Someone Beat Me to This Post

My good friend Ducky writes a blog that I read. Her topics vary, like mine, but tend to the more technical at times, which is OK with me. She also comments on politics, and this morning - before I could write almost the exact same words - she had this simple post up.

Since she said it so well, I'll have to say something else. Sadly, that is to point out that in California, prop 8 is probably going to pass, and that's terrible. Where, exactly, is the threat if gay people marry? How is this a problem for traditional marriage? And what gives anyone the right to dictate who can marry and who cannot?

I'm happy Obama got elected. It's a bit of history and I'm glad to have been around when it happened. But the very idea that there are enough bigoted, short sighted, small minded people to pass prop 8 in California just sickens me. I hope something happens at the federal level to make the California law invalid. The sooner the better.

The Crazy California Ballot

It's time to express a simple, easy opinion about the CA ballot: It's stupid!

Why do we insist on allowing initiatives? That process gets us the most awful legislation imaginable, written by anyone with a vested interest in something and enough money to setup an organization with a nice, bland name - something like the "Committee for Continuing California Progress", oh, wait, that would be the CCCP, and I doubt that would fly, but you get the idea - to drive it home.

Oh, I know the claim: "Our legislators aren't doing their job, so we have to do it for them." I say that's crap. If they haven't found a way to deal with it in Sacramento it's because the problem is difficult and the people are split about how to handle it. That's a time for discussion and - yes, I know you'll hate the word - compromise, not for some billionaire from out of state to come in and force the issue onto the ballot by hiring people to stand outside of grocery stores conning voters into signing things they haven't read and don't understand.

The initiative process is the dumbest way to make legislation, and it causes no end of problems, but the issues with the California ballot don't end there.

Why do we insist on enshrining every stinking thing into the state constitution? Why are the specifics of how to fund a high speed rail project in the constitution? Why are the sentences for various crimes in the constitution? What on earth is going on here? Printed out, the California constitution must be 950 pages long. No one can read a ballot measure and understand its impacts because the various bits are spread out all over a huge document that no one fully comprehends.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the constitution to contain a few guiding principles - things we think are core to what makes California the unique place it is - and put the rest of it into laws? Laws that our legislature could simply vote up or down and be done with? (Can you think of any examples where we do this? Hint: here's one place where the Federal goverment is way ahead of the curve.) If we want our legislators to do their jobs, we shouldn't be voting on every single thing they have to do every couple of years, as we have to if it's in the constitution. Instead we should be voting on what they did by putting new legislators in place if we don't like the outcomes.

A related point is that the average voter can't be an expert on everything on the ballot. This time around I need to know about farm animal treatment, high speed rail funding and usage patterns, and ten other subjects. Excuse me? How the hell should I know about these things? We hire our legislators to do this work for a reason: it's not simple. It takes time and effort and research. Our legislators, in turn, should consult with (or hire) experts in various fields to gather enough information to know how to vote intelligently. I don't have the time - not to mention the spare cranial capacity - to do all of that for every issue on the ballot, which again argues for keeping things out of the constitution and instead putting them into laws that our legislators can vote on and change as needed.

Another point about the California ballot is that we're addicted to bond measures. Back when the governator was put into office, there was all kinds of hubbub about how we had too much bond debt and we weren't going to get more credit as a state. Things were near panic. But the debt was refinanced in various ways and life went on. Well, now, here we are again with a boat load of bond measures on the 2008 ballot, and there were bunches in previous elections as well. When do we say enough is enough? Aren't we mortgaging the future of the state to pay for these things now? An occasional bond I can understand, but this state seems to feed on bonds in a way that has no basis in fiscal reality.

And speaking of fiscal reality, let's talk about a way in which we, the voters, have tied the hands of the legislature to keep them from doing their job: fiscal restrictions. So many initiatives have passed that require certain percentages of the state budget be devoted to specific things that there is no way the remainder and accomplish anything useful. Sure, schools are a good cause, but are they always the best place to spend money? Maybe not. Maybe we need to move money around and hire more fire fighters some year, but the budget is so tight we can't.

