Despite the common inheritances of confederate flag bumper stickers and Nascar, each southern state possesses characteristics that combine into a unique personality.

For North Carolina, the prevailing view is that of a progressive outlook that is more presentable than our southern neighbors.

This would all seem to bode well for Obama. Furthermore it is reinforced in polling.

Yet, beneath the surface of this much promoted progressive label is a deeply rooted secret...

It's mostly bullshit

As Democrats, we have developed an especially acute awareness of corrupt, inept and just plain Machiavellian Republican political leadership over the years. Somewhat lacking, however, is objective self reflection of our own.

If I were to use the names Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Bremer in a conversation regarding leadership in foreign conflict within liberal circles, the conversation inevitably involves listing the worst examples of its practice.

And accurately so.

However, If I were to mention names like Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Warren Christopher and William Perry concerning the same topic what do you think? Ponder that for a moment...

Secondly, what specific episode(s) come to mind?
.....Bosnia, right?

Well, I believe, as Democrats, it is perfectly natural for us to embrace shining examples of our successes while kicking our gross failures under the bed. Out of sight, out of mind, right?

But this practice involves us not being intellectually honest with ourselves. It opens our party to ridicule from the other side, and promotes leaders who would otherwise be fired if their chosen profession were anything other than politics.

Conflict Case in Point: Rwandan Genocide

Today, public opinion largely views this gross atrocity as a failure of the United Nations.

And accurately so.

Yet, this blame is not altogether fair, for it was American leadership that largely determined whether other nations followed suit.

Not only did the Clinton Administration turn its head as nearly 1 million Tutsi men, women and children were slaughtered, but they indulged the public with asinine role play not unlike the garbage George Bush is feeding us today in regards to reality in Iraq.

For instance, As obvious reports of genocide filtered to the US in 1994,

-Clinton had not one senior adviser level meeting on the situation

-Officials like Madeline Albright avoided using the term "genocide" so to side step UN law compelling intervention

-Warren Christopher  toyed with the term, citing "Acts" of genocide but would not commit to it being fully practiced, though readily apparent to all

-As the slaughter ensued, all but a handful of UN peace keepers were withdrawn and Americans in the country were evacuated. Upon returning safely to the US, Bill and Hillary made it a point to officially congratulate the US officials at the State Department for a "job well done."

To objectively reflect on the Clinton Administration's handling of the Rwandan conflict, its coy-like dancing around the word "genocide" and non deserving public pats on the back, conjures thoughts of our current President's manipulation of the Iraq saga.

Thus, intellectual honesty requires us, as Democrats, to concede the fact that our party too has demonstrated recent historical examples of repulsive leadership that is very similar to that of the Bush Administration today.

Why is this important now?

1. Some of these same officials want back in the White House in 08.

2. It is important to learn from the past, no matter how inconvenient.
   
3. The Democratic party will most likely be the name that heads the next chapter in Iraq. It is up to us to decide whether it will be a chapter of glory or a chapter of tragedy.

In conclusion, concerning leadership in foreign affairs, true outrage warrants consistency. No matter what party is in charge. Avoidance and dismissal only serves to dehumanize the victimized further...

As November nears, I think it is important for all of us to examine the IR aspect of an Iraq withdraw. I don't think it's going to be pretty, regardless of who's in charge....

Liberals commonly advocate intervention in Darfur and Tibet for humanitarian reasons. Which, anyone with half a soul could sympathize with. Yet, there probably isn't a single one these days that openly advocates remaining in Iraq, despite the inevitable fact that America will leave it an utterly broken state destined to manifest into a much larger problem in the future.

By far, the most popular rationale is that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

Fair Enough

Bush Lied.

Fair Enough

But that doesn't change the fact that once we leave, Shia will murder Sunni, and  vise versa on a massive scale reflective of Darfur.

The situation is hopeless you say.

Fair Enough

But what of the consequences of withdraw? From an IR perspective:

1. Iraq will fragment with much of it coming under the Iranian umbrella.

2. There will be a huge struggle for oil in the North and the South.  
   
3. Saudi will destabilize over Sunni security concerns
   
4. Kurds will declare independence
   
5. Turkey will become more assertive
   
6. Oil prices will skyrocket to a level that is unbearable to the average  US consumer

Would this outcome not threaten our national security?

I believe the honest answer is yes.

Yet, we largely choose to ignore the elephant in the room waiting for us in Nov. and focus on the sins of our current President.

Soon, however, it will be our elephant

And it must be dealt with carefully, for it has the potential to explode in size and scope far larger than we are willing to acknowledge.

Yet, all I hear from our candidates is "withdraw" followed by carefully scripted ambiguity that I find quite frightening....

As a veteran of Bush's God Forsaken Wars, and person who has voted Dem for the past 11yrs, I think it is not unreasonable to ask....Has anyone really thought this through?

Thinking about revenge voting in November? Consider this:

In 1961, Eisenhower, a Republican of extinct breed, gave the ultimate middle finger to his peers by warning the nation of the military industrial complex and its grave implications on our democracy.

