Back in the 2000 Election, Ralph Nader made the claim that there wasn't a nickel's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. One has to wonder if Lame John McCain and Dame Hillary Clinton aren't attempting to prove him correct in his assessment.
There has been a great deal of commentary concerning Dame Hillary's pronouncement that only she and Lame John have what it takes to be Commander in Chief. Considering later comments she made to CNN, one might come to the conclusion that she's standing by her main military man by boosting his image with those who are essentially single-issue voters. This promotion of Lame John certainly isn't helping her with Democrats, and might even be the final nail in the idea that Dame Hillary will deign to allow Barack Obama to serve her inevitable presidency as Lackey in Chief.
The real issue of who is better suited to be Commander in Chief is being overlooked in this donnybrook.
One duty the top officer must perform is to ensure that the military has been properly equipped and supplied to conduct its operations. Neither Dame Hillary nor Lame John show much capability despite their self-designations to the contrary.
Dame Hillary and Lame John share a common disdain for the military mainstay Boeing Corporation. Probably because Boeing isn't a major contributor to his campaign, Lame John has seen to it that Boeing has to meet stiff lobbying standards that he himself refuses to observe, or they won't get Pentagon contracts.
Dame Hillary, for her part, is the largest single recipient of military-industrial beneficence. She has accepted contributions from the subsequent winners of the latest USAF air tanker contract, EADS/Airbus and Northrup, for whom Dame Hillary has promoted contract awards in the past.
The personal health and welfare of the troops should also be a priority. The current usurper of the title is failing these standards miserably.
Despite a price tag of approximately $12 billion a month just for the Iraq terror war against terror, our soldiers are buying their own gear which the Pentagon can't or won't supply them. In addition, a crony corporation of the Vice-Commander in Chief (and maybe in Fact) is being accused of providing tainted water to our troops. Maybe instead of purchasing "cool" sunglasses and moldable caps which should be provided by Washington, our GIs should be pooling their funds for pools of safe drinking water. And what of all that downer cow meat that the USDA refuses to account for? All that "lost profit" could easily end up in MREs!
I won't go into too much detail here about how the government is protecting air polluters from regulation, because who really needs to breathe anyway?
On yet another affront, er, front, one has to wonder if the military itself isn't getting a bit too big for its expensively-tailored britches. Has the United States Military become convinced that they are more powerful or important than God? At the US Naval Academy at Annapolis, one just might think so!
It has long been a naval tradition that the American flag is flown below only one standard – that signifying religious services are in progress aboard ship. One item of Pearl Harbor trivia is that many of the ships there on 12/7/41 were in that condition when the attack began.
Yet, currently, there are some (the Academy superintendent, for instance) who profess that to dip the American flag before the symbols of the Almighty is a violation of the civilian flag code, which prohibits the display of any standard above the flag.
One might think that in a country which strives mightily to pretend to be a Christian nation, this would be an affirmation of the belief expressed by Bob Morrison of the conservative Family Research Council that the dipped flag before the Almighty is an acknowledgment that "the nation-state is not the highest authority in the world."
Don't let George hear that! It just might cause a loss of conservative support!
Such a reaction – for very different reasons – is already raining on the plains in Spain as Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero won the endorsement of the Spanish voters to continue in power. Spanish conservatives were reportedly out to "correct" a "mistake" made when Zapatero first took office, but they failed to convince the Spanish voters of that position.
Speaking of correcting mistakes, across the Pyrenees, the French voters bolstered the strength of the opposition to French neocon Nicolas Sarkozy's government in local elections over economic issues and "his ostentatious and impetuous presidential style".
There is every reason to believe that similar issues will affect the political fortunes of those who seek to maintain the status quo in the United States, something Lame John McCain has publicly vowed and Dame Hillary appears by her actions to be intending without affirmation.
It is not for nothing that Barack Obama is doing so well with the voters despite some validity to the charges leveled against him by his opponents on both sides of the two-party singularity. The people are wanting a change to replace shady business dealings as usual, and they are willing to entrust the awesome power of the US military to someone who has yet to demonstrate the walk to his talk over those who claim to have already done so.
Maybe instead it's because both Lame John and Dame Hillary truly already have demonstrated their walk – and that the voters do not like what they have seen.