Any cause can be painted as right and noble. Many truly are. But the state budget is a balancing act, and the legislation that requires specific funding percentages for schools, roads, and shoes for the children of orphaned lumberjacks who don't wear flannel is just ludicrous. The legislature needs to be able to control the majority of the budget. I'd prefer to see them control it all, actually, but for the moment I'll take what I can get.

Here's a thought, people: we have to cooperate, and we can't spend more than we have. If you want to put more money into <your favorite cause> we have to either spend less on <someone else's favorite cause> or we have to take in more money from somewhere, probably taxes. It's not hard to see when spelled out that simply, but getting people to realize that and act based on those simple principles is tough.

In all seriousness I suggest you consider the following when you go to the polls in a few days: vote no on everything at the state level. Yes, you may think that some of the ideas in some of those ballot measures are good, but ask yourself: were they put there for the right reasons, and in balance with everything else going on? Do they cost more money than we have? Will lawyers earn millions as they go through the court system? Could we live without them just fine?

Seriously. Give it some thought.

Something Else Good About Barack Obama

Here's a story about Barack Obama that I'd never heard before, and that others need to hear. I've talked with people that know about it. As far as I can tell, this is true.

I've encountered so much fear about what might happen if Obama is elected. The truth is that he can't live up to the massive positive expectations growing around him - no one could - but he can set an excellent example. He can show the world that America is able to rise above it's past, that anything is possible here. And by providing a steady hand - probably not always right, but generally more reasonable than anything coming out of the Bush whitehouse - he can lead us through this economic mess, get us out of Iraq, and perhaps start some diplomatic efforts in places that haven't seen any effort in recent history. And who knows, if things go well maybe we can make some progress on other issues too, like reducing the debt, health care, energy independance, and so on.

I can't tell you how we do all of those things. I don't think Obama or McCain can tell you either. What matters is who they listen to while making decisions and what sort of leadership they provide when they have the information in their hands. For my money, Obama is a much better leader than McCain, much more inspiring. I can't trust him - or any other politician - completely, but he's a lot better than the competition.

I hope we give him a chance on Nov 4, 2008. That would show America at it's best. The story above is another example of why he's worthy of that chance.

More on formative politics

A while back I wrote a post about my first political memory - Nixon's resignation. Continued thought along that line has lead me to realize what came later: the hostage crisis under Carter, the subsequent failed rescue attempt, and Reagan's reinstatement of selective service registration, which required me to make a trip to my local post office at a particular age.

I think growing up a bit cynical about anything political is justified given those memories.

Looking at today's election mess, I have to admit to a certain frustration and disillusionment born from that underlying cynicism, though I think of it more as realism now. The economy is in the toilet and both major party candidates are still talking as if they will follow through on their plans. I don't think so.

Let me tell you what needs to happen: spending has to go down and taxes have to rise. Both. Period.

The Bush administration has spent us into a hole, squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed attempt to instill democracy at gun point in Iraq. The cost of that mess isn't even in the budget thanks to their accounting tricks, and we'll still be paying for that twenty generations from now. Just how "conservative" is that set of actions, do you think?

As a result of that financial recklessness, and regardless of how much you might like McCain or Obama, the simple fact is that neither of them is telling the actual truth. They're going to have to cut spending in places that hurt, and they're going to have to raise taxes. If they don't, the economic fundamentals won't get any better, and the recession will deepen.

As I keep saying, I'll vote for Obama. He's closer to me on the social issues, and I think he gets a better score on the things that allow a society to be judged "good," but even if he wins a filibuster proof margin in the senate he can't follow through his programs and promises. If he does, the fiscal disaster that results will cripple the nation. And as for McCain, his so called conservatism is a sham, and worse for the country economically than anything Obama ever dreamt of. His social positions are also a disaster, but one that worsens with time as he bends to the will of the far right wing of his party.