We ignored it then and 60,000 kids too poor for college later died

Today, the term is rarely referenced and is only resurrected now and then by what mainstream America refers to as the conspiratorial liberal punditry.

The problem with associating the military industrial complex (MIC) in a category with Roswell and grassy knoll enthusiast is that the damaging effects of the MIC are very real and fueling our military adventures today. One only has to look at our 600 billion-dollar defense budget to understand why...lots of money to be made in war these days...and very little oversight.

Worse, if McCain is passed the presidential mantle, the MIC is certain to get a 4-year contract renewal. Not for anything relating to our national security, but rather war for war's sake....

Here is how it works:

Our system of government encourages what political science regards as an "Iron Triangle." It involves three mutually dependent interests, which once bound together are virtually inseparable. These three interests are 1. Congress, 2. The Bureaucracy, 3. Interest Group

What makes them inseparable is that once aligned, a cycle of back scratching ensues in order to sustain their viability.

Here is a current Example of the MIC at work:

Arms manufacturer, Airbus, sends campaign contributions to John McCain who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee-------->John McCain votes in favor of Airbus contracts & expands DOD budget----------> DOD rewards Airbus with special favors and low regulation-----> cycle starts again.

Thus, everybody gets rich off of U.S. tax dollars and dead kids too poor to pay for college.

Thus, Mr. Straight Talk McCain is no Ike. In fact, he is a politician of the most vile breed. He is a combat veteran with no problem what-so-ever sacrificing his own for personal benefit. Yet, McCain's motivations are clear. At least to this veteran. But the press are too shy to call him out on it because as a prisoner of war he is immune from criticism of any substance.

In conclusion, If your favorite Dem candidate fails to get the nomination; scream, shout, curse the world, do what you gotta do to let off some steam. But for God's sake, do the right thing come November. Let reason overcome passion, for our democracy cannot sustain the Military Industrial Complex much longer..neither can the kids too poor for college

Washington Times:

Are Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Elton John breaking U.S. laws by allowing the British pop singer, a foreign national, to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign by performing a concert on her behalf?

That's the question Inside the Beltway put to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) yesterday, which does not rule out the possibility.

First, some background supplied by the FEC: The goal of the 1966 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was to "minimize foreign intervention" in U.S. elections by establishing a series of limitations on foreign nationals. In 1974, the prohibition was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), giving the FEC jurisdiction over its enforcement and interpretation.

According to the FEC, FECA "prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."

The question now is whether Elton John is contributing "indirectly" to Mrs. Clinton's campaign and whether the candidate herself has sought to "solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations" from a foreign national, which is unlawful.

Sounds like Hillary needs a vacation. Poor gal just can't catch a break these days. There must be something to that karma thing after all..

Anybody who is following the delegate math in North Carolina knows it is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton to win the nomination at this point. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can.

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

Sadly, we all know what that entails. Her situation demands more of the same repulsive tactics we've been forced to digest since her initial fall from grace, only amplified. This will require exercising what some call the Tonya Harding option. This is because, ultimately, she will have to ruin Sen. Barack Obama, the man, to steal the nomination. She will have to destroy every ounce of inspiration he has somehow managed to shower our cynical country with until he is completely unacceptable. How sad is that?

Furthermore, with North Carolina being the last state with a substantial number of delegates up for grabs, expect Hillary to plan her Waterloo right here.

Therefore, as Democrats, it is critical that we hold the political line as she musters her wretched army of character assassins for the final assault. Surely, they will attack with creativity, but we are better, for we know they mean to exploit, through him, those ugly racial biases this state has struggled to overcome for so many generations.

They will also attempt to change hearts and minds through propaganda, but we, as Democrats, must resist the temptation of being influenced by catchy sound bites endlessly cycling on cable news.

Come on, North Carolina. Lets show Hillary we are not the naïve Democrats her advisors suggest.

to submit to Letters to the Editor in North Carolina Newspapers..If anyone is interested please post here. Looking for passion here. Thanks!

The drama unfolding within the Democratic Party has exposed an ugly truth concerning our rag tag coilition. In my opinion, there are just too many factions occupying our tent these days...and not for the better.We've got folks like union members, feminists, enviromentalists, minorities, socialists...yada..yada. Theres more we've picked up throughout the years, I'm sure. But aside from their cause,who are they really as people?  

Though we all seem to claim the ideals of Thomas Jefferson is the best thing since sliced bread, the repugnant racial tone of the Hillary campaign, and the subsequent support (and defense) of Hillary despite her tone illustrates that a large faction within the party is more in line with the ideals of someone like Machiavelli (or Jesse Helms?), rather than anything Mr. Jefferson ever had to say about Democracy. No, this camp celebrates an ends justify the means platform, even if that means degrading a few Negros here and there..

I think her willingness to eat her own like this for personal benefit is unfortunately a halmark of the baby-boomer generation..Let me sum up their philosophy:
..me.me.me.me.me...

If so, this suggests that most if not all of the Democrat factions are tainted with this selfish influence, which would explain her broad appeal..

Therefore, I think a third party should be seriously considered for those who wish to be associated with a more pure strand of Jeffersonian Democracy.