So it wasn’t Hillary.

     Senator Joe “Is This Mike On?” Biden has been picked by Barack Obama to be his running mate. If nothing else, Biden is insurance against the possibility of Senator Obama developing laryngitis.

     Joe Biden has a well-deserved reputation of being a chatterbox. He may not exceed the verbiage produced by the all-time champ, the late Vice President Hubert H. “I’m Happy to Be Here” Humphrey, but no one living has so perfectly motorized a mouth.

     On the plus side, Senator Biden is a well-regarded Senate veteran. If Obama is elected he will be able to liaison with the upper chamber very effectively. Biden is also expert in foreign affairs, although his idea to split Iraq up into a federation of independent states won no salute when he ran it up the proverbial flagpole.

     It must also be admitted that Sen. Biden occasionally puts his foot in his mouth. Plagiarizing a speech by British politician Neal Kinnock, when Biden first sought the democratic nomination, was not his finest hour.

     Nor was it a triumph when he said of Obama in January of last year, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

      That doesn’t work on so many levels. The first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean? What is Jesse Jackson, then? Or Colin Powell? Or Condoleeza Rice? How do they fail to be articulate, bright and clean? Describing black men and women is a subtle put-down, inferring that blacks, as a people are somehow deficient in intelligence or language skills.

     But “clean” was Biden’s adjectival crusher. The other African-American politicians of our time are unclean? Does Biden mean in terms of physical hygiene or does he mean “clean” in terms of honesty and integrity? However he means it, it is a devastatingly racist thing to say. Next thing you know he will be making jokes about convenience store clerks from India…

     Perhaps the best thing about Joe Biden is that he is not Hillary Clinton –at least if you, dear reader, wish to have Obama win this election.

     Hillary was a trap, a temptation that Obama probably did not have a lot of trouble resisting. Aside from the fact that he fails to find any affinity for her; there is also her baggage.

     Hillary would bring to the campaign a lot of unanswered questions about her behavior during the eight years of her husband’s presidency. Old issues would be dredged up, washed off and put on the table again.

     Hillary’s hub, ex-President Clinton, would also distract attention from Obama’s message. Everything he would say in public would be weighed to see if he was truly “enthusiastically” supporting Obama or damning him with faint praise –or outright criticism. This would happen quite a bit because right after Joe Biden, Bill Clinton is the biggest motor mouth in politics. The campaign would be about the Clintons, not Obama.

      Now it is John McCain’s turn to decide on a vice presidential running mate. If he’s smart he will announce the name right after this week’s Democratic Convention ends, to steal the publicity from Obama on what should be his biggest day of “bounce.”

     I propose he nominate General David Petraeus. Petraeus turned a losing war into a victory, so we know he’s got a good head on his shoulders. Or, if he had not already been co-opted by the Obama campaign, Colin Powell.

     Condi Rice would be a good choice, as would be Mike Huckabee. Condi Rice, the first black woman nominee, is extremely qualified for the job having been National Security advisor and Secretary of State. Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, is a conservative with solid evangelical support.

     And then there is Mitt.

     Don’t get me wrong; I personally like Mitt Romney. He looks presidential. Even if can’t deliver Massachusetts for McCain he might be able to deliver Michigan, where dad George Romney is fondly remembered. He is a successful businessman whose acumen played a big role in saving the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. He brings economic credibility to the ticket.

     Mitt, a Mormon, does not play well with evangelicals, however. And this is a year when McCain cannot afford to alienate his base. Also, Mitt’s conversion to conservatism is quite recent and reeks of expediency. I hope he finds being pro-life and pro-capital punishment to be at least refreshingly different.

     Finally, if the primary season this year proved anything, it proved that Romney is not a winner. Therefore, without hesitation, I predict McCain will pick Romney, if only to be contrary.

     It’s a good thing that in the end, voters really don’t care or even remember who the vice presidential picks were come November.

Responding to a crisis effectively is the number one duty of government and the most important talent a President can have in this era. Judging from a major slip in his numbers in the Zogby Poll, Barack Obama appears to have failed the gut-check imposed by the Russian invasion of Georgia and the recent presidential “debate” at the influential Saddleback Church.

     It was all reminiscent of the stereotypically liberal response Michael Dukakis gave in 1988 when asked, by CNN’s Bernie Shaw, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

     Dukakis replied, “"No, I don't, Bernard. And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state…” He continued his answer by applauding Massachusetts’ dropping crime rates and calling for increased international cooperation in drug enforcement.

