Endorsement: Obama

Obama-Clinton. Clinton-Obama. What's a Democrat to do? On the one hand, Hilary Clinton has a grasp of policy and politics rivaled by none (excepting, perhaps her husband.) On the other hand, Barack Obama presents the country with a chance for real change. Obama's electable. Hilary has high disapproval ratings. Obama lacks experience. Absent some fast-track genetic manipulation, there is no clear answer to the question.

I've lined up with the Obama movement for several reasons. First off, I think he can win. Convictions, expertise and loyalty are great, but if it all leads to defeat, it begs the question of their value. In a race between Clinton and McCain, McCain will be able to present himself as more experienced, more likeable, a break from the past (neither a Bush nor a Clinton) and male. That's right, male. Despite the nation's determination to embrace the notion of women in positions of power, the reality of a female Commander-in-Chief of the world's largest military doesn't pass muster with a large segment of the population. Hilary comes across has having all the negative qualities of a strong woman (domineering, vindictive, sharp-tounged) but few from the positive side of the register (protective, loyal, supportive.) In the end, the American people will choose McCain over Clinton.

Also near the top of my list of reasons is the sense that Barack Obama truly presents a chance for change. I'll grant that it's all a bit murky and that the change might be more superficial than substantive. Nevertheless, this country needs something new. I'm willing to take a chance on Obama. He's smart, compassionate, not a son of privilege, and a compelling orator. I see shades of Ich bin ein Berliner when I hear him speak. It's a shame that he'll have to rebuild our ties with the civilized world, but I believe he's up to the task.

Anyway, it'll all get solved one way or the other in November. At least this time around the opposition is someone with whom I can honestly disagree but not fear. That's already a change for the better.

Iraq Funding Showdown: False Arguments Abound

The looming showdown over the funding of U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is dragging into the light of day some time-tested, specious arguments about how the relationship bewteen the legislative and executive branches is constructed.

The President continues to state that Congress ought to just send him a "bill I can sign." Come again? The responsibility of the United States Congress is to draft legislation that is responsive to their constituents wishes without regard for the President's preference. If Congress were to tailor its legislation to reflect the desires of the President rather than those of the citizenry, I fail to see the continuing need for a legislative branch. The balance of powers is intended to place checks upon the various branches of our government. There is no check if the legislative branch only sends bills that the President desires.

Another false premise that is being offered to the American public as fact is that a stated, planned withdrawal of troops allows our enemies (whoever they may be) to "mark their calendars and plan their takeover" accordingly. The insurgents ARE simply waiting until we leave to make their move -- this is true whether they know exactly when we are leaving or not. The fact that a timetable would make the date of our withdrawal public changes this fact not one iota. What does change once a timetable is introduced, is the amount of pressure exerted upon the Iraqi government and other interested parties (Arab regimes, NGO's, etc.) to get their ducks in a row. Without a timetable for withdrawal, America is left holding the bag for this quagmire indefinitely and earning all the international hatred that comes with being an uninvited occupying force. A lack of a timetable also further erodes domestic support and puts additional strain upon our troops.

Finally, Vice President Cheney dragged out the tired, old argument today that by sending an "unacceptable" bill to the President, the Congress is underrmining the troops. Our Constitution demands that the Congress spend money in accordance with the wishes of the American people. That is what they are doing. If the President vetoes the bill -- as is certainly his right -- then it is he who is responsible for whatever fallout may occur. If the President wants a different bill, then it is incumbent upon him to work to change the wishes of the American people. Failing that, he can either sign the legislation or, standing on principle, veto it. In either case, it is the President who must bear the ultimate responsibility.

Oh yeah, and by the way, unless the plan is to remain in Iraq forever, then how is planning our departure a failure?

Let's just hope that the American people have the insight and information to see through this shell game and remember the basic civics that they were taught in school. Too bad the President seems to have forgotten.