“Excuse me. I don't mean to be rude, but I am forced to ask --  are you people crazy? Because if you are now's the time American voters need to find that out before we end up with another reckless nut in the White House.

“So, I ask, just what are you saying -- that if you were elected President you would keep open the possibility of using a nuclear weapon against collections of mud huts in the mountains of Pakistan? Is that what you say "should never be taken off the table?"  The threat that you, as Presidient might nuke terrorists camps?

“Let me be perfectly clear what my policy would be as President. Nuclear weapons have only one purpose -- as a deterrent. And not as a deterrent against asymmetrical, near-primitive bands terrorists, but a deterrent against a nuclear attack from another nuclear-armed country. Period.

"Therefore I repeat,  I would not use nuclear weapons against terrorist camps in Pakistan or anywhere else.

Now, since each of you, particularly Hillary, have criticized me for saying that, I  assume you have a different policy. Therefore, if any of you wish to announce tonight to the American people and the world that you don't share my stated position on the use of nuclear weapons, I relinquish the rest of my time to for you to make that announcement.”

That would have been a display of greatness. I would have recognized it as such, and I figure millions of Americans would have as well. 

But Obama didn't do that. He didn't exactly retreat, but he didn't advance and expose the political double talking nonsense being spewed out by the other candidates. A great candidate would have driven that spike right through their phony-baloney hearts. Instead he became cautious, allowing that flicker of greatness to be extinguished by the stale hot air that surrounded him.

No one else running has shown even that flicker of greatness. Hillary is host (in the parasitic sense of the word) for big money machine politics as usual. (Holy cow, the reptilian right wing, FOX News-owning Rupert Murdoch threw a fund raiser for Hillary!)

Hillary Clinton is the quintessential political shape-shifter. She's the Eva Peron of contemporary American politics. The only reason Hillary is leading her Democratic opponents in the polls is because none of them are are. None of them has yet shown the courage to step right up and smacked her around like a pinata. If one of them did just that the toxic crap that fell out of that phony would cause voters to flee in disgust.

But no one has had the guts – the greatness – to do that. Which has allowed Hillary to fill this “greatness-vacuum,” with focus-group-tested policy nuggets and her well-rehearsed but entirely greatness-free, sound-bites.

If what you think the world needs right now is more of the dog that bit it, then Hillary really is your girl.

If it's any consolation, Republican voters are even worse off. None of their candidates have even shown a flicker of greatness. Instead they have a bunch a guys that all look and sound like insurance salesmen vying to convince voters that they are more spiritually connected than their opponents.  Instead of putting a guy in the White House who's in touch with a genuine IQ, GOP candidates seem determined to prove they can channel the spirits of Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. (Just what the nation needs, another guy in the White House who believes he's in touch with God, and visa versa. )

Americans have become resigned to being limited having to choose from a list of appallingly mediocre candidates. After decades of such elections the mediocre candidates that got elected as “the lesser of bad choices,” created the convergence of daunting and festering problems that now threaten our liberty, prosperity and very lives. They may not have been great candidates or great leaders. But they did create great messes.

Don't such extraordinary times demand better? Shouldn't we demand better? I suspect that the vast majority of Americans, be they Republican, Democratic or Independents thirst for candidates up to the extraordinary challenges that face America and the world today. I'm sure of it.

In fact, I would bet my home that if our ballots included “None of the Above,” that choice would win hands down more times than not.  Maybe that's the solution. Let voters reject all the candidates when they don't like  them. Then give the parties 90-days to put up new candidates and have a new vote. Pretty soon the parties would get tired of having their mediocre “it's their turn” candidates rejected and would begin putting up their best and brightest, the courageous, the out-of-box thinkers.

Since we don't have and the “None of the Above” option – and  are not likely to be granted it by the mediocre incumbents in charge of such matters -- I'm left out here waiting for Mr. or Ms. Great-bar to show up.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings