A Response to The Caterpillar's "American Political Ignorance"

I must agree with The Caterpillar and his piece entitled "American Political Ignorance." Each day, I am confronted by people who still believe that Saddam Hussein was somehow responsible for 9/11, Global Warming is a myth, and the number one problem facing America today is gays wanting the right to marry.

Yet bad as that is, the people who upset me the most are those who simply don't care enough to inform themselves.

When I come across such a politically ambivalent soul, I am beset by a surge of rage--how can anyone purposely avoid information that affects their daily life?

Today, my rage was--at least temporarily--subdued by one of my students. This student--who is not a U.S. citizen and cannot vote, who is still in high school, and who struggles daily with her English--listens to NPR and laments the fact that her English is not yet strong enough to tackle The New York Times Op/Ed section. She apologizes for not being well informed about the nation's political landscape and feels that her "ignorance" is lamentable. In fact, she even apologized for voicing an opinion because she felt that she did not know enough to have the right to offer her point of view. My response? "This is your country, now--you live here. Never apologize for exercising your First Amendment rights."

This sparked a brief lesson on the Bill of Rights, to which the student was admirably receptive. Rather than tuning out, as most American students would, she was engaged and an active participant in the impromptu civics lesson.

If only all Americans could be as interested, engaged, and absorbed as this non-American student is. If only Americans would sit up and realize that this country can be great again--if only Americans would make it great again.

Ten Reasons Palin Should Not Be Allowed Within Ten Yards of the Oval Office

*Please note: This post is intended as a joke. It does not represent the actual views of the author or of The Cheshire Smile.*

1. She referred to herself as a Pit Bull wearing lipstick. Because that's what I want leading the country.

2. The First Dude. At least Bill Clinton would have ended up with a more sophisticated nickname.

3. Judging by her convention speech, she is incapable of speaking without sarcasm. Sarcasm may not be the best method of convincing the Iranians to give up on their nukes...

4. She believes that the war was "God's will". Perhaps it's just me, but I think the rationale for foreign policy decisions should be a little more...down to Earth.

5. I'd rather the White House Lawn not be covered in fake snow to satisfy the First Dude's snow race needs.

6. With Tag under her desk, where would she stash her new grandchild while Bristol goes to school?

7. Whatever else you might say about Hillary Clinton (and I am certainly not her biggest fan), at least she didn't sport a beehive. The fifties called...They want their hair back.

8. Heart really did call...They want their song back. (Seriously: The band Heart wants Sarah Palin to stop using the song "Barracuda" as her anthem!)

9. Who names their children Track, Bristol, and Tag? Piper and Willow are bad enough, but Track? Really?

10. Hockey mom is a stupid term referring to a nonexistent demographic. Stop saying it!

A (Relatively) Unbiased Breakdown of Palin and McCain's Speeches

For the second week in a row, we have been treated to the most concentrated political posturing of the election. By far the most interesting moments of the Republican National Convention were the speeches of Governor Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain. As the only two speakers actually on the ticket, their voices are the most important.

First, please indulge me while I vent my left-wing bias by sharing my personal opinion of the speeches.

Like Barack Obama before him, John McCain took the safe road when delivering his speech. He shied away from going into detail about any actual issues and kept the speech focused on fluff. There were the typical “We Believe” moments, the typical call for change, and the typical anecdotes about the hardships facing “real” Americans. As speechifying has never been McCain’s strong suit, I was not surprised by its brevity or its lack of substance. (On a brief side note, why do politicians feel the need to tell us of the plight of “real” Americans? As “real” Americans, shouldn’t we already be familiar with the problems we face?)

Miss Congeniality’s speech provoked a much deeper response, not only in my Democrat heart but also in the souls of most pundits and “real folk”. Though I give her credit for her speaking abilities, I find I must denounce her tactics. While both Messrs. Obama and Biden were defending Miss Congeniality and her family, the gun-toting beauty queen was busy aiming her sniper at Obama. Her speech was anything but dry: it was funny and sharp. However, I find that her humor would be better suited to Jay Leno’s show than to the Republican National Convention. Her attempts to show knowledge of foreign policy were almost laughable--as Jon Stewart commented, anyone can use Wikipedia. Congratulations, Miss Congeniality, you managed to memorize a bunch of factoids and statistics and regurgitate them to the nation.

