stupid Krauthammer

so i just read this article in the post. Mr Krauthammer not only has a funny name, but also has a problem with the assertion that McCain wants to occupy Iraq for a century.

McCain never clarified hos position. Look at the quotes the he provides.

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

the thing is that Americans are being killed and wounded on a daily basis. another thing is that we were allies from the beginning with South Korea, and Japan submitted and accepted our presence. Iraq neither wanted us there to begin with and isnt submitting in any way. i dont see how you can claim that we will stay in Iraq for any time and expect that no harm will come to our troops.

Krauthammer attacks the Democrats for making the jump from a presence to a war, but with the previous thoughts in mind, its more of a baby step than a jump. and if McCain was thinking something else, wouldnt he have called out Obama and Clinton for distorting his words? has he?

the title of the article is "A Rank Falsehood." what Obama and Clinton claim about McCain is not a falsehood at all. its an interpretation given the statement and the conditions in Iraq. the falsehood is the idea that American troops can remain in Iraq without being harmed. its just not a viable idea. im not saying that some, perhaps many, want us there, and need us there. but there is no way we can stay without casualties. there are enough people there who hate us for being there. who will stop at nothing to make us leave, and it is naive to think that our soldiers could remain there without a threat to their safety. Iraq is not Japan. Iraq is not South Korea.

perhaps this is a misunderstanding. but if McCain misunderstands the situation should he really be president? but i am fairly sure that McCain does understand, which is why you havent heard him decry with the Democrats are saying. but that doesnt stop people like Krauthammer from defending an untenable position. and since McCain hasnt corrected Clinton and Obama, then it must not be that far from the truth. keep that in mind as you choose who to vote for.

im with the black guy.

as i start to write this i wonder what form it will take. im overwhelmed by Barack Obama's speech. i wasnt able to watch it yesterday, but i just finished reading the transcript. its overwhelming it its honesty, its hope, and its attitude. i dont think that i can do it much justice by adding it, but i do want to elaborate on some of what i was impressed with.

the speech was sparked, as im sure youre aware, but some inflammatory remarks made by Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Obama could have handled this in a number of ways. he could have turned his back on a man who has helped define him. he could have turned his back on the church that brought him into the Christian fold. he could have attacked those who attacked him for being divisive. he could have attacked them for judging something that they dont understand. but what makes Obama's reactions great is that he rose above it all.

he turned it all around. he denounced the words, but accepted the man. he exercised something that many supposed Christians have forgotten: forgiving. no one is perfect, everyone has flaws. but you dont stop loving your mother or brother for saying something that you dont agree with. you forgive them, then try to open their eyes.

just like any person in America, the United States is not perfect. but rather than stoop and cut down the people and the problem as Rev. Wright did, Obama acknowledged it and vowed to work on it. he used the phrase "more perfect union" a number of times. the point is that we are not perfect now, nor have ever been. and we may never be. but the idea is to always strive to be, and to grow in that vein.

what makes this speech, and Obama, so great is the unyielding hope and tenacity to cling to those thoughts and ideas that will make this country better, and his unwillingness to let issues dictate his path. his path is set. he is walking the path to make America more perfect. the issues that block this path are obstacles to hurdle. not road signs to another future. everything points to hope.

he wont let his campaign or himself be defined by a single, or even a few issues. he is defined by his overriding push towards a better future for America. it is because of this drive, this hope, this unwillingness to be stopped or derailed by attacks and issues, that i think he is best for the job of President of the United States of America. he does not have all the answers, but he has the intellect and the mindset to absorb the issues that trouble our nation, to seek advice, to think through a solution, and lead this country into a better future.

at this point i cannot see myself casting a ballot for any person other than Obama come November. it would be tragic if he loses the nomination of his party. Hilary may be able to win the White House, but in the process many young Americans will feel disenfranchised with the process. and i feel that Hilary is not as well suited to lead America.

the worst thing that could happen is that Obama loses the nomination, and that as a result the Democratic party is unable to rally behind Hilary, and McCain wins a back door victory built on the rubble of a crumbling Democratic party.

Barack Obama is not perfect. but he is more perfect, and he is everyday striving to be yet more perfect. thats what we need in a president. someone flexible and open minded who can act in the best interest of our nation, not based on preconceived notions, fear, popularity, or money.

youll vote for whomever you like. i just hope that your decision is not defined by a single issue, or by party lines, or by who you'd like to have a beer with. i hope youll take into account all the facets of the person and the country and world that they will be leading. choose wisely America. choose wisely.

