to look pretty.  He accomplished nothing, and, sadly, Congress is now further away from settling on a plan than they were before John McCain came to their rescue. Why are they further behind?  Well, according to several members of the House and Senate, John McCain did what he said he wouldn't: politicize the event and in turn make a bipartisan effort into an extremely partisan one.  

The debate, as we now know, is back on.  No solution has been reached, but John McCain is, as usual, going back on his word.  It's clear to me and should be obvious to all why McCain attempted to postpone the debate.  Just a few hours after making his "I'm not going to the debate" statement, McCain suggested that the Vice-Presidential debate next week should just be replaced by a Presidential one.  How convenient!  Sarah Palin, the least qualified and knowledgeable VP candidate in history, wouldn't have to face tough questions yet again. Thankfully, Barack Obama and Joe Biden stood firm; Friday's debate would go on, with or without John McCain, and the Vice-Presidential debate would be next week no matter the circumstances.  Left with the option of either going back on his word or leaving Obama with one and a half hours of free national exposure, McCain chose the latter.  

So the debate will go on and we'll finally see McCain and Obama face-to-face confronting each other on the crucial issues facing America, but the happenings of the past two weeks surely brings into question McCain's judgment and rationality.  Perhaps even more than the debate, these last two weeks have drawn a clear contrast between Obama and McCain:  Obama is cool under pressure, while McCain acts erratically. 

This Is a Start, But Dems Must Get Tougher

Joe Biden Meets the Press

Senator Joe Biden, Vice Presidential nominee for the Democratic party, appeared on Meet the Press yesterday.  Moderator Tom Brokaw started the program off and showed his Republican colors immediately by talking about the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. 

 

Brokaw then questioned Senator Biden about the surge in Iraq and the full situation there and tried to get Senator Biden to admit the surge was working.  Biden proved to be an expert on foreign affairs and pointed out how Sen. Obama and his original position is turning out to have been the correct one concerning the Iraq War and the surge.  Senator Biden pointed out John McCain had no plan concerning Iraq on withdrawal or how to end the war there.  In short, Biden made Brokaw look like the ill informed reporter he has become.  As a matter of fact, Brokaw had a problem reading his own notes on the questions he wanted to ask --- Tim never had that problem. 

 

Mr. Brokaw then asked about the divisive issue Republicans turn to election after election: abortion.  Senator Biden was sharp as a tact on the issue.  He pointed out his belief and said religion is a private matter and would not try to influence other people belief's on the issue.  Biden also said he does not talk about his religion while campaigning.  The Senator from Delaware made the best response on the issue of abortion I have ever heard from a politician.  To people with common sense and those who wish to return to sanity, it should be the final word concerning abortion. 

 

This was a unfortunately a probable preview of what Tom Brokaw will be like when he moderates one of the Presidential debates.  He will more than likely show his Republican colors there, too.  Hopefully I'm wrong, but after being a journalist for many years, it's a sad fact that Brokaw can not bring himself to be objective.  

Senator Joe Biden: The Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama selected his Vice Presidential running mate, fellow Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, last Saturday.  Senator Biden was this writer's choice during the primaries for the presidential nomination.  Senator Clinton was my second choice.  I based my choice on their experience and their accomplishments.

 

Now the Democratic ticket is set and I believe it is important to the country and its people to elect a Democratic administration in November.  Journalists are already promoting the Republican talking point: how can the Biden pick represent change?  The idea being presented is that he has been in Washington too long.  Anyone who has followed what Senator Biden stands for knows that he does indeed represent change: change with regard foreign policy and change in regard to the economy.

 

Senator Clinton and her husband will do their part in the November elections.  No one knows at this point if the majority of her supporters will back the Obama-Biden ticket.  The voters themselves will have to make that decision and it will be Obama-Biden responsibility to make that case.  Journalists are betting the Clintons will upset the convention and divide the party.  It is part of their on going attempt to discredit the Clintons.  (Anyone who saw Hillary's speech last night or President Clinton's speech just a few moments ago know different.  The Clintons are 100% committed to electing Obama and Biden to the White House.)