     Shaw had meant to pitch a softball to Dukakis and the governor had swung and missed –big time-- with a dull, lawyerly answer that sounded oh, so stereotypically liberal, reinforcing the notion that liberals don’t care about crime victims –even if they are married to them. All that Dukakis had left to do to seal his fate was to put on his helmet and climb into that M1 Abrams tank…

     Fate pitched Barack Obama a softball in the form of the Russian invasion of our ally, Georgia, on August 8. Obama swung and missed with statement he made on the crisis to the press, interrupting his Hawaiian vacation: “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."

     If you knew nothing about either country, could you tell from Obama’s statement which country is an ally of the United States? Obama calls for an immediate end to the fighting and restraint by the countries, but does he propose a specific action, much less one that would benefit our ally, Georgia? As for “restraint, Georgia was invaded by Russia. With an enemy army on her soil, how is Georgia supposed to restrain herself?

     Obama calls on the U.N. Security Council and the international community to “fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.” Aside from the fact that Russia can veto any Security Council action, do you see an Obama proposal here that peacefully resolves the crisis?

     Obama’s statement was a Dukakis Special: dull, lawyerly in its vague mushiness and stereotypically liberal in tone.

     The morning of the invasion, John McCain went before the camera and demanded an end to Russian military action in Georgia. After making appeals for diplomatic pressure on Russia (no mistaking who he thinks are the bad guys) he called on NATO (which is not stymied by Russian vetoes) to assess Georgia’s security needs and to develop measures that can be taken to stabilize the situation. Finally, in the area of “peaceful resolution,” he called on an international peacekeeping force for South Ossetia (where the only “peacekeepers” have been Russians).

     In the days that followed, everybody swung over to McCain’s view –President Bush, Condoleeza Rice and even…Barack Obama. 

          Fast forward to last weekend and the Saddleback Church. Another softball was pitched to Barack Obama, this time by Rick Warren, pastor of the church. He asked Obama, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”

     “Well,” Obama said, “I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of it there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

     “But, point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I am pro-abortion, but because ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in a profound way. In consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members. And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where we can find some common ground, and by the way I have now inserted into the Democrat Party platform -- is how do we reduce the number of abortions, because the fact is that abortions over the last eight years have not gone down.”

     Where do I begin? First of all, he never answered the question, claiming it was above his pay grade. What pay grade is higher in responsibility than the President of the United States? There are moral and ethical sides to the issue? No kidding. Obama's answer is, dare I say it, lawyerly in its vagueness and fairly stereotypically liberal.

     And, by the way, the number of abortions in the United States, according to a July report of the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html), has been steadily going down since about 1991 (the peak was 29.3 abortions per 1,000 pregnancies in 1981. In 2005 it was 19.4 procedures per 1,000). Obama was wrong on the facts of the matter.

     Warren later asked the same question of McCain: “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?”

     The Republican answered, “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life President with pro-life policies. That's my commitment. That's my commitment to you," leaving no questions in the room about his beliefs.

     By this point in the campaign even Democratic politicians are publicly voicing alarm. The governor of Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, put it very bluntly, “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he [Obama] needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal Mart about how he would improve their lives.”

     That’s something John McCain seems to have no trouble doing.

It is unfortunate but true…  that the politics of personal destruction has being going on in presidential politics for quite some time now. In 1984 a peace activist, lecturing school children in Maine, predicted they would never grow up if Reagan were reelected because he would cause a nuclear war.
     Some of the kinder epithets thrown at Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) were “The Original Gorilla,” “baboon,” (according to Gen. McClellan), and “tyrant.” Enemies claimed that his real goal was to force white women to marry freed slaves. Harper’s Magazine put it all in one sentence calling Lincoln, “Filthy story teller, despot, liar, thief, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, ignoramus Abe, old scoundrel, perjurer, swindler, tyrant, field-butcher, land-pirate.”
     Barack Obama is in excellent company.

     As Obama himself admits, his is not the typical presidential biography. Born of a Kansas mother and a Kenyan father, he was raised for a few years in Indonesia and grew to manhood in his grandparents’ home in Hawaii. There is fertile ground here for insinuation and invective.
     At least that is what author Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., seems to have found, judging from his book, The Obama Nation. I have no principles that are offended by books or articles attacking Obama’s policy positions, or his lack of sufficient experience, as reasons to vote against him. One could write volumes.
     On the other hand I cannot trust any book that is researched so poorly or makes major claims unsupported by evidence. 
     I’ve written and published some non-fiction myself. In researching the life of General Grant I checked, double checked and triple-checked original and top secondary sources before asserting facts about Grant’s Civil War career (Commanders in Focus: Ulysses S. Grant, Brassey, 2004). I read and reread every book I could find on the man, even those only tangentially concerning him.
     That is the standard of research usually required for non-fiction. I emphasize the word “usually.”

