Electrifying.

I finally saw Barack Obama in person for the first time today. I was a bit nervous, going into it, as one of my friends had told me, "He's not nearly as good in person as he is on TV." However, this person is a die-hard Clinton supporter, so I thought that her views might have been skewed slightly by bias. As it turns out, they were. He was, simply put, the best speaker I have ever seen, on TV, film or in person. He delivered a magnificent soliloquy on the difference between his campaign and others, and, having volunteered for his campaign, I can tell you that he is absolutely right in this respect. His campaign is all about changing the status quo, and about real leadership. It is one thing for Senator Obama to get up on a stage and deliver a speech about that change, it is another for just about every staffer at his campaign to casually, unknowingly, slip it into everyday conversation. His entire campaign, from the head down, is about that change, and that is what is going to make the difference in this primary. Well, that and the differences between the Senators themselves.

If only...

And now for something completely different. It's good to know that at last many of the illegal immigrants in this country will have the opportunity to become, well, legal immigrants. The more hardline set of Republicans is, of course, making a stink about the whole deal. Of course, the more hardline Democrats would be making a stink about it if the issue was one that they had been elected to office on the principle of, at least in part. But that is not the real point. The point is that the Republicans, at least the more moderate ones, were willing to cooperate with the Democratic majority on at least one issue, and Bush was forced into thanking the Democrats for putting a bill that they have wanted to do so with on the fast track to lawdom (Schoolhouse Rock reference). There was no way that the US was going to be able to deport even a fraction of those affected by this bill, so the best way to go about this problem was to do it exactly the way that the Democrats, and Republicans now too, are doing it; they are getting the workers in the US under the law, and they are doing more to prevent more from getting in. If only they could cooperate this way, for the benefit of the populace, on more issues...

Family Values

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., despite having a name that might suggest otherwise to most Americans, is just about as devoid of scandal as any American politician can be. I mention this not to campaign for him, though having called several hundred people for him in the last week, I certainly am used to doing that. I mention this because there is another scandal in the White House this week. Well, this one actually doesn't come from the White House, but it is from the sector that put Bush in there. Paul Wolfowitz has taken to the trenches to defend his job as president of the World Bank, where he is under fire due to yet another scandal. The details of the scandal are not just unimportant, they are irrelevant. The important fact here is that there is another administration scandal. The American people are well and truly sick of these, both the public variety common to this president's men, and the private kind publicized by his predecessor. The moderates have had enough of the so called ethics that President Bush and his Evangelical beliefs have brought to power, which include: Firing people who have dissenting opinions, ignoring any evidence that is contrary to your position, using your influence to get your old buddies no-bid contracts, and, now, practicing nepotism when hiring for the highest paying federal jobs. Maybe that is what they mean when they talk about family values. The point is, we need a change. A major one. And we need it as soon as possible. Senator Obama not only has no public scandals; he also, seemingly, has no potential for scandal, which leads me to believe that he has no skeletons in his closet. Let's get rid of the current administrations take on family values, and bring on someone with real values, to begin.

Stand Up Guys

In all honesty, no one cares about the Alberto Gonzales case anymore. That is not to say that no one thinks it is important. I for one think that it is, and I know that it weighs heavily on the minds of many people. But at this point, everyone knows that he did a great wrong to those eight US attorneys. They know that Bush knows that. They know that Bush still stands by his supporter through all of this; after all, isn't he still a loyal Bushie? And they know that Alberto Gonzales is going to get away with what he has done, if only because the Bush administration is, at this point, utterly inconsequential. The fact that he pressured John Ashcroft, while he lay in a hospital bed, to accept the NSA's domestic spying plan, while even more damning to his public character, does nothing to change that sad fact. It does say something about how the Bush administration chooses to get things done; through intimidation and strong arm tactics, rather than through diplomacy and friendship. With policies like that, I'm just shocked that our foreign relations are in the shambles that they are (<-- sarcasm).

No Options.

"Failure is not an option" implies that we have a choice in the matter, GW, and repeating your mantra is not going to do a whole lot to change that fact. Bush has been backpedaling on the issue for years now, and the American people finally spoke their mind in November. They're tired of your auditory retreat before the press; they want an actual retreat, with real troops. Harry Reid has said that he is in a bubble, that none of the Republicans around him want to get close, to risk being tainted by the possibly career-ending, taint that is upon his entire administration and presidency at this point.

I guess that bubble is tinted as well as tainted.

Either Bush is either blind to the damage his strategy is causing his allies and party, or he is simply too tenacious to let go. Blindness is never admirable in a president; Bush was elected because he had a vision for the country. Tenacity is usually a positive trait, though that can be changed when that tenacity leads to thousands of deaths. Either way, we should have seen the problems this could cause when Bush told the country that he believed being reelected gave him free rein on the war in Iraq. It's too bad that he doesn't see that that is exactly what happened when the Democrats were put in control of Congress this year.

10 candidates and not one acceptable.

At the moment, there are a whopping 10 Republicans considering a run for the presidency, though Republicans have struck a reputation for choosing one candidate early in recent elections. There are plenty of others openly considering a run at the Oval Office, including Fred Thompson. However, they all seem to be the same kind of conservative, traditional, not the religious right zealots that put Bush in power. Pundits are saying that this is a kind of backlash against the mess that Bush has made of this country, and against the power base that allowed him to do so. There is a problem with this, though. Despite the problems with Bush, the evangelicals are still the single most powerful conservative demographic in the country, and they are not happy with their field of candidates. The current field also has one other major problem The traditional conservative government platform they are running on is based strongly upon the military and support for the military. With the Iraq War as wildly popular among moderates as it is today, that could chop off that end of the spectrum of their support. What they are left with is, well, not quite enough to put them on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Another comparison.

In a recent poll, Hillary Clinton has 38% of the Democratic constituency in hand, while Barack Obama only has 24%. This in itself is not exactly troubling. You expect some difficulties when two people are trying to reach out to Americans, one with the last name of a former President, and one with the middle name of a despot deposed recently by American forces. However, what is troubling is the reason that Hillary is pulling away. Most liberals said that they supported Clinton because of her strong position on the war in Iraq.

Let's compare.

Hillary Rodham Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq War and defended her position several times. It was only in late 2006, when it became clear that she would make a run for the White House, that she began to decry her radical anti-war position, and the bootlickers lapped up every word she spoke.

On the other hand, Senator Obama, though he did not have the opportunity to cast his vote against the war, understood its potential consequences and spoke out against it from the very start. Clinton hasn't managed to convince me that her administration would not just look to the glories of the Clinton heyday. Obama has consistently made "changing politics as usual" a centerpoint of his campaign. Given the way the country is looking these days, I think we could use a change from politics as usual.