It's 3am.  Do you know where your President is?  The West Wing?  East Wing?  Lincoln Bedroom?  Oval office?  The White House is a big place.  And that "red phone" looks like a landline.  So why is Barack more qualified to handle a matter of national security?  One reason is that he's smart enough to have a mobile phone (red, of course.)

Who do I want picking up the "red phone"?  Someone who can answer it in less than six rings.  A small country could be decimated in three rings for sure. Wouldn't it be more convenient if it were a wireless?  Does the CIA have to get a warrant before they could listen in?  Does Hillary really go to bed in a pantsuit wearing makeup and glasses?  Who's on the other end when Hillary picks up?  "Oh, um, er, I'm Alexis, is Bill there?" 
(all in fun)

Energy is not an issue we can afford to get wrong.
I believe it should evolve as the priority issue of the Democratic party.

There's an opportunity for Democrats to be as right about renewable energy as Republicans are wrong about perpetual war

They can become the thought leaders for energy in the 21st century. It can be a new defining cause for the democrats and help crystallize their foundation and relevance not only in America, but also the world.
While everyone's paying lip service to cellulosic ethanol, clean coal, solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power, I would recommend that the Obama campaign elevate the conversation on renewable energy and put forth a vision that is infinitely more ambitious than raising cafe standards or setting cap and trade laws.  Those are steps forward but what's required at this point in history is a giant leap. The era of fossil fuels has overstayed its welcome. Oil is a finite resource. It is the principal culprit for the climate crisis. And the oil industry won't create millions of new jobs. Only ingenuity can. The question is this: Which country will get there first? Science has been missing from the White House agenda for 8 years. The Bush administration has invested what is essentially loose change to new research. America can't afford to drop out of the "discovery" race. Obama is uniquely qualified to champion this cause. He has enlivened a younger generation. His appeal is cross-cultural. He has unarguably united Americans in a profound and unprecedented way. The issue of energy and the environment needs a leader. There is, in Obama, a legacy just waiting to happen.

David Ignatius wrote a compelling article about a new book coming out that says what all of us have suspected all along

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703179.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Was this sarcasm?  
"With all of Obama's ties to Kaddafi and all Kaddafi's ties to terrorism, not to mention a lot of Muslims and Arabs and blacks, how much longer can Obama stay silent on his relationship to Kaddafi? Does he support Kaddafi? Has he met with him? Will he denounce Kaddafi, notwithstanding that nuclear deal with have with him now?"

The situation in Iraq is a civil war. And regardless of what John McCain says, Al qaeda only constitutes a fraction of the violence there. Glenn Greenwald (and Josh I think) wrote about this last summer.http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/ If the Republicans are good at anything, it's framing an issue in a misleading way. They then repeat it over and over again until it's part of the national conversation. As a result, they "own" the issue first, and democrats are left in the dust.
The Democrats really need to pre-empt issues and accurately define them. If they don't, Republicans will do it for them. 
This has been a constant problem for the democrats throughout the Bush administration. Granted, Bush has had the bully pulpit, but democrats are now the majority in the House and Senate.
Now that they have the nation's ear, they have to start behaving like a majority.  

One party with one powerful relevant and unwavering voice.
In my opinion, the longer Hillary stays in the race, the more divisive the democrats sound. I know she's a fighter but I hope it doesn't come down to the very last superdelegate.  
It almost seems like the Clintons have detached themselves from the Democratic party and are running their own operation.  
Before the democrats can stand up to the Republicans, they have to stand up to the Clintons.

Yes, Lindsay Graham just said that.   I've never heard anything so log-stupid in my adult-life.  

And right after that, he added:

"What we're seeing in Iraq is the most successful counterinsurgency in the history of the world." 
He's speaking on the Senate floor right now.  

Glenn Greenwald had a pretty informative article today regarding John King's inability to question Mike McConnellon Telecom Immunity and PAA.  
In it, there is the revelation that McConnell's career was in telecom before he got the DNI job.  It's like he's a lobbyist pushing immunity for his own industry.  

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

We're fighting two wars.  

Does that mean the health of our nation should take a backseat?

What about our unstable economy?  Is it dying of neglect?

Our natural resources are running out and we treat inventing a large scale, potentially carbon-free alternative energy source like a side hobby.  

To say nothing of our schools, our infrastructure and our health.

The last thing we should do is elect a one-trick pony to the oval office.  

Our mindset is war, war, war.  

True. The military is overstretched.  

But I don't think Bush has revealed to the world the limits of American military power.

I think he has shown the world the unrelenting application of incompetence.

Incompetence and the delusion of global dominance is the single reason we are engaged in war.

International terrorism, while horrific, has been around forever and it will continue.

We fear what would happen if there is another terrorist attack on American soil.

I posit that we should fear responding to another terrorist attack in the same way we did 8 long years ago.

Things have changed since the World wars, Vietnam and the Cold War. McCain brings 50 years of the wrong era of experience to a 21st century job.

Electing someone that has a militaristic reflex is more dangerous than electing someone who understands you don't fight car bombs or hijacked planes with a geographically-laden army of tanks, fighter jets and occupying brigades.

The oval office has had a severe deficit of perspective and competence since 2000.

It's created the illusion that we need to elect a battle-tested militia man to save us from evil.

The truth is we need to elect someone who can save us from ourselves. From our own actions. From our own arrogance and ignorance about the world that is emerging. Countries don't need our economic prosperity. They can now create their own.

And we can participate far more successfully in this new world as soon as we realize the futility of trying to stop that.

And as soon as we take a step back. Re-calibrate. And kickstart our commitment to ingenuity, science, education, and health and welfare of our citizens.

We need a president who can make our country stronger.

Not just our military.