During the 1968 election, one of the keystones of Dick Nixon's campaign was his "plan to end the war in Vietnam." Of course he had no real plan, or, if he did it was a poor one, evidenced by the fact that the war dragged on for seven brutal years after that sad election season.

It has been said in some quarters that the "plan" Nixon alluded to, but never spelled out, was a nutty scheme (nutty schemes seem to abound in the halls of power) to have Kissinger convince the Russians that Tricky Dick was just batshit crazy enough to use nuclear weapons if the North Vietnamese would not come to the table and end the war on his terms.

History has shown that Nixon was nuts enough. So was and is, Henry the K, but the Vietnamese, after fighting a collection of Yankees, French, Japanese and Chinese among others, for uncountable hundreds of years weren't impressed with new and improved threats, from new and unimproved enemies.

They had been hardened over the centuries to leave early for work knowing that they might have to bury their dead or rebuild a bridge or two on the way. They would not be cowed by threats of death and destruction; death and destruction was all around them, forever.

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Political debates are an excersise of vapid talking points, quips and body language. Substance is irrelevant. Candidates are programmed to hold the attention span of people that watch American Idol and read tabloids while sitting on the toilet. Yet even these over scripted, dumbed down, brain massaged events have revealing moments.

Yesterday, like most political bloggers, I posted my analysis of the Biden-Palin debate and referenced Palin's most memorable sound-bite:

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Change is passé. Barack Obama squeezed all the juice out of the change orange since announcing his candidacy in February 2007. Personally, I never thought much of the "change you can believe in" slogan but there is no denying Obama went far with it.

However, Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's running mate has convinced the public change is coming no matter who wins. Even worse, the very same corporate media that complained Obama only offered "words" compared to Hillary Clinton's policy specifics during the primary season now argue that McCain's lack of specifics does not diminish his stature as a maverick. Is that fair? Of course not! But there is no sense whining about it. These are the cards we've been dealt.

So how do we change the narrative? The solution is to present the voting public with a stark choice: progress or calamity. Change vs. more of the same is stale and no longer resonates.

Whatever might have remained of the objective of using debates as a source of voter information and guidance was rudely shattered last night on a St. Louis stage after Republican media spin hands did their best to banish reason and logic out of existence and replace it with chilling Orwellian style 1984 rote garble.

Based on any traditional debate format Joe Biden performed with precision skill.  Sarah Palin's "performance" and that is labeling her evening's activity kindly, was a totally different matter.

My discomfort level rose sharply as the chirpy Palin drone persisted.  I was reminded of a faithful pet parrot called Polly that long time family friends kept in their San Diego, California home years ago.  

The line "Polly wants a cracker" was once synonymous with the rote, unvarying response of a parrot doing what it was told, delivering a programmed response as the faithful pet entertained its owners along with visiting friends and relatives.

In 1988 David Gergen commented on Dan Quayle prior to his debate with Lloyd Bentsen after much criticism and doubt had surfaced about the Indiana senator's qualifications for the vice presidency.

"If Quayle shows up he beats expectations," Gergen noted.

The question that now surfaces is the situation Republican current vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin occupies.  Given the rocky sledding the Alaska governor has encountered, particularly in the last disastrous week with fallout over her less than awesome interview appearances with Katie Couric, it could be said that Palin will beat expectations if she makes it to St. Louis on debate day.

With the comedic onslaught about Palin with that epicenter being Tammy Fey's brilliant satires on "Saturday Night Live", in which some of her best lines were verbatim from transcript, some analysts have stated that with the bar being set so slow, or perhaps with no bar at all, the Alaskan can benefit by just being herself and seeking to avoid any serious gaffes.

The choice of Delaware's Senator Joe Biden demonstrated solid strategic thinking from Barack Obama and his high command.

The strengths that former 2008 Democratic presidential aspirant Biden brings to an Obama White House run were manifested in Biden's initial effort after being selected, with salient points being raised in his Springfield, Illinois speech that need to be drummed home to the electorate between now and the November election.

By choosing Biden, Obama trumped the major point being relentlessly raised by John McCain and surrogates from the outset, that of the Arizonan's experience.  Biden has been in the U.S. Senate most of his adult life after having been elected by the people of Delaware at the age of 29.

While McCain talks the game, Biden has delivered in the experience sweepstakes in a manner that the Arizonan has not, by retaining a touch with reality and growing in office while the Republican solon has dodged, swerved, and ultimately vegetated.

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Peace Tree, Wild Wild Left and Worldwide Sawdust.