Having dispensed with my “angry leftist” rant, allow me to continue with my attempt at a less biased analysis of the speeches.

The thing that I found most thought provoking regarding the two speeches was the methods that the speakers used when discussing the opposition. McCain, showing tact, grace, and wisdom, chose to keep his somewhat mild attacks isolated to attacks on the issues. Palin, on the other hand, showed that she truly is a Pit Bull wearing lipstick--her attacks were far more personal, and they were neither professional nor tactful.

A list of Ms. Palin’s more personal attacks on Mr. Obama:

“I guess a small-town mayor is kind of like being a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.”

According to Wikipedia (look, I can use it, too!), community organizing is the foundation of the civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, labor rights, and the 40 hour workweek. To cite a somewhat more credible source, here is what Obama actually did: He was hired by a group of churches to help the parishioners who had been laid off when the local steel mills closed. He helped to find them housing and job training, working with the local government to get the necessary services. Could someone please explain why this work is worthy of ridicule?

Lest someone ask why a community organizer ought to be above ridicule when a small town mayor is not, please keep in mind that Mr. Obama is not claiming that his position as community organizer provided him with the bulk of his political experience. On the other hand, Ms. Palin claims her position of mayor of Mayberry as the majority of her experience.

“But listening to [Obama] speak, its easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform--not even in the state senate.”

Evidently, while Ms. Palin is adept at Wikipedia, she has forgotten to visit the Senate’s web page to view Mr. Obama’s record. For a more condensed version of Mr. Obama’s impressive legislation authorship, visit Democratic Underground. I also highly recommend visiting The Atlantic’s Daily Dish.

A summary of these sources: Mr. Obama authored or co-sponsored 820 laws in Illinois and over 575 bills in the U.S. Senate. By the way, one of these bills was the 2007 Ethics Reform Bill--the specific type of legislation Ms. Palin was talking about.

“This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word ‘victory’ except when he’s talking about his own campaign.”

Unlike Ms. Palin, Mr. Obama does not feel that it was “God’s will” that we invade Iraq. He was against the war from the start--which, at least to my mind, shows a great deal of foreign policy intuition if not experience.

However, leaving my anti-war views aside, what exactly would “victory” in Iraq mean? Because the truth of the matter is that this never-ending war does not have a clear-cut goal. At this point, I think the best that can be hoped for is that Iraq will not immediately dissolve into bloody civil war the moment our last surge of troops leaves. At least his campaign has a chance for victory--the war does not.

“When the stadium lights go out and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot…”

There is not an unbiased, intelligent, rational response to this kind of comment. I hope it was meant as a joke. If so, it was in poor taste. There is a time and a place for such humor, but a national convention is not it. If it was meant to be taken seriously, then I am afraid. Has American politics really come down to one party making fun of another party’s décor?

“What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet?”

I would think that healing the planet would be accomplishment enough for one term as President. But in case that isn’t enough, then allow me to direct Ms. Palin--and anyone else who has questions regarding Mr. Obama’s plans--to his web site. In a comparison between the sites of the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign, one provides incredible details regarding almost all of the candidate’s policy initiatives…and Mr. McCain’s does not.

In fact, on the issue of education alone, Mr. Obama’s plans cover roughly 15 pages of information. Mr. McCain’s provides about a paragraph.

More importantly, as noted above, this kind of sarcastic character attack does not have a place in an arena intended for intelligent political discourse.

To her credit, Ms. Palin does attempt to attack Mr. Obama on the actual issues. I say “attempt” because she got half her facts wrong again. That, however, is for another post.

Now contrast this with Mr. McCain’s comments about Mr. Obama:

Finally, a word to Senator Obama and his supporters.

We'll go at it over the next two months. That's the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us.

But you have my respect and admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us.

We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other.

We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.

