The Online Photographer

Well done, Mike.
It unfortunately about sums up my own feelings (and I'm a life-long Republican, although I can't remember the last time I voted for a Repub for President). Oh yeah -- I voted for Ike, and then once for GHW Bush).

Very nicely put Mike but just to move in a slightly different direction.

Isn't it sad that we need leaders. I suspect since time began for human beings, we have relied on leaders to take responsibility for things we would rather not have to deal with. Sort of an absolution of responsibility.

Every day I see people who would rather follow blindly than have to make up their own mind. This has got be be one of mankinds' biggest problems. Of course our leaders encourage this sheep like behavior and have institutionalized systems to propagate this mess.

I think it would be better if as a society we worked toward a goal of less reliance on leadership and more reliance on individual responsibility.

You had me salivating, right up until the last twelve lines, then you came out with the giant bottle of steak sauce and drowned an otherwise beautifully prepared meal................... :-)

Cheers,
Chris

I'm in violent agreement with most of what you said. However, just want to say that I as one citizen have no idea what percentage of each party's politicians are corrupt, only that it's way too high. Politicians should be less corrupt than the average citizen, since they have asked to be put in positions of public trust and enormous responsibility. Our current president got thousands of Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis killed on false pretenses and lies, and nobody is seriously considering impeachment. Our previous president lied about inappropriate behavior with another adult and was impeached. Go figure. I'm voting for Obama and hoping he doesn't compromise too much.

What an excellent subject matter for discussion! The thing of it is, when you look at all the candidates, not only has leadership been lacking, but it also seems that there is no clear direction from the "head honcho". Looking at the current crop:

Clinton - While we know that the Cliton's aspire to the White House and that is the purpose behind everything they do - they are a known entity. Whether the direction they take us is one we need to go is another question. Where would they take us? We don't know - all we know is they want the White House!

Obama - This guy came from Illinois with very little background, but an engaging and dynamic personality. While this is an excellent quality for a potential leader, when his guidance comes from known associates that denounce the country, it stands to reason that his principles are not dissimilar. This should not be surprising as he refuses to "pledge allegiance" to the country. How can one lead effectively if one refuses to pledge to ally themselves with the country they wish to lead?

McCain - Okay yes, he served his country and clearly is a strong-willed individual, but that does not speak to his ability to lead others, nor on his ability to lead a country. We know his thoughts on immigration and foreign policy, but what about taxes, economics of scale, dependency on external entities for energy, and the rampant decay of education in America, along with all the other domestic challenges that face our country?

Along with questioning the direction that our leaders want to take us in, we also need to be looking at the candidates in terms of their own directives. As the old saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With that in mind, I always end up asking "Why do they want to be President?" I have yet to see any of them give a satisfactory answer.

"Churchill was a great leader too, but you'll notice the British only called on him when they were in a tight fix and they needed a tough guy, and then just as soon as the war was done with, they booted him right out."

I think you're missing the point. The British were in a tight fix because their inept pre-war leadership believed it could ignore and then buy off Hitler. Churchill was called a war monger in the 1930s for advocating re-armament and vigorous national defense. Yet the policies he argued for then would probably have deterred war and made the later rescue of mankind by Churchill et al -- a damn close thing, achieved only at terrible cost -- unnecessary.

Lack of experience is only one of Obama's weaknesses. His main weakness is a worldview that seeks to ignore threats from or placate enemies. Historically, this is a dangerous worldview for the leader of a major country to have.

Well said, and I appreciate that this is readable from both a left- and right-wing perspective. Personally I've been very irritated this election cycle by how Ron Paul, who is maybe the only admirable politician in America, was marginalized and his supporters were portrayed as kooks by the media. I didn't agree with his whole message, but he had some vital things to say that are being ignored. I would disagree about the percentage of corruption: I'd say that both parties are 95% crooked. Which gives me a tough choice this November. I don't trust Obama or McCain. The best advice I've read this season was by Robert Samuelson, who said he'd vote McCain because the Democrats will probably open up their majority in Congress and he dislikes one-party government.