13% of Americans think that Barack Obama is Muslim. i found this out when i was watching the news and eating my breakfast this morning. the bit started out with them interviewing random people on the streets of NYC to see what they would say. and at first, i felt a bit embarrassed as i wasnt sure, but i thought he was Christian, which, in fact, he is.

then i realized something. if i cared i would have known, im sure of that. so then i felt pretty happy realizing that the major candidate that i like best could have been a Muslim and i didnt care. he could be Jewish or an atheist, it really doesnt matter to me.

it was one of those realizations that you have to step outside yourself a bit to make. whether Senator Obama practices Christianity or Islam doesnt matter to me, and i really only realized when the news made a point about the perceptions of the public, and somewhat covertly about how believing that Obama was not Christian would affect their vote. im very happy that i can see past this and be able to look issues that really should matter when selecting a candidate.

this reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded Keith Ellison in his choice to use the Qur'an to be sworn into office as the first Muslim US congressman. there was a call for him to use the Bible, which makes no sense to me. the oath of office is taken over a holy book in order to promise to not just your constituents, but also to your deepest faith, to take your position seriously and abide by your values that got you elected and to honor your promises. having a Muslim take such an oath over the Bible is like a Christian saying "by Allah, i swear i will do my best." it means nothing. (check out the un-bias in this article)

the point here is that too much is made of things that really shouldnt be of great importance. have you heard anything of Keith Ellison since he was sworn into office? has he tried to topple our government from the inside? it really doesnt matter, and it doesnt matter that Obama has a Muslim father. it doesnt matter that Obama is in fact Christian. what matters is what he stands for.

i also find it interesting that the religious right attacks his links to Islam through his father and step father, they also take the opportunity to attack his connections to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright has come to light lately and his sermons have been all over youtube. Obama has tried to distance himself from the man who baptized his children and married he and his wife, Michelle. its hard to ignore this connection. i dont see it as a liability, but many could. i like Ralph Nader, but i wholly disagree with some things he says. i like Rolling Stone magazine, but i think the lean a little too far left and sometimes go too far in endorsing and denouncing candidates. the point is that Wright probably helped Obama by encouraging his early political activism in Chicago, but that doesnt meant that Obama stands for all that Wright does. just like Obama's enrollment in a Muslim school does not mean he is in fact Muslim.

the important thing here is not what religion Obama is. its not who Obama is associated with, or whose sermons he has heard. the important thing is to look at the candidates yourself. to see who they are through your own eyes. dont let media spin make your decisions. dont let me make your decisions. take it all in, do your own research, and decide for yourself. then cast your vote for the person who you think will do best on the job.

i think that Obama's exposure to Islam and Christianity alike make him the best suited of all candidates to understand and better the situation in the middle east. he has already made trips to Iraq, Israel, and Syria. i think that he above the other candidates is best suited for diplomacy in that troubled region of the world. but its no up to me. its up to you and me.

Ralph -a- Nader

if you have your head above the sand, youve heard by now that Ralph Nader has thrown his name into the race. while he, and most reasonable people, realize that he will not be president, he is sure to bring attention to some issues that the other candidates would not address. and this why he is important. hes the guy you can count on to say what he thinks, not what is politically popular, and in most cases, look out for the every day american. and whether his proposed policies would in fact help us is debatable, he will force the other candidates to address issues that they havent to this point.

i think that a candidate like him is essential in that he doesnt pander to anyone. he addresses the issues that he sees relevant and necessary. and he comes up with a solution that he thinks will work, not one that sounds good in sound bites. and by doing this he brings up the point that the answer in life is rarely a choice between a or b, but is a spectrum of choices and paths. it becomes a choice between 2 courses because of our political system that favors two parties over a number of them. as a result we receive only two possible spins on the situation. during election years sometimes, as this one, a party has two nearly even front runners who have differing plans, but frequently theres one from the GOP and one from the democrats, and only third parties bring attention to other possibilities and issues.

the down side, at least in the case the democrats say, is that he will be 'taking' votes from their candidate. they go as far as to say that in 2000 it was Nader's fault that Gore didnt win the presidency. i think its pretty much common knowledge that there were other forces at play in that election. and the fact that 4% of the popular vote went to Nader that year shows that a large number of people rallied behind what he said. perhaps if Gore had addressed these issues he would have taken some or all of those votes. i think it is silly to blame a candidate for 'taking' votes. you have to earn them. no one can take them.

Nader probably wouldnt run if he thought another major party candidate covered the issues. but he does run. he provokes thought in americans which is something we desperately need in large part. i hope he keeps running and long as he feels like he needs to. i dont know how much longer he will go on with it, but hopefully he or someone else will continue to raise awareness, provoke thought, and challenge the established parties.