No country ever had a greater cause than that, and I wouldn't be an American worthy of the name if I didn't honor Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement.

Though Mr. McCain does follow this up with a critique of Mr. Obama’s stance on the issues (and though it is equally flawed as Ms. Palin’s issue based attacks), my respect for McCain has grown based on this one small snippet. This is the kind of discourse I hope to hear in the upcoming months--honesty, a recognition of the candidates’ differences, and a show of respect for one’s opponent.

Congratulations, Ms. Palin: You’ve won my scorn.

Congratulations, Mr. McCain: You’ve earned back some of my respect. Keep up the good work.

American Political Ignorance and the Privilege To Vote.

Houston, we have a problem.

For just a minute let's throw aside the mud slinging, the back stabbing and the deafening cacophony of this political static shall we? I'd very much like to get back to the foundations of what this great country was built on...the constituency. We hear much about how the candidates are truly going to represent the people this time around or how they will give us the change we want. I firmly believe that the central and most fundamental issue with all of this is that the average American citizen has no idea what they truly want, how to get it, nevertheless which candidate will take them there. This political ignorance is maddening, and it must stop.

Quite a few surveys have been done on this issue. One of the most thorough and long running has been by the people at www.people-press.org. I'd like to point out some of their frankly frightening findings. Only 21% of American adults can identify who the current Secretary of Defense OR the Vice President is. Good lord, they only had to get one answer right. A mere 37% of adults can use their masterful skills of deduction to come to the conclusion that Chief Justice John Roberts is a conservative. And more people can identify who Peyton Manning is than Barack Obama (just when I thought he had reached true movie star status). And this was just the beginning, let's not even go down the road of how the political system actually works.

I don't reveal this information to belittle you or call you names. I share these statistics to infuriate you. The fact that you are even reading this blog is a testament to your love for this country, and the fact that so many people put forth so little effort into the basic knowledge of their own government should force your fists to clench and steam to project from your nostrils.

Now the United States is supposed to be a Democracy, yes? It is a type of government where all of the power is to be vested in the people or their elected officials. That is all well and good and personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. But a severe issue arises when the people become apathetic, desensitized, uninformed and ignorant of the positions of their elected officials and, more generally and disturbingly, of how their government works. This is a symptom of an illness within a democracy and we need to find a cure.

Now, I believe that in a healthy democracy it should be every citizen's inalienable right to vote and to have an equal contribution as to the direction of their country. However, due to America's illness some drastic measures must be taken. I full heartedly believe that a rudimentary test should be given to earn the right to vote. The 2008 election has stirred people's interest in their country's direction, and that is a good start. Unfortunately, this does not mean they (we) are informed. I'm not proposing that we restrict voting rights to a privileged few--that would turn our democracy into a bastardized oligarchy, and that is not something we want. I am insinuating that in a sense we need to shock the people back into taking responsibility for their own country.

Overall, the Post-Harvard survey found that more than half of all Americans agreed with the following statement: “Politics and government are so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what’s going on.” If someone declared that traffic laws are so complicated that he couldn’t figure out which side of the road to drive on, most people would support yanking that person’s driver’s license. Yet no amount of ignorance can disqualify a voter from a role in choosing representatives and presidents. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0308d.asp

As much as I detest government interference with the everyday lives of its citizens, a test to gain the privilege to vote is a pill I'm willing to swallow. Again, I would not like to see a test so hard that only the most informed pass--basic knowledge should suffice. Knowledge of the three branches of government and their roles, the basic differences between the House and the Senate, the POTUS and VP candidates for both parties, the party platform they represent, and a few of their basic stances.

Could you answer these most basic of questions?

If the answer is no, than I'm sorry, but "Due to your lack of love, respect and responsibility for your country, your voting privileges have been revoked."

Open Letter to the Candidates

To Senators John McCain and Barack Obama:

I do not write this as a Republican or as a Democrat, but as an American. I do not write this as a man or a woman, but as a person. It does not matter whether I have a high school diploma, a college degree, or a PhD. It does not matter if I make $20,000 a year or $20 million. What matters is that I am a voter, and I have a message to you, our esteemed presidential candidates.