 

This week, possibly friday, Senator McCain will announce his running mate.  Then, after both conventions and the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates, the American people will start making their final decision as to who they will vote for come November.  At the present time, 10-12% of voters are still undecided.  Both candidates will try to reach those undecided voters.  The running mates of Obama and McCain might sway some of those undecideds.  We'll have to wait and see who McCain picks, but one thing is sure, whoever it is, he won't be able to match up to Joe Biden, the perfect choice for Vice-President.  

Biden is VP --- But What Now?

Barack Obama made the right choice.  I know what I've said before about potential veeps for Obama, but Biden was the best choice out there.  Biden brings experience, enthusiasm, and possibly most important of all, an absolutely captivating background story.  Obama, in addition to needing someone to bring experience and blue collar workers to the Democratic ticket, needed someone to play the role of the "attack dog".  We all know that the Republicans are going to go after Obama head on, holding nothing back.  Biden is uniquely positioned to hit back on John McCain and to do it with a smile.  I believe that I speak for millions of Americans when I say that I am truly looking forward to seeing Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the White House. 

But now what for Obama?  He's named his VP and the convention is coming up.  But what else can he do to assure voters that he should be the next President of the United States?  I have a suggestion.  Barack Obama should come out and name who his Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General will be.  Not only would it assure some uneasy voters if Obama makes the right picks, but it will also give Obama four more high profile surrogates and campaigners.  Let's look at some suggestions for these four positions:

Secretary of State: If anyone but Biden was named VP, then Biden would have to be the frontrunner for this position.  But since Biden was rightfully named the VP nominee, Bill Richardson has to now be the considered the leading candidate for Secretary of State.  In addition to Richardson's experience in foreign affairs, Richardson, if named by Obama to be his Secretary of State should he win, would be able to almost certainly deliver New Mexico, and possibly Colorado, for the Democrats.

Secretary of Defense: This is yet another position where naming the right person could help Obama immeasurably.  Who would I name?  General Wesley Clark.  Clark, despite the ridiculous attack on him by the media a few months ago, has earned the respect and trust of the American people.  Wes Clark could be yet another surrogate to go talk to white voters uneasy about Obama in Appalachia.  

Secretary of the Treasury and Attorney General: I'm not sure who would be considered a frontrunner for these two positions.  Surely John Edwards was a leading contender for Attorney General before his scandal.  Now, however, I'm not sure.  As far as the Treasury Secretary is concerned, someone like a Mike Bloomberg, who is well versed on economics, could bolster Obama's poll numbers on this election's number one issue. 

Again, why stop at the Vice-President?  Let's show the American voters true transparency by letting them vote not just on the President/VP, but the next administration as a whole.  As I've said, if Obama makes the right choice for cabinet members, he can more easily win this election.  

VP Update

NBC News is now reporting that Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine have been informed that they will not be the Vice-Presidential choice of Barack Obama.  So, on that note, I suppose that you can disregard that previous announcement.  

So I guess that leaves us with Joe Biden or a surprise pick.  We'll just have to wait and see.  

Veepstakes: My Prediction Time

Joseph made his predictions just a few nights ago and now I guess it's my turn: 

I believe Senator McCain will choose former Governor Mitt Romney because of his experience with managing and the economy, something Senator McCain lacks in both the reality and the public mind.

 

I believe Senator Obama will choose Senator Jack Reed.  Senator Reed has military and foreign policy experience which Senator Obama lacks.  

 

My own choice for McCain would be Senator Chuck Hagel or Senator Richard Lugar.  Both have common sense and political and foreign policy experience.  They would bring some sanity to McCain's know-it-all attitude.

 

My own choice for Obama would be General Wesley Clark, Senator Jim Webb, or Senator Hillary Clinton.  I once wanted to see Senator Joe Biden as VP, but now feel that he would be more valuable as Secretary of State in an Obama administration.  Clark and Webb have military experience and although Clinton does not, she has the overall experience to make a difference.

