Seeing as how the President claims to be a “Socratic Method” person, if Bob Woodward’s book is reliable, I figured it would be reasonable to ask the President to consider these questions, since he is such a big fan of Plato. John McCain wants to continue his policies, so he can answer these questions along with him.

Where in The Republic does it say that politicians should manipulate the country, mislead them about what is true, capitulate to greed, arrogance, all in the name of political ambition?

About the financial crisis, do you think it’s better to encourage other banks to gobble up troubled banks and institutions, thereby putting themselves at risk as well? 

What’s the difference between a salesman and a businessman? Are they one and the same? Is perception reality? Or is our duty as reasonable people to square away our views with the facts?

When you want to ban abortions, do you mean nationally or statewide? If it’s just permitted or abolished statewide, then what will be the charge used to enforce it, assuming someone breaks the law? You have a duty to enforce the law, so should we put women in prison for getting an abortion? Should we subject them to capital punishment? I’m not sure how these things work, but if you say that life begins at conception, and then decide to say that any elimination from that point on is a form of murder, then you have to charge the person with murder. If that’s the case, why should a woman in Texas be thrown in jail for the rest of her life while a woman in New York is permitted to do the same thing without fear of jail? 

About the tour of duty for our soldiers, what are you doing or planning to do to give these men therapy when they’ve come back from their fifth tour of duty? They have a higher suicide rate than the regular population, and since you probably can’t figure out why, it has something to do with shell shock, which is what happens when you’re told to kill people in the name of freedom, then come back to a society that has no ability to understand you as the changed man you now are.

Is inflexibility a virtue? Is stubborness something that should be admired, assuming for this question, that the person is wrong? I know you don’t know what wrong is, probably because you think it’s a matter of opinion, so I’m going to tell you. It’s when what you say is a misconception, something that is false. For instance, if I say the “Earth is flat,” that is false because it’s been proven that it is a globe. So by having a misconception, I then misjudge what I should do, which then leads to misconduct, which then leads to regret, assuming I have a semblance of a conscience. If you don’t have one, if you just think that’s a word to throw around in church, then you’re just an eristic, and since you’re a fan of Socrates, then you know what that is. I don’t have to tell you what you already know, that would be insulting, and I know the potential or current President of the United States knows more than me. It would be ridiculous to assume anything else. 

If you don’t answer these personally, then I hope that some journalists ask for my sake. I know you’ve got someone reading this. That’s why you listed Talking Points Memo as a left-winger site. If you could pass along the message to the President, that would be a courteous thing to do. I don’t blame you, the guy sitting at the computer monitoring this, but he really can’t answer these questions since he doesn’t know how to ask them. The craft threatens his confidence, which comes from his appearance rather than his essence. And a piece of advice to Barack Obama, you better prepare the country for what’s coming. These people won’t change their ways, and a depression is inevitable at this point. It’s a snowball now and the major financial institutions are melting down. Even if you win, the opposition party is going to try to blame you for the situation their incumbent created. As a person who spent three years of his youth reading philosophy, I know you know the difference between being a statesman and being a sophist, and you tend to the former. 

If Obama wins, every black child will be able to tell their sons and daughters that they too could conceivably be the next president of America. It would uplift a nation, a community, a family, a hopeless boy. We’re all lucky to be here, regardless our position in the world. We’re all the product of stars exploding, the product of pond scum evolving onto land and then setting evolution in process until human beings came to be. We have the opportunity to move beyond tribal instincts come november. We have the opportunity to start exploring the universe not merely as Americans, but as Human beings. We can stop a war, diminish a depression, restore a sense of dignity and respectability to our culture and help those ignored by the media, politicians and those in power. Maybe all this won’t happen in a day, but it will be signified as a beginning shot for our generation. Can we go to Mars? Can we elect a Black man to the presidency? Can we stop a war and unite the human race in a common purpose? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I know our actions will go along way in determining whether we can look our grandchildren in the eye and say, “Yes we can.” 

These results indicate a good deal about where this race is heading insofar as national coverage indicates. When asked, “Do you give a rat’s ass about polling numbers?” 15 percent said they, “couldn’t give two shits about what the numbers say, could you give us something more.” 25 percent returned with the query, “Why are you calling me again, I told you I don’t know.” 30 percent replied, “I don’t really watch the news because it’s just an echo chamber.” The remaining 30 percent bitched and moaned about how Franklin Roosevelt was the devil and George Bush was the second coming of Jesus. 