From the neighbouring country to the north,
any one person placed on a pedestal and asked to preside over a country, or a company or anything will soon realize being at the top is not a happy position. And yet if a country wants a leader; or perhaps shall we say a figure head 'cause that's what he/she is make sure you obtain one that is bright,
one that has not been an ass in previous activities, and somebody whose put
his brain in gear and thinks, before he opens his mouth, on any topic.

Oh, and before somebody wonders about "us,"
our political leaders are leaders of their
respective party. And yes it is a popularity
contest as much here in Canada as it is in the USA. The popular winner is almost always
not always the best winner; sadly, for the job.

So, on one hand we have a candidate whose sat under a fiery, America hating minister for 20 years as he spouted his hatred and claims he FINALLY has repudiated those beliefs, and yet who also refuses to acknowledge the very country he wants to be the Ultimate Leader of by committing his allegiance to its guiding principles (I wonder how he'll get around THAT if he wins and takes the Oath of Office?). He says he's the Candidate of Change, but I just remember the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times" and I wonder, what KIND of changes?
On the other hand is a temperamental old War Hawk with questionable ties who may or may not represent "business as usual."
What to do? What to do? For me, a strong Republican, it may come down to whether or not Obama chooses Clinton as his running mate. If so, game over, set and match point; McCain gets the nod, because Hell will freeze over before I'd willingly see a Clinton back in the White House again!

Obama is sure to lose because I support him.

I'm 49 and I've voted in every election since I turned 18. I have not voted for the winning candidate yet.

Just for the sake of accuracy, Jason's comments above are wrong.

Stating that Senator Obama will not pledge allegiance is a scurrilous lie that is constantly making the rounds. It is no more accurate than the allegations that Senator McCain was a collaborator with the Viet Cong.

The Unites States is a country that goes to war with no more justification than a scary rumor. The United States is a country that sends people like Jessica Lynch to Iraq four times rather then send their child once. The United States is a country that invents a story about the death of its fallen (re: Pat Tillman) as if brave and honorable service isn’t enough. I believe at one time the United States was the land of the free and home of the brave. Not now.

If I were czar the first order of business would be to hold the people of the United States accountable for their own decisions. Among other things, I would begin a “fair draft” where the call list is sorted by Adjusted Gross Income to ensure those with most to lose go first and are afforded the privilege of defending their good fortune.

A fair draft would silence a lot of loud mouth cowboys and save us the cost of their misguided adventures. With the money saved I would repair bridges across the fruited plain, provide health care to every U.S. citizen, and open an embassy on the moon.

Obama 08!

Not being an American, I have no say in the US presidential election, but I've been following Mr. Obama as someone whose ideas I would connect with, until recently.

Is Mr Obama today, the same person who won the Iowa caucus? Did he not ridicule the idea of having to wear the flag on his lapel and did he not say that God has no place in American politics? Well guess what, now that he's won his party's nomination, he has to appeal to a broader audience. He's now wearing the flag and saying God Bless America more than once in most every speech.

What else will he have to change? Blue collar workers voted for Clinton in Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia. As someone wrote, in these states, a gun is a form of identity, capital punishment one of God's commandment and abortion a crime.

So how does Obama reach these voters? You won't hear him talk much about gun control, won't say a word about capital punishment, will certainly minimize the role of goverment and mostly make people forget that he is black, especially to the latinos.

On June the 4th, showing support for Israel, Mr Obama went further then GWB ever dared to, declaring that Jerusalem is the capital of that country.

What other surprises does he have in store for the upcoming presidential election?

Last week I watched the re-broadcast of PBS's American Experience 2 parter about Franklin Roosevelt.

Sigh.

When he was informered that he had won (1932), Harry Howe asked him, "well, now that you are president?"
His reply:
"I don't know Harry, but if I do not do something, I'll be the last president."

"If America wanted experience, Robert Byrd would be running against Ted Stevens."

Well, at least we've dodged _that_ bullet.