     What kind of research must Dr. Corsi have done if he gets the date of Obama’s wedding wrong? He asserts Obama does not mention the birth of his half-sister in his books (he does) He claims Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan (Obama has consistently called for reinforcing the U.S. presence there).
     How can Obama be tainted both by his membership in a radical Christian church (Trinity United Church of Christ) and by allegedly “extensive” ties to Islam? Wouldn’t it be one or the other?
      Obama admitted using cocaine as a youth. Dr. Corsi claims he’s still on the stuff. Says who? What an allegation without evidence to back it up!  
     I could never place any credibility in a book so sloppily researched, so careless of fact.

    I oppose Barack Obama. I do not like his policies on defense, abortion and social programs. I think his message of “change” and “hope” is at best vague and undefined mush. Obama is inexperienced. He certainly does not have the experience in national government required if we are going to face a new cold war with the Russians at the same time we are waging a war against Islamist terror.
     But Obama does not deserve a bucket of mud in the face. Let him rise or fall on the merits of his ideas and in the forum of civilized discussion. Let the people have facts to weigh and accurate quotes from the candidates to ponder as we make our electoral decisions.

Wars have a nasty way of starting when one nation underestimates the will or ability of another to fight. Saddam Hussein’s troubles began when he underestimated the will of the Iranians to fight after the Islamic revolution of 1979. He invaded Iran and walked right into a World War I-style bloody trench war that wound up killing a million Iranians and Iraqis.
      In the 1930’s Japan watched Stalin liquidated the officer corps of the Red Army. They attempted an invasion of Siberia and were promptly thrashed and thrown back over the border of Manchuria.
      In 1941 Hitler, having seen how easily the Finns defeated a Soviet invasion, thought the USSR ripe for the taking. Four years later Russian solders were digging the Führer’s charred corpse out of a muddy Berlin shell hole.
      In 1990 Saddam Hussein thought the West to weak and lacking the nerve to respond when he invaded Kuwait. George Bush the Elder responded by assembling a mighty coalition army that, after a punishing, month-long air assault, vanquished the Iraq Army in 100 hours.
     Now the Russians appear to be embarking on the Mother of All Misjudgments. This is an under-appreciation of America’s nature and resolve so profoundly in error that it might spell the end of contemporary civilization.
     Read this clip from the August 15 issue of Pravda:

        The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia warns Poland that it may become a priority target for Russia in the event the USA         deploys elements of its missile defense system on the territory of this East European nation. To put it in a nutshell, Russia may strike a         nuclear blow on Poland, which is possible after the recent change of the Russian Federation defense doctrine.
          "The USA is busy with its own missile defense system; it does not intend to defend Poland at this point. Poland lays itself         open to attack giving the USA a permission to deploy the system. The country may become an object of Russia's reaction. Such             targets are destroyed in the first instance," Anatoly Nogovitsin, Russia's Deputy Chief of Staff said commenting the recent agreement         regarding the deployment of the US missile defense system in Poland.
           Nogovitsin stated that Russia may use nuclear weapons in cases as stipulated by the defense doctrine.
          "It clearly states that we can use nuclear weapons against the countries possessing nuclear weapons, against allies of such countries,         if they somehow support them, and against those countries, which deploy other countries' nuclear weapons on their territories.                 Poland is aware of it," the general said.

     Correction: The United States does intend to defend Poland. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk made it quite clear to our government that he did not want the anti-missile interceptors on his country’s soil backed by the NATO guarantee of assistance alone. Tusk said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be too slow in coming to Poland's defense if threatened and that the bloc would take "days, weeks to start that machinery."
     "Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later -- it is no good when assistance comes to dead people. Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of -- knock on wood -- any possible conflict," Tusk said.
     He obviously would not have signed an agreement to base the missile in Poland, especially not when the Russians were smashing Georgia, without ironclad American guarantees that we would instantly come to Poland’s aid if the Russians attack that country.
     Russia underestimates our will to fight. If they attack any part of Poland with nuclear weapons, we will respond in kind. That has been U.S. military and foreign policy for a long time.

     The Russian threat, even if it is a bluff, is so irresponsible, so insane…  that it staggers the imagination. They don’t realize they may be trading a patch of rural Polish soil –where we would locate the missiles-- for a nuclear firestorm in Moscow. It would end only one way: with hundreds of millions dead in Russia, the United States and Europe, civilization smashed beyond immediate repair and a dark age for mankind lasting God knows how many centuries.
     Or, the Russians could grow up and restrain themselves.
     What is troubling is that George W. Bush the Younger has not firmly and publicly answered the crude Russian threat with plain language …that we will retaliate with nuclear weapons if our ally, Poland, is attacked with them.
      It may be that a credible threat of retribution in kind is the only thing these madmen will understand. God grant that they do.