These numbers really shed some light on the candidacy’s chances for victory. The George Bush as Jesus portion is 99 percent likely to go for John McCain, and it’s the most solidly stupid and immovable bloc in the election. Nuclear winter wouldn’t make them vote for Obama. What remains unclear is whether Obama can capture the echo chamber complainers over and build a winning coalition. We’ll have to wait until November to see if he does. More polls to come between now and then. 

These results indicate a good deal about where this race is heading insofar as national coverage indicates. When asked, “Do you give a rat’s ass about polling numbers?” 15 percent said they, “couldn’t give two shits about what the numbers say, could you give us something more.” 25 percent returned with the query, “Why are you calling me again, I told you I don’t know.” 30 percent replied, “I don’t really watch the news because it’s just an echo chamber.” The remaining 30 percent bitched and moaned about how Franklin Roosevelt was the devil and George Bush was the second coming of Jesus. 

These numbers really shed some light on the candidacy’s chances for victory. The George Bush as Jesus portion is 99 percent likely to go for John McCain, and it’s the most solidly stupid and immovable bloc in the election. Nuclear winter wouldn’t make them vote for Obama. What remains unclear is whether Obama can capture the echo chamber complainers over and build a winning coalition. We’ll have to wait until November to see if he does. More polls to come between now and then. 

     I've heard that the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is that the latter wears lip stick. Well, that's pretty sick, and demeans mothers across the country. I'm not going into the whole doggy style thing. That's too easy.     Rather I'm going to go after an overlooked and never-polled segment of the population. It's the fart-sniffing segment of the population that both parties spurned in selecting their veeps. Sure Joey Biden is close, but he's too sophisticated for the people I'm talking about.    Frankly, I think we need to have a man of the people, a real munson, if you catch my drift. I know these high-school educated elitists who know how to spell are telling you there needs to be this thing called "education" or an "actual understanding of what a job entails." But I tell you, all you need is how to put a few slogans together. If you can toss back a beer, and approve a negative campaign ad, I think that's the only standard that these people should meet.  In fact, learning about an issue may get you in trouble. You may be perceived as too high-minded, learning things we lay people don't know. You got to stay ignorant if you want my vote. I'm sure the polls have hinted as much. It's a good thing you fellas and, well, by your own admission and comparison, bitch, don't let on how much you actually know. We all know it's more important to be perceived in a certain way than it is to actually be a certain way. 
I don't want someone who's going to improve my life. I want someone who's going to fake it, all the way. I want someone who lies to me consistently, who figures out what he or she will say based on what will make victory more likely. I want someone who tricks me into supporting a war, plunges my country into a depression and then blames me for the problems. Wait, that's what I have. Why am I still unhappy? 
But I digress. That's all history, and as we all know, these politicians hate that as much as they love dreaming of the future. I think I can find it in my hearts to forgive the Republicans if they do the following: let's put an unemployed waiter in as secretary of state and a paralegal to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. As long as they're good-looking and have something on their resume that vaguely resembles my own, I'll be happy with the status quo. 

     I've heard that the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is that the latter wears lip stick. Well, that's pretty sick, and demeans mothers across the country. I'm not going into the whole doggy style thing. That's too easy.     Rather I'm going to go after an overlooked and never-polled segment of the population. It's the fart-sniffing segment of the population that both parties spurned in selecting their veeps. Sure Joey Biden is close, but he's too sophisticated for the people I'm talking about.    Frankly, I think we need to have a man of the people, a real munson, if you catch my drift. I know these high-school educated elitists who know how to spell are telling you there needs to be this thing called "education" or an "actual understanding of what a job entails." But I tell you, all you need is how to put a few slogans together. If you can toss back a beer, and approve a negative campaign ad, I think that's the only standard that these people should meet.  In fact, learning about an issue may get you in trouble. You may be perceived as too high-minded, learning things we lay people don't know. You got to stay ignorant if you want my vote. I'm sure the polls have hinted as much. It's a good thing you fellas and, well, by your own admission and comparison, bitch, don't let on how much you actually know. We all know it's more important to be perceived in a certain way than it is to actually be a certain way. 
I don't want someone who's going to improve my life. I want someone who's going to fake it, all the way. I want someone who lies to me consistently, who figures out what he or she will say based on what will make victory more likely. I want someone who tricks me into supporting a war, plunges my country into a depression and then blames me for the problems. Wait, that's what I have. Why am I still unhappy? 
But I digress. That's all history, and as we all know, these politicians hate that as much as they love dreaming of the future. I think I can find it in my hearts to forgive the Republicans if they do the following: let's put an unemployed waiter in as secretary of state and a paralegal to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. As long as they're good-looking and have something on their resume that vaguely resembles my own, I'll be happy with the status quo. 