I stand somewhat corrected on the "Pledge of Allegiance" myth surrounding Barak Obama. In actually taking a few minutes to dig around on the subject, he has come out since then stating that he has said the Pledge (and even led it in the Senate), and that he was also sworn in with a Bible and not the Koran. It of course, makes sense at this juncture to do so because as a candidate, you want to appeal to the widest possible voter base, and refusal to "Pledge allegiance" would not bode well in a general election. Nevertheless, the original evidence is there. Furthermore, a shift in your ideology to capture political office is not only indicative of a lack of leadership qualities, but also indicative of a lack of moral fiber. We know as photographers that a picture is worth a thousand words, but live video is even more telling. Thus, to that end, I give you Exhibit A:

http://www.youtube.com/v/kxfvxKBXRM4&hl=en

You may call me wrong, and lay stake to the claim that it's a "scurrilous lie", based on media that has been produced since the initial one that prompted the idea. Look carefully at said media though - where is his hand? Certainly not over his heart. While this may not seem like an issue to some, leadership, the ability to lead, and sticking to a moral compass are of fundamental importance. What a person's position is on things like taxes, health insurance, Israel or anything else is certainly of importance, but more importantly is the value of sticking to a moral compass. What I care about more than any other issue is seeing some integrity in a day and age where we are in desperate need of some. I would like to see a candidate who steps out, says "I believe X" and does not backtrack or change their stance for political gain. That, to me is the definition of leadership.

In reference to the patriotism issue, I realize that patriotism is not necessarily a characteristic of leadership in general but if your personal interests are not aligned with those of that which you wish to lead, then you have no right to that position because of the conflict of interest. I still have fundamental doubts about any of their interests versus the interests of the country. So, to that end, I still want very much to find out what each candidate wants. Don't tell me what you think the country wants/needs. Tell me what you want/need and why. If you do that, and your interests align with what interests me, you have my vote. Thus far, none have impressed me.

"until Bush does nothing to stop a war that kills or maims a whole generation, Buchanan has him beat. There were single days in the Civil War when several times as many American kids were killed as have died in Iraq."

Surely you don't stipulate that that generation has to be American? If you're looking at the impact of the Iraq war, let's take the Iraqi deaths (though it seems that's still far less than the Civil War stats), and the turmoil in that country, into account as well?

I can't comment too much on US politics, other than to say that I live with a US citizen who rooted strongly for Hillary, as did all her family, Democrats to a woman & man. But I do think Mike is right about leadership. It ain't what you got, it's the way that you do it. I slightly disagree about Hitler - I think he was Commander, rather than a Leader. Stalin was probably up there among the Commanders, too.

What's the difference? Well, it's what made Churchill a genuine leader (in and of his limited time - again, Mike is right about this & I say this as someone to whom Churchill is a major hero): the ability to see, and speak, the truth even when it's very unpleasant. Leadership begins here, and without it, can never begin: all you get is Commanders. Churchill was by no means the only person who saw the Nazi threat in the 30s, but he was one of the most prominent to say "this can only end badly". The trouble is, people don't always like to hear that, and one thing I have noticed among even my partners' family is that the US culture does place a premium on optimism. I'd go so far as to say that the great un-American activity is pessimism.

As an informed outsider, what troubles me about Obama is that I hear coming from him the sort of unfocused, unevidenced optimistic rhetoric that characterised Blair - something else that didn't end well.

Leadership, even in this sense, is also situational: whilst Churchill was right about Nazism (and to a lesser extent Stalinism), he was dead, 180-degree wrong, about Gandhi, independence in Africa, the desire for reform in '45 Britain, and the future of the Empire and Britain as world power in general. Of those things, he neither saw nor spoke the truth, and so never could be a post-war leader.

For the sake of the world as a whole, we all need Obama to be a great leader. That will begin when he says something along the lines of "this is an unholy mess and sorting it out is going to be very painful and take a long time and there is not going to a victory for anyone, least of all me". Churchill said to one of his generals when he was appointed PM "Poor people, poor people. They trust me, and I can give them nothing but disaster for quite a long time." Blood, toil, tears and sweat, anyone? (Churchill again, but quoting Theodore Roosevelt I think).

