New Developments/ On My Mind

Last night's debate was interesting. Perhaps even dissatisfied viewers should feel lucky that they were graced by the presence of both candidates. Maybe we should all realize what terrible people we are for making the Republican Presidential Nominee actually speak to us, when he could be out doing "better" things. Saving the world. But like the true American hero that he is, John McCain put aside more pressing matters, ultimately dragging himself down to Mississippi for, wince, the first Presidential Debate. I understand John McCain's decision to "put aside" his campaign in this economic crisis (In reality, he pulled a few TV ads and talked big about going to Washington.) But to what extent was all of his world-saving successful? Was he even in Washington? And even if he did, as claimed, try ever so hard to come to a bi-partisan agreement to the benefit of the people, has any such agreement developed? Did he play a key role in trying to develop it? And if so, I might like to remind Mr McCain that the President of the United States is head of the Executive branch of government, NOT the legislative one. While he has shown utmost leadership and commitment to solving this economic problem single-handedly, has McCain's performance shown us anything about his ability to be Chief Executive? I would say not.      Once again, I might also like to remind Mr McCain that there is a difference between foreign policy and military intervention, just as Mr McCain reminded us of the difference between tactic and strategy. Also, Mr McCain, this is the year 2008, not 1863, not 1945. The world has changed. Wars have changed. General Petraeus, the man you support, has attempted to restructure and expand the military agenda. We might also take into consideration that the definition of war different than it used to be. There are no longer going to be clear cut victories. There will not be a formal surrender, on the deck of a United States Aircraft Carrier, as your grandfather witnessed. 

     You MUST realize this. You must realize that the wars of the past are not those of today, or of the future. You must realize that history repeats itself in rhyme. You must cast off your aspiration to "win" in Iraq and make up for VietNam. You and your father believe that war was "winnable," but whether or not VietNam was winnable, it is irrelevant to the challenges we face today. 

     In the debate last night, you stated that you have promised a New England mother not to let her young soldier die in vain. Here's some news; the best way to honor this hero is to make wise, valid, and current decisions, decisions that will protect the rest of our heroes. As Commander in Chief, you would need to realize that this is a new century, a new millennium, a new war. You need to realize that assessing the war without the preconceptions of your militaristic past is the best way to honor this soldier.      You criticized Barack Obama heavily for his willingness to sit down with other nations' leaders "without precondition." There is a difference between preparation and precondition. Mr Obama would be in absolutely NO way validating or supporting a leader's agendas, simply by sitting down at a table with him. John McCain, THIS IS HOW FOREIGN POLICY WORKS. Mr Obama has said he would meet with these leaders head on, not to validate them, or to empower them, but to speak to them, to use diplomacy, as a means to come to agree, discuss, or compromise. It is naive, and ignorant, as well as misleading to the American people, to suggest that by meeting with Iran we are giving a notion of legitimacy or thought towards all of their actions. It is untrue and wrong to implicate Barack Obama as being an advocate of the viewpoints of any country he wants to meet with.    John McCain, leaders take charge. Leaders meet with leaders to solve the biggest problems. Choosing to meet with other leaders personally, shows awareness and dedication.       Foreign policy is not "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." It is not making foreign relations worse, by refusing to meet with world powers. Good leadership is not showing utter and visible contempt for a fellow American in a Presidential debate. How are we supposed to expect you will relate to opponents that are not Americans? The world is not black and white. People are not good and evil. You need to abandon the dangerous, cavalier, and militaristic attitude that promotes your world view. Leaders with much more executive power, and less patience, than Senator Obama currently has, will NOT be receptive to these strategies. Other nations, if offended, will answer with diplomatic, economic, and military force that would threaten our entire nation.      Further, Sarah Palin has shown herself to be weak on issues, and well in need of some major grooming over the past week. As much as you have tried, you cannot put the debates off until December, and you cannot hide your campaign's positions on the issues under Sarah Palin's celebrity appeal. I guess when Sarah finally finds out what the Bush Doctrine is or gets some valid information to share, she'll "find it and [she'll] bring it to ya'." I mean, us. And if you're not too busy single handedly batting down this bailout plan, saving the world, misconstruing Mr Obama's words, and interviewing with Katie Couric, I know David Letterman would just LOVE to have you on his show. He really missed you last week, when you cancelled so you could go to "Washington." Next time I catch up, we'll do the economy and partisan politics. My knowledge, however, may pale in comparison to the newly acquired financial genius Ms Palin seems to have found herself.