     I've heard that the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is that the latter wears lip stick. Well, that's pretty sick, and demeans mothers across the country. I'm not going into the whole doggy style thing. That's too easy.     Rather I'm going to go after an overlooked and never-polled segment of the population. It's the fart-sniffing segment of the population that both parties spurned in selecting their veeps. Sure Joey Biden is close, but he's too sophisticated for the people I'm talking about.    Frankly, I think we need to have a man of the people, a real munson, if you catch my drift. I know these high-school educated elitists who know how to spell are telling you there needs to be this thing called "education" or an "actual understanding of what a job entails." But I tell you, all you need is how to put a few slogans together. If you can toss back a beer, and approve a negative campaign ad, I think that's the only standard that these people should meet.  In fact, learning about an issue may get you in trouble. You may be perceived as too high-minded, learning things we lay people don't know. You got to stay ignorant if you want my vote. I'm sure the polls have hinted as much. It's a good thing you fellas and, well, by your own admission and comparison, bitch, don't let on how much you actually know. We all know it's more important to be perceived in a certain way than it is to actually be a certain way. 
I don't want someone who's going to improve my life. I want someone who's going to fake it, all the way. I want someone who lies to me consistently, who figures out what he or she will say based on what will make victory more likely. I want someone who tricks me into supporting a war, plunges my country into a depression and then blames me for the problems. Wait, that's what I have. Why am I still unhappy? 
But I digress. That's all history, and as we all know, these politicians hate that as much as they love dreaming of the future. I think I can find it in my hearts to forgive the Republicans if they do the following: let's put an unemployed waiter in as secretary of state and a paralegal to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. As long as they're good-looking and have something on their resume that vaguely resembles my own, I'll be happy with the status quo. 

     I've heard that the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is that the latter wears lip stick. Well, that's pretty sick, and demeans mothers across the country. I'm not going into the whole doggy style thing. That's too easy.     Rather I'm going to go after an overlooked and never-polled segment of the population. It's the fart-sniffing segment of the population that both parties spurned in selecting their veeps. Sure Joey Biden is close, but he's too sophisticated for the people I'm talking about.    Frankly, I think we need to have a man of the people, a real munson, if you catch my drift. I know these high-school educated elitists who know how to spell are telling you there needs to be this thing called "education" or an "actual understanding of what a job entails." But I tell you, all you need is how to put a few slogans together. If you can toss back a beer, and approve a negative campaign ad, I think that's the only standard that these people should meet.  In fact, learning about an issue may get you in trouble. You may be perceived as too high-minded, learning things we lay people don't know. You got to stay ignorant if you want my vote. I'm sure the polls have hinted as much. It's a good thing you fellas and, well, by your own admission and comparison, bitch, don't let on how much you actually know. We all know it's more important to be perceived in a certain way than it is to actually be a certain way. 
I don't want someone who's going to improve my life. I want someone who's going to fake it, all the way. I want someone who lies to me consistently, who figures out what he or she will say based on what will make victory more likely. I want someone who tricks me into supporting a war, plunges my country into a depression and then blames me for the problems. Wait, that's what I have. Why am I still unhappy? 
But I digress. That's all history, and as we all know, these politicians hate that as much as they love dreaming of the future. I think I can find it in my hearts to forgive the Republicans if they do the following: let's put an unemployed waiter in as secretary of state and a paralegal to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. As long as they're good-looking and have something on their resume that vaguely resembles my own, I'll be happy with the status quo. 