Warning, this is a long post. It's long because supporting a presidential candidate for me is deeply personal. It's not simply deciding which candidate I will pull the lever for in the privacy of a voting booth. Rather I approach the decision as an activist and ask myself: after weighing all the virtues and flaws of the declared candidates on whose behalf am I willing to devote my free time?

In my darker moments I'll ask myself, "Do any of these lying corporatist whores deserve my support? Why bother with any of them?" The ship has long sailed on my days of being a "true believer."

The topic below was orignally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Just prior to Election Day I did a post about my volunteer activism entitled, "Turning On the Janes and Phone Banking." I described my experience talking to a struggling single mother from Cuyahoga County, Ohio I called "Jane." Jane didn't want to vote due to frustration and cynicism. During our conversation Jane told me,

"I'm not waiting online all day like last time. Screwed up my whole day and my vote for Kerry didn't count anyway. It was stolen."

For good measure Jane added that I was,

"Wasting my time with these calls. It's fixed and the politicians never care about people like me."

The topic below was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Working through whom to support for president in 2008 has been cathartic for me. Typically I try candidates on for size by writing hypothetical speeches in their voice and occasionally post the results. I did this with Russ Feingold several months ago and liked how it felt but alas he isn't running. Recently I did the same for Barack Obama and enjoyed the challenge but it required writing in heavy religious overtones and felt uncomfortable. As I review the prospective field in the Democratic Party I neither see nor feel a president among Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsak.

Each has merits and flaws. From my vantage point however, the right candidate must combine maturity, gravitas, experience, intellect, authenticity, foresight and desire to serve a cause bigger than themselves. Al Gore has flaws of his own but is best suited for the job. We don't need a nominee who sticks their finger to the wind and follows the politics of expediency. Now is also not the time to nominate a pretty face or sound bite machine with a glass jaw. The real question is will Gore run? So I decided to compose a hypothetical announcement speech in Gore's voice and try him on for size. Looking at 2008 I like how Gore fits.

The diary below was originally posted on my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Anyone have the feeling John McCain's political star is declining but nobody has caught on yet? Certainly not the mainstream media or the Republican Party establishment. So I thought I would have some satirical fun and take a peak between his ears.

This is my time. I'll be damned if that crew of chickenhawks in the White House is going to screw it up for me. If I had my way, 4 million troops would land in Iraq tomorrow. What's the big deal? Bunch of sissies in that White House!

I'm older than dirt and nobody is going to stop me. Who else in the Republican Party can pander to conservative nuts but still appeal to the vital center of bipartisanship?

An unpopular war raged but the president refused to acknowledge error or change course. A talented and ambitious congressman continued to support his president in spite of private doubts and even misgivings from his own children. He largely supported the president's domestic agenda and as a Washington insider received many briefings from the Pentagon, State Department and CIA.

They all told him the administration's policies were working and a premature withdrawal was tantamount to weakness. The war was of course Vietnam. LBJ was in the White House. And a Massachusetts congressman named Tip O'Neill was on a collision course with President Johnson after years of steadfast support.

The diary below was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal on April 23rd.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) otherwise known, as brain fingerprinting will revolutionize how governments worldwide administer security and criminal justice. The potential repercussions for privacy rights are devastating. In years to come governments as well as corporations will possess the tools to examine an individual's brain waves and attempt to determine if they're lying.

In effect, FMRIs are neural imaging of one's brain waves. The technology allows researchers to map the brain's neurons as they process thoughts, sensations, memories, and motor commands. Since debuting a decade ago, brain fingerprinting has facilitated transparency with the cognitive operations behind behavior such as feeling stimulated by music or recognizing a familiar face in a crowd.

It is unclear whether Harry Reid and other Senate Democratic leaders have decided to filibuster Dubya's genuflection to the Radical Right, Samuel Alito.  The official word is wait and see, which suggests (shockingly!) an examination of the record to see what arises before and during the proceedings (you know that whole quaint advise and consent clause), and, pehaps more importantly, to see how the political winds coalesce, to see what the likely results and ramifications of the likely showdown would be.  So far, it appears that the public is unconvinced, meaning that, unlike with Roberts, the potential for a movement of the winds favorable to opposition is indeed present.

Whatever it is that Democratic leaders are planning behind the scenes, what they absolutely do not need are stories like this one, entitled "Democrat Says Alito Unlikely to Face Filibuster."  (Or this one:  "Biden:  Alito Should Get Up-or-Down Vote.")

"My instinct is we should commit" to an up-or-down vote by the full Senate, said Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee. "I think the probability is that will happen.

"I think that judgment won't be made ... until the bulk of us have had a chance to actually see him and speak to him," Biden told ABC's "This Week."

Why is this seemingly innocuous comment and the resultant headlines so irritating?  Well, let's count the ways.