And there we hit the crux of the issue with McCain: for a maverick, he's awfully wishy-washy, saying whatever he has to say and doing whatever he has to do to make sure he gets into office. Clearly he has to keep those far right wingers happy, and that's revolting.

Thankfully, though, Nov 4 is getting closer all the time. The election will end - for better or worse - and we can all go back to whatever we were doing before, with our heads firmly stuck in the sand for another four years. Right? Isn't that what you're going to do?

Economics and Personal Lives

The past few weeks have been painful for the world economy, and they've hit some of us directly. I'm one of those so affected.

Three and a half years ago I quit working and assumed the title of "kept man". I had hoped to spend a lot of time working on my art, and the rest of my time doing other things. Looking back, I did do a bit more carving, but not as much as I'd hoped. To be honest, I let other things get in the way. That's not to say the time was wasted. I've been very busy, become a volunteer fire fighter, done a bunch of projects around the house, and so on. But none of that matters at the moment, because the economy has wrecked our plans.

Back when I quit working I always said I was "pseudo-retired". I figured I might decide I wanted to go back or do some contract work. Leaving my options open seemed smart. But I enjoyed my time not working, and it made a lot of sense to stay home. I didn't want to go back to work. I still don't. External forces, however, don't care about my wants.

Next week I go in for an interview. I sent one email, asked one question, and was floored with the response. I'm honored by that reaction. I need a job, and it appears they have something for me. A good fit. And these are good people, creating good products.

I should be happy, and in some ways I am. But tearing up my life because the worldwide economy can't get it's act together - because some nitwits in investment banks decided to sell bad mortgages like they were candy - just feels wrong.

Assuming I get the job I'll still be carving, but my time will be even more limited than it was. And that list of projects I have for around the house will take longer to get through. And I'll be a lot more tired.

So a big, personal "thank you" to the brilliant minds who created sub prime mortgages, credit default swaps, and all the other derivative investments no one really understands. Your poor judgement has impacted many people around the world. I know I'm just another in a very long list, but I also want to see you rot in hell.

From my perspective, Anne and I did everything right. We saved early and often. We invested somewhat aggressively since we're young, and were (and still are) way ahead of the pack in terms of retirement planning. But now - as things continue to get worse with no end in sight - we're back to the basics. And I'm probably going back to work.

As the Economy Melts Down

As the credit market freeze causes the economy to crash, leaving nearly everyone with less of everything, I wondered this morning at the fact that none of the media I see have remarked on how much worse things would be if George Bush had managed to privatize social security. I can't imagine the disaster that would have occurred in the last three weeks had that come to pass.

Then, out of idle curiosity, I wondered what John McCain's position on this issue was. Would the "maverick" have voted against it, or would he have followed his party and supported it?

As with all things I learn about McCain these days, his position is inconsistent, but this youtube video wraps it up pretty nicely. Yes, I know it's from an obviously biased source, but it's only McCain talking.

There are many other sources that say he supported privatizing social security, though I'll bet he doesn't support it now. Here's my google search so you can read them yourself if you want to, and come to your own conclusion.

One more reason we can't afford to have John McCain elected to office.

On not being a boomer and politics

The other day I found myself in an email conversation with some old college friends. We're scattered all over the country, now, but once in a while something gets us talking.

This time it was Jill, asking about whether or not we thought of ourselves as members of the baby boomer generation. This group of people graduated from college in 1986, and were all born in or near 1964. Depending on who you talk to, that may or may not have been included in the baby boom, but I know I was never a baby boomer by culture.

I could call out all kinds of things about my youth to make the point - like the fact that the Beatles were already broken up before I was paying attention - but for me there's really only one thing that matters all that much 40+ years later: my first political memory.

Without research, I can't even tell you when it was. I was still a kid, and tracking events in time wasn't something I did much of. I remember it was an evening, the TV was on, and my parents were watching something that seemed serious. I was bored out of my mind and probably running around. I distinctly remember being told to shut up and sit down because what was on the TV was important!

I did so, at least for a while, and do you know what it was? Nixon was resigning.