During the Democratic National Convention last week, John Kerry gave a speech that I found particularly interesting. He said, “…Let’s compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.” In this comparison, Kerry lists several issues on which Senator McCain (dare I say it?) “flip-flopped”. Mr. Kerry goes on to say, “Talk about being for it before you’re against it.” At least Mr. Kerry had the grace to acknowledge that he too has changed his mind in the past. However, what I would like to see, just once, is a politician who can tell the truth: every politician will change his or her stance on at least one major issue in a national election.

I want to hear this truth so badly that I have written your speech for you. I challenge you to deliver it. I challenge you to earn, if not the votes, then at least the respect of the American people.

The American people hunger for truth, honesty, and integrity in a political arena that is rife with lies, slander, and manipulation. It is time for this hunger to be slaked; it is time for an honest, open dialogue.

One of the biggest hurdles to such a dialogue is the never-ending political maneuvering that inevitably results in terms such as the infamous “flip-flopper.” It has now become common practice to label an opponent as indecisive if he or she has ever altered an opinion. But now, it’s time to be real, and it’s time to be honest.

I have changed my mind more than once. I am willing to bet that each of you has as well. The fact of the matter is that my past policy decisions were made as a representative of a single state. Until now, my constituency has consisted of a subset of the general American public. Throughout my service to my state, I have made a concentrated effort to protect the best interests of the people who put me in office.

In order to represent my country instead of my state, I have had to alter some of my policy goals. This does not mean that I am indecisive. This means that I am pragmatic enough to set aside some of my personal opinions and my past decisions in order to best serve my country. This means that I am responsible enough to alter my decisions to meet the needs of my country. This means that I recognize my own fallibility, and that I correct my errors.

I stand before you as a candidate for President, and I offer this promise: If elected President, I will continue to protect the best interests of the people who put me office—you, the American public.

I am disappointed in you, candidates. I expected better from the two of you. I expected the maverick, the man who reaches across the aisle, the man who does not kneel before the G.O.P., the proponent of clean campaigning, and a victim of Karl Rove’s tactics to be strong enough, wise enough, mature enough, and self-assured enough to be above negative campaigning. I expected the Washington outsider, the face of change, the bright and shining beacon of political hope, the Kennedy-esque newcomer to be idealistic enough, honest enough, and committed enough to be above the worn tactics of past politics.

Instead, I am watching history repeat itself. Turning on a cable news network is like stepping into a time machine that forces me back to 2000 and 2004. When did Presidential campaigns become television reruns?

This country needs a change, but neither of you will deliver it. Instead, no matter who wins or loses, I fear that America will be treated to four more years of the same tired rhetoric. You have both lost my vote. To earn it back, all I ask is that you step away from your red, white, and blue platform, take off the microphone, turn off the teleprompter, and be honest.

Sincerely,

A Frustrated Voter

Could Miss Congeniality Run the Country?

Sarah Palin: gun-toting beauty contest winner, self-proclaimed hockey mom, soon-to-be grandmother…President of the United States?

The 2008 Presidential Election is unique in many ways, but one unusual aspect that has seen relatively little media discussion is the unprecedented importance of the Vice Presidential candidates—particularly Senator McCain’s VP pick, Governor Sarah Palin.

McCain is 72 years old. He has suffered from malignant melanoma, the most invasive and dangerous form of skin cancer. There are also relatively well substantiated rumors that McCain is developing memory problems (see The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, and The Gringo Chronicles, just to name a few sources). Anyone else remember Reagan’s second term?

I do not argue that McCain’s age makes him unfit for office. However, I do believe that voters need to recognize that McCain’s age is not irrelevant to this campaign. McCain is old—in fact, if elected, McCain would be the oldest president ever inaugurated. Old people are more likely to die than young people. Those are facts. The implication of these facts is that McCain’s VP pick is even more important than that of the average candidate because, if elected, McCain’s VP is more likely to have to assume the role of President.