No, I think it’s the other way around. We could be at a turning point and there may be no turning back. Things don’t always keep on going on an even keel. Take ancient Athens, for example. At one point they were the maritime superpower of the eastern Mediterranean. Then their assembly voted to send their entire fleet to Syracuse to fight in Sicily (against the advice of Pericles). Just one survivor returned two years later - and as an after effect they were conquered by Sparta within a decade or two.

Economically, America has been going backwards since 1950 when the US had 50% of gross national income and the continuing erosion of the value of the dollar is just a symptom. Excessive military expenditure doesn’t help, especially when it gets to the stage of an illegal and immoral war in Iraq that is going nowhere. I also think that increasing inequality of income distribution is not merely socially but economically corrosive in the longer term because it restricts contribution and award for merit. Corruption is not just a feature of politicians, it is also in the power of lobby groups and the power of big business. And global warming may overwhelm us gradually or suddenly, in the worst case with an irreversible climate shift, especially if we do little or nothing.

I think Obama is hopeful because he’s the only US Presidential candidate, at least in the last 35 years, that I’ve heard say he thinks the Military should be wound back. Of course the problems are very large and we can’t expect miracles or instant solutions. I also think that the days when the US can pretend to be “the” leader of the World are fast receding as the US must these days only have a share of somewhere between 15% and 18% of world national income (I haven’t seen the figures for a while). This will become clearer in the (lingering?) aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan. The increasingly worldwide nature of environmental problems is going to mean increasingly worldwide cooperation if we are to make progress. No question, the US President can make a difference. McCain would be much better than Bush but I don’t see him as terribly hopeful in these terms. Let’s hope that Obama proves to be the equivalent of Roosevelt or better (that’s FDR, not Teddy).

(This post from a New Zealander living in Australia).

Jason, I'm looking (and listening) carefully, as suggested- and I think it's important to differentiate between The Pledge of Allegiance, and The Star Spangled Banner. It was the latter that was being played in your Exhibit A- Senator Obama had, in fact, "assumed the position" during The Pledge, as is customary.

We will no doubt see many more attacks, distortions, and outright lies in the months to come before the election. Some will be as outright laughable as "the terrorist fist jab." Others will demand that we remember the immortal words of Mr. Samuel Johnson, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

The real power is in Congress and until we get some reform there then who sits in the Oval Office is pretty much of little concern. We need Amendments providing us with term limits for members of both Houses, limiting the influence of lobbyists and providing the President with the Line Item Veto to level the playing field and make the President important again as something other than Commander in Chief.

So vote for who you want but know that if you punch the ballot for the same Congressman or Senator that is in office now for your district or state you really aren't changing anything but the face on the news.

HI Mike,
I would take you a different direction in my comment. I recently ran across this, which summarizes my thoughts exactly.

Here is an excerpt from a newsletter by Bill Gross, the managing director of Pimco. He manages the largest bond fund in the world. I wish I would have said these words:

"What this country needs is either a good 5¢ cigar or the reincarnation of an Illinois "rail-splitter" willing to tell the American people "what up" – "what really up." We have for so long now been willing to be entertained rather than informed, that we more or less accept majority opinion, perpetually shaped by ratings obsessed media, at face value. After 12 months of an endless primary campaign barrage, for instance, most of us believe that a candidate's preacher – Democrat or Republican – should be a significant factor in how we vote. We care more about who's going to be eliminated from this week's American Idol than the deteriorating quality of our healthcare system. Alternative energy discussion takes a bleacher's seat to the latest foibles of Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears and then we wonder why gas is four bucks a gallon. We care as much as we always have – we just care about the wrong things: entertainment, as opposed to informed choices; trivia vs. hardcore ideological debate.
It's Sunday afternoon at the Coliseum folks, and all good fun, but the hordes are crossing the Alps and headed for modern day Rome – better educated, harder working, and willing to sacrifice today for a better tomorrow. Can it be any wonder that an estimated 1% of America's wealth migrates into foreign hands every year? We, as a people, are overweight, poorly educated, overindulged, and imbued with such a sense of self importance on a geopolitical scale, that our allies are dropping like flies. "Yes we can?" Well, if so, then the "we" is the critical element, not the leader that will be chosen in November. Let's get off the couch and shape up – physically, intellectually, and institutionally – and begin to make some informed choices about our future. Lincoln didn't say it, but might have agreed, that the worst part about being fooled is fooling yourself, and as a nation, we've been doing a pretty good job of that for a long time now." Bill Gross