My first taste of politics was a president quitting office. If that doesn't setup a generation's worth of negative political expectations, I don't know what will.

In previous posts in this blog you've seen me express some of my opinions about both the major presidential candidates. Of the two, I have a strong preference for Obama, but that doesn't mean I trust anyone in power, even him. That's a mistake I try not to make. And with my first political memory being Nixon's resignation on Aug 8, 1974 - when I was 10 - can you blame me?

John McCain Wants Money From Me?

Another in a series of (no doubt) poorly thought out political posts. If you'd rather not know what I think on divisive, political issues, please look at the sculptures instead.

A couple of weeks back - before anyone outside of Alaska had heard of Sarah Palin - I got a letter from John McCain asking for money.

Of course I am well aware that it wasn't really from him. Someone in his campaign or the RNC bought an address list and my name was on it. That is a fascinating thing in and of itself - I cannot imagine why I was on that list - but it isn't relevant to this post.

Rather than just throw the request for funds away I read it, just to see what sort of tripe it contained. I was well rewarded. Consider this gem:

If liberals like Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi control the White House, Congress and statehouses across this country...

... they will raise your taxes. Already, the Obama Democrats have laid out plans to pass record-setting tax increases.

But if Republicans win, we will make the present tax cuts permanent, work to cut additional taxes and simplify the tax code. Republicans know that raising taxes in tough economic times is a recipe for disaster, but tax cuts are proven medicine for getting the economy growing again.

If all of that is true, why does every Obama spokesperson I hear - and Obama himself - claim that he's going to be lowering taxes for the vast majority of Americans? Perhaps it's because he will, and the extraordinarily wealthy few - mostly Republicans - are afraid of the fact that they might have to pay their fair share of taxes again?

And why did McCain originally oppose the Bush tax cuts, but now wants to make them permanent? Perhaps he is pandering to the extreme right wing of his party? Not exactly the "maverick" thing to do, I know, but it seems possible.

Let's move on to the next ray of Republican sunshine in this letter:

If the Obama Democrats and liberal organizations like MoveOn.org have their way, our troops will be recklessly pulled out of Iraq and our enemies will be handed a victory they have neither won nor deserve.

But Republicans will not give up. We will see the wan through to victory and make sure the radical Islamic extremists have no sanctuary and no victory.

Where to start on that one? How about this: why are we in Iraq in the first place? It had nothing to do with 9/11 and as we are now certain, they didn't have WMD either. Sadam - for all that he was a terrible guy - was no threat to us. Getting him out of power was a good thing, but it wasn't our job.

"But," I hear someone say, "we're in there now and we need to finish the job. If we pull our troops out now, the place will collapse and become a haven for terrorists." Maybe so, but let's start with defining "victory", shall we. What would victory mean in this case? I honestly have no idea, and neither does George Bush or John McCain. There is no way to fight our way out of this, and the longer we stay there the more Americans and Iraqis will die. What, exactly, are we fighting for and how will we know when we're done? If you think about it, it's clear there is no way to know. What I am sure of is that no matter when we leave, the terrorists will move in. We need an entirely different - non military - approach to the problem.

"But the surge worked!" I hear. "Bull****!" I answer. Several things happened before or at the time of the surge. Maybe it played a part, maybe it didn't. A far as I can tell, the Sunni Awakening and the cease fire declared by Muqtada al-Sadr were a lot more important than the surge.

Let's also ask an interesting question about the surge: why did we do it? Because we had too few troops over there, right? And why was that? Because Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to do this war on the cheap. (I suspect Bush himself was clueless about the results of this choice, making him a really great "decider".)

Invasion plans for Iraq drawn up before Bush was in office called for 300,000 to 450,000 troops, but we did it with less than half that number. In other words, we staffed to win the war, but not preserve the peace. Talk about stupid decisions. How many Americans would have been saved if we'd had armed troops on every street corner in Baghdad? Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are directly responsible for the deaths of all those Americans and Iraqis because they wanted to save money on their war.