I was certain Mr. McCain would consider all of this when choosing a running mate. I was certain that McCain’s running mate would be someone with the credentials necessary to govern this unwieldy country—someone with both domestic and foreign policy experience. So imagine my surprise when McCain picked a Sandra Bullock wannabe—a gun-toting Miss Congeniality.

I do not doubt that Sarah Palin has done a fine job running Alaska—a state with a total population of 670,000, less than 4% of the population of New York City—for the past two years. Just as I do not doubt that Ms. Palin did a fine job of running Wasilla—population 9,000—before that. I do, however, seriously doubt that Ms. Palin would do a fine job of running the country—population 300,000,000+.

In the spirit of fairness, I feel that I must reveal that I fundamentally disagree with nearly every social position that Ms. Palin has taken. But my doubts regarding Ms. Palin’s leadership potential have less to do with her stances on abortion and gun control than her complete lack of qualifications for office.

Miss Congeniality has absolutely no experience dealing with national concerns. She has represented a very small, homogenous population in an icy, remote part of the country. Whatever else one might say about Baby Bush, at least he had governed a big, mainstream state with a diverse population—Texas is a far more accurate representation of American demographics than Alaska. While Miss Congeniality is probably more than capable of governing Alaska—what with her ability to field dress a moose and all—I’ve yet to see any evidence that this experience has remotely prepared her to take the helm of our country. How would she confront our rising unemployment rate? Our rising deficit? The weakening dollar? The healthcare crisis?

Even if she could somehow manage to handle the details of national domestic policy, how would she handle our place in the global community? While I hate to harp on a topic that the mainstream media has so thoroughly covered, the question has yet to be answered: What exactly are Ms. Palin’s foreign policy credentials?

Republican pundits have come up with a few choice answers. Personally, my favorite answer is from another beauty queen, Cindy McCain: “The experience that she comes from is with what she's done in the government. And also, remember: Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. So, it's not as if she doesn't understand what's at stake here.” In other words, since Palin’s state neighbors Russia, she must have a thorough understanding of U.S.-Russian relations which, obviously, qualifies her to make all of our foreign policy decisions. Problem: My research indicates that Palin has never been to Russia, spoken with a Russian political leader, or had any direct contact with Russia whatsoever. Oh, and the Cold War has been over for almost 20 years…

Still, this proximity to Russia idea seems to have caught on rather quickly. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and a staunch conservative, wrote a piece somewhat ironically titled “Sarah Palin’s Experience.” He very accurately points out that Palin’s state is adjacent to Russia. He goes on to imagine a world in which U.S.-Russian relations are as tense as ever before: “The targets are not just the relatively weak and formerly enslaved countries on its littoral like Georgia…Moscow has also conducted simulated strategic bombing runs with Soviet-era long-range, nuclear-capable aircraft. These offensive missions are designed to penetrate U.S. northern air defenses in a manner reminiscent of the most provocative of Kremlin behavior during the Cold War.” Ah, the fear-mongering. To listen to Mr. Gaffney, one would think that we are still at the height of the Red Scare. Should I hide under my desk to avoid the nukes?

Gaffney goes on to discuss Elmendorf Air Force Base and its “vital role” in our national defense. He implies that, as governor of a state with an air force base, Ms. Palin would have intimate knowledge of various military operations throughout the world and the workings of our anti-missile systems. If that’s the case, then governors of the 36 other states that host U.S. air force bases would be equally qualified to lead the country. Apparently, Mr. Gaffney sets a rather low standard for foreign policy credentials in a Commander in Chief.

Unlike most neocons, who are happy to compare Ms. Palin’s thin resume to Mr. Obama’s, Gaffney dares compare her foreign policy expertise to Mr. Biden’s: “Her judgment versus Sen. Biden's on the question of whether America should be protected against present and growing missile-delivered threats will be one of the highlights of the vice presidential nominees' debate.” Yes, particularly given the fact that Mr. Biden actually served in government during the Cold War, has strong diplomatic relations with Russia and other former Soviet states, and has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for several terms. I would imagine that Mr. Biden will make sure that her judgment on such issues will be a “highlight” of the debate.