 

If I had to pick a potential surprise, a wildcard if you will, I would go with Senator Lindsay Graham for McCain and Governor Ed Rendell or former Senator Sam Nunn for Obama.

 

Whoever Obama and McCain choose, however, lets just hope the next President does not choose another Dick Cheney type.  Only time will tell.

Veepstakes: Prediction Time

First let's take a look at the Republican side:  Who's most likely to be John McCain's Veep.  Here's my predictions:

#3: Tom Ridge.  That's right, the former Pennsylvania governor is the third most likely man to be chosen as McCain's Vice-Presidential nominee.  Why?  For starters, McCain likes Ridge.  Ridge is probably who McCain would most like to pick.  The only problem, of course, is that Ridge is pro-choice, and McCain has previously said that it is unlikely he would choose a pro-choice running mate.  Still, Ridge could shift Pennsylvania to McCain and hence throw a huge curve ball into the Democrats' plan to regain the White House.  For that reason alone, Ridge has got to be in serious contention.

#2: Tim Pawlenty.  Pawlenty would be a very interesting choice.  Why is he #2?  Again, McCain likes Pawlenty.  Pawlenty was one of the first politicians to endorse McCain during the primaries and McCain has always been good friends with the Minnesota governor.  Add to the mix that Pawlenty could put Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes in to play and Pawlenty is the second most likely pol to be named McCain's number two.

#1: Mitt Romney.  Indeed if I had to place money on it, I'd say McCain has already decided on Romney.  I'm not sure why as Romney doesn't exactly do that much for McCain.  He might put Michigan in to play, but thats about it.  Also, Romney is conventional wisdom.  Everyone in the media expects it to be Romney.  If McCain truly wants announcing his VP to give him some much needed media attention, shouldn't he pick someone that would be a little less expected?  It's not a wise choice by McCain, but then again, McCain hasn't exactly been making wise choices as of late.

As for as the Veepstakes on the Democratic side go, everything is much less clear.  Everyone in the political world has a different opinion.  I'm positive that McCain's VP will be from the above list, and 95% sure it's Romney, but I could be completely off with Obama's list.  But here goes nothing...

#3: Hillary Clinton.  Many people don't think the "dream ticket" has a chance of happening.  I'm very skeptical myself.  But there is a chance.  Obama wants the fundraising prowess of the "Hillraisers" and the only way he's going to get it 100% is to pick Hillary.  In addition to the money issue, Hillary also gives Obama great strength in the "rust-belt" states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and even Michigan.  

#2: Tim Kaine.  Obama wants to win Virginia.  If there's one state Obama is intent on flipping this cycle, it's Virginia and what better way to get a head start than by putting its very popular governor on the ticket?  

#1: Evan Bayh.  One doesn't hear much about Bayh, but I will guarantee Obama is looking at him seriously.  With recent polls showing the race in Indiana, a traditionally Republican state, so close, Bayh could help Obama grab this red state come November.  Add to that Bayh's executive experience as governor of Indiana as well as his foreign policy experience from being in the Senate and Bayh is as good of a pick as any for the Vice-Presidency.  

(In addition to the 3 previous names, I believe that Joe Biden and perhaps even Jack Reed are in contention for the #2 slot.  I don't think either would be particularly great or exciting choices, but I do believe they are on the elusive list.)

Choosing a Vice-President (Democrats)

Well, two of my favorite candidates for Vice-President have already taken their name out of running: Gov. Strickland of Ohio and Sen. Webb of Virginia.  With those two once potential veeps no longer potentials, I'm going to run down those who are considered to be in the top tier of choices as well as those who I think would bring the most to the ticket.

1) Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  No, no, no...and again...no.  I don't know how to be any more clear than that.  Don't get me wrong, I like her.  She's been a great, bi-partisan governor who has helped raise the profile of Democrats in one of the reddest states in America.  With that being said, however, she is boring.  She's not exactly someone who could hold her own in a town-hall meeting or a rally.  She doesn't even come across that great when being interviewed on television.  And the truth is, what more does she bring to the ticket?  Even with Sebelius, Obama is not going to win Kansas.  And it's not exactly like she has appeal in any other states.

2) Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia.  I just don't see Tim as ready for the national spot light yet.  He appears messy on camera and I don't think we've seen enough of him to know if he could be a good campaigner.  Again, a good governor, but not right for Vice-President.

3) Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.  I used to be very high on Judas...I mean...Bill Richardson.  He has everything Obama lacks: executive experience, foreign policy credentials, popularity among Hispanics (although Obama has made great in roads), from a state in a swing region, the Southwest, etc.  But after the betrayal of Sen. Clinton and the bitter taste he left in the mouthes of all her supporters, Sen. Obama would not (or at least, should not) dare put Richardson on the ticket.  If you think Obama has a problem consolidating the support of Hillary's supporters and fundraisers now, just think what it would be like if Richardson was on the ticket.  

4) Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.  The Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Sam Nunn route is the wrong way to go for Obama.  Don't get me wrong, I like Joe Biden, but he adds nothing to the ticket.  Obama is going to win every state in the Northeast and Biden wouldn't help in any other region.  The main consideration for Biden, of course, is his foreign policy experience.  But Biden, along with Dodd and Nunn and all their foreign policy credentials, would be a boring choice.  Barack Obama is a rockstar.  He needs someone who doesn't drag down the ticket. In other words, I just can't picture Obama and Biden standing next to each other.  I can't picture Biden rallying up supporters.  I just don't see it.    

5) Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.  Now here's one of my favorite choices.  Bayh fits the Vice-Presidential checklist to a "T". He has executive experience, he's from a critical swing state, he's a centrist who has proven to have huge appeal to Republicans and independent voters, he's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Select Intelligence Committee and therefore has national security credentials, and plus, he has the look of a President, or in the case, Vice-President.  He's still very young (52) yet has extensive experience.  I like this guy a lot and if Obama doesn't pick my #6, he should take Bayh.  

6) Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.  Plain and simple: Hillary should be Vice-President.  She's earned it.  Hell, she received more votes in the primaries than Barack Obama.  Plus, she ensures party unity, which seems to be on a rocky roadat the moment (with polls still showing as much as 35% of Hillary supporters backing McCain or not voting at all).  More importantly however, Hillary has strong pull in swing states.  As Chris Matthews wisely pointed out a week ago, Barack Obama might want to expand the map, which is all well and good, but all he has to do to win the White House is hold Kerry's states and win Ohio. And, to continue what Matthews said, Obama can win Ohio today by picking Hillary as VP.  In addition to Ohio, Clinton also helps Obama expand his map by making states such as Arkansas and even Kentucky and Tennessee more competitive.  And if basically guaranteeing Obama the White House wasn't enough of a reason to pick Hillary as VP, she also brings her foreign policy experience and her ability to connect with working class "Reagan Democrats" in a way few politicians ever have.  

Barack Obama; Food for Thought

Obama says over and over again on the campaign trail and in the debates that the problem is Washington.  Does that mean he himself is the problem?  After all, he serves in Congress and should he be the Democratic nominee, and win the White House, he would surely want four more years in Washington.

 

The problem is actually not Washington but the elected officials themselves, including Obama.  Mr. Obama certainly has not distinguished himself with any major legislation he has sponsored or passed and in fact has been rather silent until he decided to run for the nomination.  Can anyone really remember any thing Obama has done since being elected to the Senate?  Every candidate should have to face that test; Obama has yet to.

 

Why is the news media pushing Senator Obama?  Like Bush in 2000, Obama is the least experienced candidate in the race.  If a lack of experience impresses the American voter, then why not Ralph Nader?  He has no political record or political experience, but a pretty good record on standing for the changes some seem to want.

 

If the people really want good government, how can people like Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd get only 1 or 2% of the vote?  Those two senators are capable leaders.  I have said before that the people have a right to choose and I would not want it any other way.  However, there is a disconnect somewhere.  Voters think it is in our best interest that our leaders should talk to the leaders of other countries even though we may not like them, yet they hesitate to vote for some candidates just because they are disliked.