Alright, I haven't been reading the news, watching the television or going on the internet for the last 2 months. I've been reading greek philosophy to figure out how to think. Most of the journalists these days are preoccupied with finding two streams of propaganda along with a few guesses at the middle. They give the best guesser a Pulitzer Prize, and trump around his award to sell more newspapers. Politicians take another route, which is to pander and figure out the proper position to take. They measure the polls and as a result figure out which words will be popular with the people and as a consequence make it likely for them to win public support.Now, this sounds like a general critique of all politicians. It is in some ways. I don't like the system as it is, and it seems like we have a bunch of ambitious cowards in congress, a collection of unprincipled men in the judicial branch, and a lot of power-hungry bastards in the administrative branch usurping all the power that the founding fathers laid out among three branches of government. But I take it as it comes. And I prioritize what's the best approach from what's the worst. Here's what will happen if John McCain wins. And this isn't some blowhardery for your entertainment. This is truth. John Paul Stevens and another justice will retire from the Supreme Court. This will disable the third branch from preventing the executive branch from tyranny or excessive rule. Even if John McCain isn't bad, his justices will be around long enough to permit a tyrant's rise. And if you've read The Republic, then you know how easily that could happen, given the state of the American culture.Forget about Congress. These people want to position themselves for a presidential run. They don't care about you or the constitution. Hell, they don't even read most of the bills that come across their desk. Those go to some 25-year-old who's out of his first year in law school. They're just figuring out how to stick it in, let alone how to legislate bills that benefit the country. I think Obama is a good bet, perhaps one of our last ones. Should he lose, we'll be lost to the forces of right-wing politics. I don't know how many of you have read the national security books lately, but most of them are blanked out in huge passages. I don't know what was written in these passages, but I think, because of the First Amendment, I'm entitled to know. I hope these things come to see the light of day.I see the dark clouds rising on the horizon. Should we lose this time, I'll await the storm, standing steadfast until the rain hits my face, and standing alone if I have to in the face of oppressive winds. I will not flee to Europe or Canada. As long as America is around, I will not leave it or cower from the defense of its ideals. I can withstand being vilified as a "left-winger" or whatever nonsense that's thrown my way for writing this. Here's a list of people I've encountered lately. There's the firefighter who in two weeks of September 2001 went into the debris to pull out carcasses. He's still recovering from the trauma, at least if what I heard was any indication.Then there's my brother. He wants to be a marine, go off to war and be remembered for what he does. I want to tell him that no one, that is beside me and 6 percent of the rest of country, cares about what goes on over there. So maybe this election is personal for me. I want that firefighter's heroism to be an American story, not a Republican issue. I want my brother's ambition to be channelled towards something more noble. I don't think that would happen with McCain-Palin. So I ask you to persuade any Republican friends to vote Democratic because of this post as much as for your own ideals. Thank you for reading this.  God bless you and the United States of America. 

I’ve read and watched the same reactions to Senator Clinton’s rationale for staying in this race as you have. I’m sure you’ve seen the video of Senator Clinton’s reference to RFK’s assassination and the lengthy primary he participated in. What troubled me was not her thoughts, but the reaction to them.

There have been swift and strong denunciations of her remarks. Keith Olbermann, whom I typically sympathize with, blasted the Senator and insinuated that she is staying in the race because she thinks she could be the nominee if Barack Obama dies by an assassin’s bullet. The implication being clear: Hillary Clinton’s ambition overrides any sense of decency or dignity. For many who dislike the Clintons, this was the coup de grace, the one incident where it became apparent to everyone that she was Lady Macbeth. 

I couldn’t disagree more. First, if ambition is a fault no politicians should have, then we could not have a government. It is the belief that they deserve to be the most powerful people in the world that drives all presidential candidates. I cannot fault Senator Clinton for this because I would be judging her with a different standard than her opponents. 

Many of you are with me on this point, but you argue that her ambition is so strong that it overrides her judgment over what is right or wrong. This explains her vote for war in Iraq and her reasons for continuing the campaign, you say. This is a reasonable view, and one I’ve pondered, if not embraced, numerous times in the last few years. but this is a trait that has appeared in all American politicians since the republic’s inception. What makes political theater so compelling is the never-ending battle between individual beliefs and the insatiable hunger for power that is often quenched by the dead carcasses of those convictions. Historians, pundits and citizens view this typically as a Manichean struggle where vice or virtue wins. For example: FDR was virtuous, while Nixon was evil. This conclusion ignores that masses of Japanese Americans who were unjustly deprived of their rights and freedom when they were placed in prison camps during World War II or the fact that Nixon pushed for universal healthcare and better diplomatic relations with China and Russia. 

Reality is more nuanced than that. Hillary Clinton is both deceptive and decent. What makes her so intriguing is that she is not a natural politician, in the sense that she cannot conceal her darker side from the public as her husband, Kennedy or Roosevelt could. As a result, the better part of her nature is overshadowed and not seen by much of the public. She is simply seen as a calculating villain, Don John to Obama’s Don Pedro in Much Ado about Nothing. 