Perhaps the least well argued point that Gaffney makes is this: “At present, one can only infer Sarah Palin's grasp of the danger posed by today's principal enemy: adherents to the brutally repressive and seditious program the Islamists call Shariah, a program they seek to impose worldwide through violent means and "soft jihad"… A tangible indicator of her views, however, is the enlistment of her eldest son, Track, on the anniversary of 9/11 last year and his imminent deployment to Iraq.” I’ll agree with Mr. Gaffney that “today’s principle enemy” is the threat of terrorism. This has been America's reality since September 11, 2001. However, I prefer not to "infer" what a candidate's grasp of the biggest security threat facing our country might be.

Gaffney argues that Palin must support the war in Iraq as her son will shortly be stationed there. In his article, he implies that this is patriotism at its finest. I respect Ms. Palin for her willingness to see her son fight our never-ending war. Just I respect Mr. Biden for the same action. Though it is a far less well known fact, Mr. Biden's son will also be deployed to Iraq this year.

Despite the right's attempts to paint Miss Congeniality's foreign policy experience in a more attractive light, it would appear that she has much to learn before assuming the mantle of Vice President. In fact, McCain has hastily assembled a crack team of top foreign policy experts to tutor the beauty queen on foreign policy before her debate with Senator Biden. Unfortunately, by "crack team" I am referring to the same team that brought us the idea of pre-emptive strike, the never-ending war in Iraq, and our strained relations with most of our allies. That's right: McCain has chosen former White House advisors to teach Foreign Policy 101.

Given that the McCain campaign has done everything possible to distance itself from President Bush, I find it curious that McCain chose to have his running mate introduced to foreign policy by the very people he professes to disagree with.

Sarah Palin will likely never reside at the White House. However, the very thought that she might sends shivers down my spine.

For more information regarding Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience, refer to the following sites:

US Global Engagement
Washington Post
Mother Jones

McCain Plays With a Stacked Deck:

The POW Card Trumps Everything?

As expected, McCain's POW experience has become a prevailing theme throughout the Republican National Convention, just as it has been since Mr. McCain decided to enter politics.

In fact, even the least important convention speaker, our beloved President, made sure to remind everyone of Mr. McCain's terrible experience, just in case we might have forgotten: “Fellow citizens, if the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry left never will.”

Now, I don't know if I qualify for "angry left" status and I certainly don't want to break anyone's resolve, but I do have a bone to pick with the McCain camp. In fact, I am issuing a challenge to Senator John McCain and his followers: For just one 24-hour period, would it possible for you to not mention John McCain's POW experience?

I do not say this to belittle Senator McCain's ordeal. I have nothing but respect for the men and women who serve in the armed forces, and I do not mean to sound as though their sacrifices are unappreciated or overlooked. I have read the first-hand account of Senator McCain's time as a POW . Some of the treatments he was subjected to made me cringe, others nearly made me ill. I have the utmost respect for the man who sufferred broken limbs, solitary confinement, illness, starvation, and torture at the hands of the Vietnamese.

However, Senator McCain is running for President of the United States of America, not Chairman of the local VFW.

McCain's camp would have us believe that being held as a POW qualifies Mr. McCain to be President. After all, he showed honor, integrity, patriotism, strength, and nobility. Are these not qualities we might want in a President?

But how will Mr. McCain's POW experiences help him deal with our floundering economy? Our $9 billion per month war in Iraq? Record breaking oil prices? The millions of children without health insurance?

For that matter, what does Mr. McCain's POW experience have to do with the number of houses he owns? The Keating Five ethics scandal (McCain's Answer: "Even the Vietnamese didn't question my ethics.")? When and why he moved to Arizona? Whether he supports some type of government subsidized health care? Whether or not he left the "cone of silence" during a joint Q and A session with Mr. Obama?

McCain claims the media has a love affair with Obama, and has even stooped so low as to compare Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Yet during the first three months of 2008, McCain's POW status was mentioned in over 1,000 newspaper articles. Seems to me that the media is perfectly complicit in McCain's campaign to be the poster child of the Hanoi Hilton.