I think we are spending too much time watching entertainment about the individuals and not enough time thinking, talking and voicing our opinions about the significant problems we face as a nation. I believe if the focus shifted the politicians would follow and it wouldn't matter which party was elected.

What do you think?

Mike

I only disagree with your premise that we don't know who will be a better leader. Obama has shown a willingness to listen to and work with a wide variety of people; whereas McCain is a short fuse. His anger will cause us as much grief as W.

Jack,
Guess you think "75%" = 0, then?

I'm not an "us and them" type of guy. Remember what Mark Twain said: "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

Mike J.

You won't even let Woodrow Wilson compete for Worst President Ever? Tsk.

Check out The Peace To End All Peace and tell me Bush doesn't remind you of Woody Wilson just a little bit.

Ben Rosengart,
Wilson makes my personal worst list, not least because he was a virulent racist who set progress for blacks back 50 years. Who knows, if he had not ever been President, progress to racial equality might have been much steadier, and come earlier, and the Civil Rights movement would never have needed to unfold as such a struggle. Overall, people give Wilson credit for accomplishments that offset his negative points, and his negative points aren't as well understood or as universally acknowledged. But I personally think he was really bad, even tragically bad.

Bush is tragically bad in a somewhat similar way. I personally think that global warming will be much worse than most people are willing to speculate right now, so that the overriding view of history will be to regret the tragedy of choosing an oilman over an environmentalist at just the most crucial juncture in the history of that problem (basically, at the time period when we had our last chance to do something about it). But you can't convince people of that view NOW, because global warming isn't yet a universally acknowledged threat. In 30 years it will be, I believe. Another somewhat milder tragedy of Bush is that he took an era that should have been one of peace and prosperity and transformed it into one of war, debt, increasing inequity, economic malaise, curtailed rights for citizens, and national decline. That's less arguable, but perhaps also less starkly tragic.

Mike J.

Although I consider myself a Republican and can generally be found slightly to the right of center, I agree with many of the things you have written. I must however comment on the issue of health care. Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government owes citizens any level of health care? Why should health care be different than anything else of value in our society? Health care should be earned just like food, shelter, clothing, transportation, entertainment, etc. If you want to dramatically decrease the cost of health care in this country, hold people accountable for their lifestyle choices which negatively impact their health. People who smoke, are obese, are sedentary, drink heavily, use drugs, etc. choose to do these things. Why should the costs of their choices be spread onto those people who avoid such behaviors? Also, we should stop trying to keep people alive for a few more weeks, or months , or even years regardless of the quality of that time at the end of life and without any consideration of cost.
As a physician, I see huge amounts of money spent on patients who have little or no enjoyment of life whatsoever and who contribute nothing to society. Still, it is society who pays for their upkeep through health insurance premiums and public programs (taxes).
Perhaps the Native Americans had it right...When you are too old to pull your own weight anymore, walk off alone into the wilderness, make peace with the Great Spirit, and die with honor.

L. M. Youdale,
Your guess is as good as mine. There's already a pretty vicious smear campaign going on. This will give you a fairly good idea of what's being bandied about the right-wing noise machine, even though this is a comedy show:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/23079/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-mon-jun-16-2008#s-p1-sr-i0

Lots of fifth-column, hysterically dualistic, evil-infiltrator sorts of things...shibboleths being established. This is likely to get really bad before November. But we'll see.