 

The voting public needs to think this thing through.  Obama, during the last debate, said it was more important to inspire people than talking about policy or the issues.  Am I the only one who heard that statement?  Being an American and having the opportunity to vote is what inspires me.  I remember President Kennedy well and how he inspired the people, but he spoke to the issues and informed the people on what he would do if elected President.  He thought the people had a right to know.  He did not run and win just because he was inspirational.  Besides that, he had more experience than Obama does at that stage.  Kennedy was also well versed on the issues and he beat a sitting Vice-President.

 

My first choice to be the Democratic nominee when this process started was Senator Joe Biden.  I still wish he was in the running.  Now we are down to just two: Senators Clinton and Obama.  I thought Joe Biden had the most and best experience to handle the problems the country will face when Bush leaves office, and I still feel that way.

 

So now my choice is between Clinton and Obama and it goes to Clinton.  Both candidates have pluses and minuses, but I believe Clinton has more plusses, more experience on the problems this country faces, and has been more candid as to what policies she would follow if elected President.  She is the candidate more likely to make the changes necessary to advance America and its people.  I have no doubt that if she is the Democratic nominee, she will beat John McCain in the general election in November; I can't say the same about Obama. 

Demand The Truth: Ask Sen. Biden To Hold Hearings

One of the first things I thought of when the NIE Iran report was released a few days ago, was that I hoped Congress would get to the bottom of this. Well this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, both Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, two Republican conservatives, called for Sen. Joseph Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to hold hearings to get to the bottom of what the administration knew and when they knew it. While I normally disagree with much of what Scarborough and Buchanan say, they were right on the mark with these statements.

So I call on you to follow me and others in sending Sen. Biden a message via his email: we want the truth to be known and we would greatly appreciate it if you hold hearings in your committee to get to the bottom of this.

Please email Sen. Biden at Joe@JoeBiden.com and ask that he becomes a leader on this issue and takes action.

Troops Surge, But Still No Political Progress

Every reason George Bush gave the American people for going to war in Iraq either never happened or was wrong.  Misleading America is the one thing Bush will be remembered for.

Almost one year ago Bush ordered a surge in troops in Iraq.  His stated purpose, he told America, was to reduce the violence so that the Iraqi government would make the needed reforms to unify their country.  Well, as of right now, the Iraqi's have achieved very little, if any, of that unity.  American's and Iraqi's are still being killed in a civil war and it is now reported the Bush administration has lowered its political expectations in Iraq to a few limited goals.  This is just one more blunder and policy failure added to the many other ones. 

 

As of this very moment, our military and civilian leaders say our military can't change Iraq's need for political settlement.  Senator Joe Biden has been saying that for over 3 years.  Al Sidar, one of the Shiite's militant leaders, ordered his army to stand down for 6 months and they have done so.  However, even with the stand down of the militants, the Iraqi government can not reconcile its political differences.

 

It is past time Mr. Bush realize what other countries have already figured out.  It is time to bring our brave men and women in uniform home.  This war over WMD that did not exist was won before it even started.  Mr. Bush just did not have the wisdom to understand that because he and his neocon friends wanted to play God in the Middle East and now America and its people are paying the price.  

Pakistan: Friend or Foe?

President Pervez Musharraf came to power in 1999 in a military coup.  As of this writing he is not only President but Chief of Staff of the Army.

On Sunday, Musharraf seized emergency power in Pakistan and abandoned the constitution.  This is the kind of unstable government the U.S. is dealing with in the fight against terror.  Senator Joe Biden said Sunday on Face the Nation that the problem is that Bush has a policy for Musharraf but not for Pakistan, a country who has WMD but is not signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.  In other words they don't have to yield to inspection of their nuclear facilities.

 

Why does the most powerful military and economic country in the world get mixed up with these kinds of people in the name of fighting terror?  Bush took our country to war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist and then made a pack with the likes of Musharraf who does has WMD.  Radicals could overthrow the government and take over their weapons at any time.  The Army itself could even turn on Musharraf and do the same thing.