We should never have gone into Iraq, but if we were going in anyway, we should have done it with enough force to be sure of finishing the job right from the start.

One last comment on this: McCain is way out of step with the American people on this one. The overwhelming majority want us out of Iraq. I'm not even sure he's pandering to the far Republican right with this stance.

And one last tidbit from the letter before I recycle it:

If the Obama Democrats have their way, government spending will skyrocket as they implement government-run health care and resurrect their entire portfolio of the failed welfare state programs of the 60s and 70s.

But not if we Republicans unite and work together. Or free-market solutions and conservative principles are better for America - and that has proven true time and again.

Wow. There is so much crap in those lines it almost doesn't pay to respond to them. But putting my hip waders on first, I'll try.

Spending worries? Not with Republicans, right? They're the party of "smaller government" aren't they? Well, not really. Regan presided over the largest peace time military buildup in American history. And our current president came into office with a surplus on the books (thanks to the Democrat Bill Clinton), but he's turned it into a deficit of enormous proportions, the largest dollar amount in history, in fact.

Bush is so bad about this that the White House keeps taking things out of the budget so they aren't counted as being in the deficit. Iraq war spending? Off the books. And so on. The deficit he's racked up is vast, and only getting bigger. Does anyone think McCain will do anything differently? I can't see how.

And as for the concerns about "failed welfare state programs", let's see:

• Social Security: seems like people want that to stick around
• Medicare & Medicaid: those look like a requirement
• Head Start: seems good to me

What, exactly, are the failed programs McCain is claiming would be resurrected? I don't hear Obama talking about bringing anything odd back from the dead.

And about those "free-market solutions" McCain is so happy to support. They gave us the savings & loan crisis of some years back, and the housing and mortgage finance crisis we're living through now, among other things. I think a bit of regulation is needed to keep things in check. Our founding fathers thought so about each and every branch of government (despite what George Bush may think) and went on to create a mechanism for doing just that. A bit of a check on unrestrained free market capitalism seems like a fine idea to me. Nothing huge - I'm not promoting Socialism or Communism - but something to keep those in power from taking advantage of everyone else by virtue of their position.

Finally, let's talk about those "conservative principles" the Republicans are so proud of. Here are a few:

• Torture. That must be one of them, since they support it, right?
• Spying on Americans without any limit must be another, based on their actions. And in fact it looks to me like the Republicans favor the most intrusive government possible. Clearly they want to control your most private of actions and choices. I suspect - if they could find an effective way to do it - that they'd control your thoughts too.
• Government support of oil companies via huge subsidies is clearly a good thing, but government support of clean energy research and development is not.
• Equal rights for the lucky, affluent few must be the thing, since equal rights for all, regardless of race, gender, religion, and so on, clearly isn't supported.
• The merging of church & state? Clearly they think that is a good idea.
• Winner take all economics? That's way up at the top of their list.

Those don't look like simple, honest, American values to me. Instead they look like ways for a small group of people to have their way with everyone else.

When I was growing up I was taught that a good way to evaluate the actions and beliefs of others is to look at how they treat the least fortunate among us. If someone gives back to his or her community in meaningful ways, and tries to help those in need, that's good. If someone rakes in the money and can't recognize the pain and suffering going on around them, that's bad. Simple stuff, I know, but I was just a kid.

It looks to me like many Republicans never get beyond "what's good for me" these days. McCain falls into that realm now as well, given all his position changes since starting his campaign., In addition, McCain's trickle down economics don't work. We've tried them several times now and they fail, every single time.

I cannot claim the Democrats are perfect - I'm certain they have their flaws - but under Clinton they were the party that created the budget surplus, kept us out of war, and tried to help those in need to some degree. They didn't always succeed, and I don't completely trust any politician, but I trust them far more than I trust the Republicans. That's why McCain won' be getting any of my money.

The Politics of Cynicism

Yet another in my occasional political commentaries. If you'd rather not know what I really think, or if the fact that we don't agree means you'll stop being a friend, please click here and look at the sculptures instead.