But painting her this way is an injustice. She wants universal healthcare because she empathizes with the sick and the poor. She wants to end the war in Iraq because she doesn’t want to see men and women die in an unjust war, even though she voted to begin it, an action she probably regrets for its effect on thousands of families as much as, if not more than, the effect it has had on her own career. I don’t doubt the woman’s convictions because I recognize her calculations. It’s just easier sometimes to see the latter rather than the former. 

Which brings me back to her recollection of the 1968 campaign. When asked whether this primary’s length would hurt the democrats’ chances in November, she recalled two historical examples to make the point that it’s not unprecedented for a primary to continue into June. It’s as simple as that. There is no ulterior motive revealed by this thought, no calculation shown that should be condemned. 

We often vilify our politicians, journalists and fellow man for ambition, calculation, bad pictures or ill chosen words and then complain if the same ridiculous standard is used against us or people we support. We add gasoline to the very fire that has burned us so badly. I hope this post will inspire whoever reads this to douse that fire with the cool waters of reason and open-mindedness. 

And just in case you question my objectivity and dismiss this as an equivocation on the part of a Clinton supporter, I want you to know I voted for Senator Obama, in no small part because I thought his candidacy was a break from the petty simplification that’s paralyzed so many efforts to solve the problems we face. I hope Senator Obama, as well as his most fervent supporters, remain faithful to that as he pursues the most powerful position in the world. After all, the room should not change your voice ... your voice should change the room. 

I read a good opinion piece about judicial appointments. Most of the democratic appellate judges, which in recent history has been the stepping stone position to the high court, are mostly too old to be considered. Here’s a clip from the CBS piece: 

The average age of all active federal appellate judges appointed by Republican presidents is 59.6, while the average age for Democratic appointees is 62.8. The age difference between the youngest sitting Bush appointee, Neil M. Gorsuch, 40, and the youngest sitting Clinton appointee, Charles R. Wilson, 53, is 13 years. Bush appointees are, on average, seven years younger than Clinton appointees. That difference may seem small, but James Lindgren and Steven Calabresi of Northwestern have calculated that, since the 1970s, the average age of appointment for Supreme Court justices was 53 and the average age of retirement was 79, creating an average tenure of 26 years. That means the seven-year advantage for Bush appointees would be equivalent to 27 percent of the lifespan of a Supreme Court justice. 

 This may explain why there is some talk about appointing someone outside of academia or the federal bench. Perhaps someone from the private sector, a successful trial attorney, could be considered. Since so many of the judges, at least from what my father has told me, are former prosecutors or judges with no trial experience, this would be a welcome development in my view. Another reform movement may be needed to do this, as George Will noted in his piece today, albeit in the opposite philosophical direction.

Fifty years ago, about 65 percent of the federal judiciary came from the private sector -- from the practicing bar -- and 35 percent from the public sector. Today 60 percent come from government jobs, less than 40 percent from private practice.

Judges must be paid more to lure people from the private sector away from lucrative private practices. 

Any trial lawyers to suggest? 

So I'm still compiling that list. I have two already. If you want to see more about them, check my earlier post. This one is certain to engender opposition from many Republicans as well as Democrats.
Ashlie Ben "Hussein" Hocking nominated Hillary Clinton, perhaps in jest, but I'll treat it seriously. She understands the nuances of government at both the state and federal level, and she has seen or experienced the workings of both the executive and legislative branches. She will be 61 next October, so she's about the right age, though it would be preferable to have a younger jurist. 
Frankly, I don't think she's interested in the position, and I don't think Obama would offer it to her. Some of the other candidates in the field could be considered. John Edwards comes to mind. 
Any other suggestions? 

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that 111,000 people have registered as Democrats, while the number of Registered Republicans has fallen 13,000. There was a little speculation in the article as to the cause, but it was not established. It's going to be interesting to the age, race and sex of the new democrats. Monday is the last day for people to register for the Primary, so both campaigns are making a push for their constituencies to show up. 

Three celebrities campaigned for Obama in Pittsburgh, including Kal Penn, the actor known for his role in Harold & Kumar roles. Another notable celebrity was Michael Chabon, who wrote an editorial in the Washington Post praising Obama. I'm waiting for the bump in the numbers as stoners are finally tallied in SurveyUSA polls. 

An article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described how some tomato farmers are having trouble picking their crops because they can't find workers, a result they feel is brought on tougher immigration laws. It's a pretty interesting piece. Lou Dobbs probably won't talk about this.