 

Senator Biden also pointed out that we need a foreign policy for that whole region because the problems are all related.  Sadly, this administration has not dealt with the Middle East situation properly.  The tragic events of 9-11 happened over 6 years ago, the war in Iraq is deep into its fourth year, the Israeli and Palestinian conflict has not been addressed, and this administration still has no foreign policy for the region.  So called "tough talk" is not a policy and has yet to solve the problems.  The envelope is being pushed to the next President.  What a sad situation for our country to be in.

Biden: Petraeus is "Dead flat wrong"

Sen. Joe Biden, a democratic presidential contender and the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has just returned home from a visit to Iraq and appeared on NBC's Meet the Press to give us his take on the situation:

"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence...This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave...I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out."

When asked about the upcoming questioning of Gen. David Petraeus, Biden stated:

"I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong."

Biden stressed what I and many others have been saying, "there is no military solution." He said that while Petraeus is not going to directly lie in his report, he, as the President, will miss the point. Biden stressed that the only way to get a handle on the chaos in Iraq is to focus on a political solution by creating more local control.

Former presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator, John Kerry, made an appearance on ABC's This Week and gave us his assessment of the Iraq War:

"The problem is, if you don't have a deadline and you don't require something of the Iraqis, they're simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month...I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them, but none of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress — we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate."

I agree with what both men said, this war can not be won militarily. We've seen it for the past 5 years, the military secures an area by force, but 30 minutes after they move on to another area, that area is back to the way it was before the military intervened. We can't keep our troops there forever and its foolish to put our troops in harm's way just so a small section of Iraq can be safe for a half an hour. There must be a long term solution. There is a civil war in Iraq, between the Sunnis, the Shiites, and to some extent, the Kurds. Reconciliation between the three warring factions is the only answer to the situation. I hope Democrats in Congress are able to persuade enough Republicans to jump ship, so this war can be brought to a SAFE end. Cutting off the money for the troops is not the answer, as it would just cause more unnecessary deaths. Congress needs 67 votes, that is the only way to end this war until 2008, when hopefully, a Democrat will win the White House.

The Democratic Candidates' major flaws

There are currently eight democrats with the hope of winning the 2008 Presidential Election. All eight have some great upsides and major pluses, but they also have some key flaws. These key flaws are what divides democrat's on who their nominee should be; there is no "perfect" or ideal candidate.

1. Hillary Clinton- Hillary's major flaw is her image. A lot of people picture Clinton as a cold, stiff person. In other words her appeal and favorability is believed to be limited and democrats don't want to go into a general election with a losing candidate again.

2. Barack Obama- Obama's main issue that he will have to overcome is his experience..or lack there of. With having only spent two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama is still seen as a rookie. The fact that he has had numerous slips and mess-ups in the debates, further speculation as to whether or not Obama is ready to run a general election campaign and ultimately run this country.

3. John Edwards- Edwards has become the populist candidate. He has taken a sharp turn to the left and is appearing to be more and more liberal each day. This might have appeal to the far-left faction of the democratic party, but to moderate democrats and the American people, Edwards is seen as just a little to "out there".

4. Bill Richardson- Bill's huge issue is getting a point across. He has performed horribly in the debates and whenever he makes a speech, he fails to get his message out there. In this day and age, ability to deliver a speech is a key asset needed to reach out and appeal to people. Richardson's inability to reach out to an audience greatly hurts him as people don't get to see Richardson's views adequately expressed.

5. Joe Biden- Joe Biden is the angry candidate. When you see him in the debates, he always seems angry. While a little force in your voice can be a plus, Joe takes it a little to far. His passion comes off as anger, and instead of people listening to what Biden is actually saying, all people hear is enraged yelling.

6. Chris Dodd- Chris has the exact opposite problem that Biden has. Dodd comes off as too sub-dued. His passion for this country fails to come out in his speeches and his debate performances are forgettable.

7. Dennis Kucinich- Dennis has very little appeal to main-stream democrats. He is by far the most far-left candidate in the race. He is the democrat who would do the worst in a general election, as his message just doesn't resinate with the majority of the American people.