I'm a cynic. I admit it up front, and it has certain implications for what I believe about politics.

Obama, for example, may be newish on the national stage, but he's been around long enough to have been bought several times over. I just don't think it is possible for anyone to get as far as he has without that being the case. I wish it were otherwise, but my experience with those in power shows otherwise. By the time someone is nationally known, he or she is in the pockets of any number of people and organizations.

The same is true of McCain, of course, only worse. He's been around high level politics much, much longer, and as a result has been tainted that much more. I know he was a "maverick" and authored campaign finance reform legislation, but it simply isn't possible to be that powerful and be clean. Sorry.

One more thing about Obama: I'm going to vote for him. McCain won't get my vote for several reasons, most of which don't matter to this post as my topic is cynicism. I just don't want anyone thinking I'm so cynical I don't vote. I'm not sure how much my vote matters, but I vote.

Back to McCain. There are several things about him that inflame my cynicism particularly seriously. For starters, he's radically changed a several of his positions since he started running for the presidency. (Immigration reform anyone?) And there's his obvious pandering to the Republican base, as with his life begins "at the moment of conception" comment at the Saddleback forum. As if he'd know anything about that.

And now we have his choice of running mate. When it was first announced I was mystified. Who is Sarah Palin and what does she have to do with national politics? But the more I learn, the more I realize just how crafty McCain was in chosing her, at least from the perspective of trying to win the election. Let's examine a few points:

• She's young. McCain himself is positively ancient and has a tough time appealing to younger voters. Plus, Obama is young, and that had to be countered. Palin won't pull hard core Democrats away from Obama, but younger undecided voters now have to think about it a bit more.

• She's female. When the Democrats went for Obama instead of Clinton, McCain must have immediately limited his choices to women. How else might he attract those disaffected Hillary voters to his side, even if they agree with him on nothing else?

• She's a radical republican. McCain wasn't previously such a hard core right winger, but his positions have moved as the campaign progresses. Despite those changes, many in his party don't trust him because he's been wishy-washy in some of his positions in the past, positions that matter to the conservatives. (Abortion, immigration, etc.) Well, Palin has no such issues on her record. (In truth, she's so new to politics she barely has a record, but forget about that.) What we know of her is that she's a lifetime NRA member and staunchly anti-abortion. That's a major bone to throw to the right wing of the Republican party, and they love it, or so it appears based on campaign contributions since the announcement.

Can you sense a pattern here? Palin was chosen specifically to address areas where McCain is weakest, but without thinking about the broader implications of her choice. If I was a conservative republican I'd be offended, not elated. He's hand picked someone who will (hopefully) never be in power just to make far right Republicans feel good. The pandering there is simply vast.

And exactly what happens if McCain gets elected and has a health problem while in office? Palin takes over and... what? It's not her age I quibble with. As it happens, Palin and I are the same age, and I doubt it matters all that much. And it isn't even her total lack of experience. I don't actually think anyone is qualified to be president. It's a silly to think someone could be prepared for that office in a specific way.

No, what I worry about is her personality. I've listened to her speak enough to get a sense of her style, and I just don't think she's right for international politics. I recognize the problem because I suffer from the same thing myself. There's no gravitas in Palin, and she will never be taken seriously at a conference table. She's a self described "hockey mom," and she sounds exactly like one should sound. I'm sorry, but there are any number of qualified women I'd much rather have in the office of the vice president.

And again, I stress that this isn't an attack on Palin. I have the same problem. i will never be in a position of power - be it in public or private life - because my personality just doesn't work for it. You wouldn't want me negotiating with Putin either.

But McCain is so dead set on winning - whatever the cost - that he is willing to put exactly the wrong person into a position where her shortcomings could seriously matter. He's manipulating the American public as directly as he can in order to get himself elected. And since his positions have changed so much recently, I have no idea what he will do if he does win the white house.

In the end, I simply can't trust him, and while Palin might be a nice person to meet - though I am certain she and I differ on many, many issues - I simply cannot justify her in the vice president's role, particularly with McCain being 72 years old.