When referring to the the McCain camp's use of Mr. McCain's military record, the New York Times' Maureen Dowd said, "...McCain is now in danger of exceeding his credit limit on the equivilent of the American Express black card..." Unfortunately, by using this experience to gain credibility with voters Mr. McCain is cheapening what should be a noble and honorable sacrifice. Instead, McCain has transformed himself from military hero to broken record.

Worse yet, I can't help but question what the Republicans would do if the other side employed similar tactics.

What if Barack Obama began to really play the race card? While some commentators claim that the race card has already been played throughout the campaign, I beg to differ.. While his race has come up numerous times (come on, people: of course everyone noticed he was black!), rarely has it been an issue raised by Mr. Obama himself. In fact, Mr. Obama's race has been brought up more often by his opponents (primarily Hillary Clinton and John McCain) than by his supporters. For those of you who disagree with me on this, let's at least recognize that Obama's race has come up less often than McCain's POW experiences. Now, imagine a campaign in which this was not the case:

Q: Mr. Obama, how much money did you and your wife make last year?

A: Well, we are black, so we made less than our white counterparts.

Q: Mr. Obama, does the fact that you prefer wine to beer make you an elitist out of touch with America?

A: Heck, no. Being black keeps you down to Earth, you know, facing all that prejudice and breaking through glass ceilings. Hard to be elite when your skin's as dark as mine.

Q: Mr. Obama, have you ever practiced the Muslim faith?

A: Nope. I'm black, not brown.

Somehow, I don't think the Republicans would let this fly.

Some would argue that being black and being a prisoner of war aren't all that comparable. After all, there are lots of African Americans, but how many surviving POWs are there? Being a POW is a tragic, life defining event. Which Democrat had a tragic, life defining event....Oh, yeah! Senator Joe Biden!

At the age of 30, Joe Biden became the fifth youngest Senator in U.S. history. He had a lovely young family, and seemed to be on top of the world. Then, just days before he was to be sworn into the Senate, tragedy struck. His wife, Neilia, their baby daughter, and their two young sons were involved in a car accident. The boys, then 4 and 3, were seriously injured. Neilia and 18-month-old Naomi were killed. Senator Biden was sworn in at the hospital while keeping watch over his sons.

Ever heard the phrase "sympathy vote"? I think an event like this would qualify Biden for sympathy. Biden could pull out the sympathy card to do battle with McCain's POW card:

Q: Mr. Biden, you once were accused of plagiarizing a speech during your 1987 run for the White House. Why should Americans trust you?

A: I've stood up in the face of tragedy. When I lost my wife and daughter, I still did my job as Senator, even though I was raising two young boys all alone.

Q: Mr. Biden, do you feel that your foreign policy credentials fully qualify you to take that "3 AM phone call" in the event that you should succeed Mr. Obama to the Presidency?

A: If losing my wife and daughter didn't render me incapable of doing my job, then neither will a 3 AM phone call.

Once again, I just don't think it would fly.

In fact, Republicans won't even let Democrats use the military card! Does anyone remember 2004--the year of John Kerry, his Purple Hearts, and the Swift Boat attacks? The Democrats finally ran a decorated war hero as their nominee, and the Republicans (who were running a National Guard member who couldn't even be counted on to show up for duty in Texas, never mind Vietnam) still managed to paint him a coward.

What if the Democrats Swift Boated John McCain?

There are plenty of stories quietly making the rounds about Mr. McCain's POW years. Other Vietnam vets and POWs have made allegations that McCain was singled out for softer treatment because of his father's position. Still others allege that he gave his captors important information. These allegations are as credible as the Swift Boat allegations against Kerry.

Personally, I prefer that the Democrats not use such tactics. In fact, I prefer that no one use such tactics. But what I really prefer is that my candidates discuss the issues, not whatever real or imagined handicaps they may have overcome. I don't care that you were a POW. I don't care that you are black. I care whether you are going to make this country a safer, healthier, more prosperous place to live. Let's focus on that, shall we?

I leave you to ponder this: Did Franklin Delano Roosevelt play the polio card, or did he lead in spite of polio?