8. Mike Gravel- The question for this guy is, "where were you the last 30 years?" In fact my favorite interview of this campaign came when Chris Matthews asked Gravel that exact same question and Gravel responded, "under a rock!" (get it, gravel..rock) Another major issue for Gravel is his over all wackiness. Its not something you can pin-point, the man just comes off as crazy.

There you have it, what I think are the flaws of the democratic candidates. None are the perfect candidate, but then again there has never been a perfect candidate, but I feel confident that one of those people in that list will be our next president.

Be sure to check out my blog on the flaws of the GOP candidates as well.

Biden on Obama

Joseph Biden, of whom I have a great deal of respect, opened up in the most recent edition of Newsweek. He answered some tough questions about his past personal struggles; no doubt this guy is a fighter. But the most interesting part of the Newsweek interview came when the Delaware Senator was asked about Illinois Senator and fellow presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Biden was asked if he saw a similarity between his 1988 bid for the White House, and Obama's campaign today:

"There are definitely similarities. One thing is, I’m waging the same campaign today, but it’s a lot harder to wage it when you are over 60 than when you are in your mid-40s. You are granted, when you’re young, an enthusiasm. You’re granted a sense of idealism, but you are also perceived as not being quite ready. And he suffers from that perception, as I did. I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. It’s awful hard, with only a little bit of experience to have a clear sense of what you would do on the most critical issues facing us today: what to do about promoting America’s place in the world. It is not something that lends itself to—the trite phrase is—it’s not something that lends itself to on-the-job training. You have to have a clear notion of what you want to do. When power is handed off from George Bush to the next president, the next president will be left with virtually no margin for error."

I do wish Biden would get more media coverage as this guy is one of the best candidates in the race. I hate to pick on Obama twice in one day, trust me it wasn't purposeful, but Biden is absolutely correct. People are for some reason willing to make an even exchange: experience for change. People see Obama as the change candidate and throw his lack of experience out the window. But why can't change and experience co-exist? I think we can all agree any democratic president would be a drastic change from the Bush-Cheney dynasty. With only two years in the Congress, is Obama ready? This guy has a lot left to learn, but I do believe that Obama, one day, will be the first African-American President. I just hope it happens when he is ready to take on the responsibility of being president. And it takes a lot more than just two years in the Senate to be ready for a job as big as being the President of the United States.

The Biden Auditions---our next Secretary of State?

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware is one of the most experienced men running for the presidency. Yet just like Richardson and Dodd, his years of experience has not yet helped in the polls. Yet unlike Dodd and Richardson, the Delaware Senator for 34 years is a great performer in the debates. He has that forcefulness and passion that Dodd and especially Richardson lack. Yet have you noticed what I've seen?

Joe Biden is auditioning to Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, much like he did in the 2004 election. Why do I say that? Well in the first debate Biden backed Hillary Clinton, saying that the Republicans are sadly mistaken if they believe she would be easy to defeat. He has said kind words about Senator Clinton in every single interview I've seen him give. And he loves to tout the fact that he is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But in fact, I must say, whether Biden auditioned are not, he has to be at the top of any and every democrat's list for Secretary of State. That position is becoming increasingly important with the conflicts in the Middle East. Joe Biden has great knowledge of foreign relations and his forcefull and "say it as it is" attitude is exactly what America needs right now.

Who else would I consider for the job? Not Obama thats for sure....but anyway:

-I truly like Barbara Boxer. I've heard her speak several times, and every time she speaks she demonstrates her foreign relations experience. She is the chairwoman on the Senate Foreign relations sub-committee for Asian affairs as well as being member on the sub-committee for terrorism and the Peace Corps. She too has been a long time Senator for 14 years now.

-Bill Richardson has a mighty impressive resume. What qualifies him most for Secretary of State is the fact that he was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Not to mention he has successfully negotiated with Saddam Hussein, Castro, and Kim Jong-il for the release of American prisoners. He was also involved in foreign relations while in Congress for 14 years.