If people really are tired of politics as usual, then they should be very warry of John McCain. What I see there is just more of the same; manipulation and pandering for the express purpose of getting into power. Obama may be doing some of the same things, but if so he's quite a bit more subtle about it.

Experience vs. Gender in the White House

With a title like that you'd think I had something interesting or useful to say about politics, right? Probably not, but you're welcome to read on if my inane babble doesn't offend.

With the Democrats finally settling on a candidate, I had hoped to see the party come together and unite behind the winner, regardless of who that winner was. And perhaps that is happening, but not completely and not quickly.

I've heard multiple interviews with supporters of Clinton saying they aren't sure about Obama, and some even saying they will support McCain instead. Excuse me? Doesn't that seem a bit like a Catholic deciding to opt for supporting the devil when he learns that Catholicism was wrong and Anglicanism is the one truth? No, perhaps not. I am given to hyperbole from time to time, but I still don't see how a Democrat can rationalize supporting McCain.

Obama supporters, of course, aren't faced with the same question. But one can easily imagine that the decision had gone the other way and Clinton was the party's choice. Isn't it easy to envision disgruntled Obama supporters deciding they couldn't support Clinton for a variety of reasons, none of which would be particularly compelling (to me, at least) when faced with the question "Who is your alternative?"

More directly related to the title of this post, I've also heard gripes from both sides of the Democratic divide about how one candidate or the other is better (or less well) suited to run the country. I'm simply not buying it. Neither side is persuasive to me on that front.

Thinking about Clinton, I've got no problem at all with putting a woman in charge, but I don't think that specifically being a woman makes one more qualified. It may change one's point of view on certain issues, but so does being from Alabama vs. California, or being Hispanic vs. Native American. This country still faces serious, gender related issues on a regular basis, and having a woman in office might affect the way some people see things, but I don't know that the decision about who to put into the white house should be based on gender.

Nor should it be based on race. I have no problem with electing a black to the office of President. I think it would be just fine to elect someone of any other ethnicity as well. As with the question of gender, though, I don't think race should be the defining issue in how we chose a candidate. Yes, electing a black president - if it happens - will be a milestone, but so would electing a woman, or an amputee, or a second generation Japanese immigrant.

To be honest, there haven't been that many presidents in our nation's history. Electing anyone other than a white male would basically be breaking new ground.

On the question of experience and the candidates, I am dubious about the value of experience in general. Firstly, since the office of president has been effectively term limited for quite some time now, the truth is that no president rules in a vacuum. The staff that comes in with a president is huge, and thus brings with it a collective of experience that far exceeds the president's own, even if he's as old as McCain.

In addition, I'm pretty sure there is a large and relatively constant staff that serves the executive branch of the government, and not all of it turns over with a new administration. Those people embody an even larger chunk of the collective knowledge and experience that makes up any administration, and they have to be counted upon for assistance.

No one person is qualified to run this nation on his or her own. It's really that simple. If the president is open to all sources of information - something the Bush administration is very bad about - and actually considers all options before making any major decisions, I'll probably be happy.

One of the problems with our system, however, is that to get elected our candidates wind up making promises to many different groups. When they get into office they may well be faced with breaking those promises in the face of real world situations, or keeping them despite their desire to do something different in a given situation. When campaign promises rule despite good evidence to the contrary, things are going poorly.

If I were dumb enough to run for office I would never make promises, even about things over which I have strong opinions. Almost everything has to be assessed in context, and a decision determined in advance - in the absence of the relevant facts at the time - could easily be the wrong thing to do when reality hits the fan. "Here's what I think about X right now..." is a fine thing to say, but not "If elected, I will do Y about X."

Of course I'd never get elected, and you can easily see why.

Anyway, I don't buy the Clinton camp's arguments about Obama's lack of experience. Nor do I buy arguments about gender or race being critical to the role of president. The next president - whoever he may be - needs to be president of the entire country, not just his party's members. I hope that comes to pass.