A View From The Press Box

There is so much to agree with in your column.

I agree that there must be more than two families available to govern our nation other than those named Bush and Clinton.

I wonder if Hillary can even legally be president. She was "co-president" last time, and as I recall the Constitution says you can only serve two four-year terms.

The good thing about a Hilary victory, she and Bill will bring back the furniture and gifts they took from the American people the first time around.

I'm kidding. But that type of nasty aside is what the Clintons are best at doing, and this nation has had enough negativity. I just with both Bill and Hillary would go away.

So of the two candidates, Obama is the easiest to like by a long shot. I do, however, wonder about his experience and that he has real qualifications for the highest office in the land.

He is definitely a positive person, and if he has the skills to cross party lines and build coalitions and bring various groups to the table to solve problems, then he will be a heck of a good president. I just hope he's not all hype and sound bites like the Robert Redford character in that movie eons ago, The Candidate.

Truthfully, no one running in either party is going to make a bit of difference. None of them have the political courage to really tackle the $8 trillion dollar debt and control Congressional spending to the point where we really balance the budget and really begin to pay off that stultifying debt.

None of them are willing to do the difficult tasks of addressing the $20-to-$60 billion per month...depending on the month...trade deficit. None of them are willing to do what it takes to get jobs lost overseas back into this nation.

None of them have the courage to really address the issue of illegal immigration. In my state yesterday, there was a rally on the steps of the capitol by illegals demanding driver's licenses and the right to vote.

The right to vote?

I'm rambling. You are correct. Obama deserves the vote over Hillary.

For those of us in the West who have not yet voted and are still looking for answers:

I'd like to know exactly what Obama's "reasonable" foreign policy will consist of? How will he protect me from Islamist terrorists who have been after us since 1978 Iran? What tactics will he use different from Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush?

I'd also like to know why you make a reference to "those who stand in his way." This doesn't encourage me, because it sounds like more "divider" not "uniter" talk.

During one of Obama's post-election speeches, he read these words from his teleprompter: I need a 60% majority to "push through" my agenda." Also frightening speak.

I'm one of those voters who needs something concrete, not just feel good.

SAM RESPONDS:
You raise some excellent points, Sue.

First of all, I believe Obama will be more diligent than Bush in securing our ports and nuclear facilities, while striking a better balance of security without shredding our Constitutional rights. I believe he won't sanction the use of torture, either--a dubious technique that undermines our moral authority in the world.

I believe he will more actively engage countries like Iran, Venezuela and others that end up arming themselves in response to our bellicose rhetoric. I also don't think he will get us into anymore wars on false pretenses.

Obama will act in concert with the rest of the world to deal with threats, like Bush 1 did so successfully, rather than unilaterally and arrogantly, like Bush II.

As for "those who stand in his way," what I meant was that those who refuse to negotiate for the common good, those who block action for the sake of party politics rather than good government, will be exposed and eventually driven from office by a public hungry for solutions, not partisan postering. That goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. Obama's election would signal that there is a new game in town.

Hope that helps clarify the points you raised.

Sam, congratulations on successfully traversing the journey. I too, am optimistic that Obama will inspire all of us to do great things and set this country back on the right track here at home and in the global community.

As for that often heard concern, "But he doesn't have enough experience." Well, if the last seven years is any sample, experience isn't all that it's cracked up to be. I seem to remember that GW was supposed to have a lot of experience. So much for that issue.

It will be interesting to watch the next nine months play out as we all witness the most exciting presidential race in recent history. I'm looking forward to lots of discussions...and blog postings.

SAM RESPONDS:
Actually, the entire Bush Administration is the most experienced foreign policy and defense team a president could ask for with Powell, Rumsfeld, Chaney and Rice. And look where they've gotten us!!!

Thanks for your response, Sam.

Can you explain what you mean when saying Obama would "actively engage" Iran (i.e. countries that defy the U.N.) ? A big concern of mine is that we get duped again if signing diplomatic treaties as we did with North Korea and with SALT.

I'd also like to know, what is the "common good"?

Thanks.

SAM RESPONDS:
Obama has talked about establishing a more open dialogue with nations perceived as hostile, such as Iran. If we had established a dialogue with Iran years ago instead of belligerently categorizing them as part of an "Axis Of Evil," when in fact they were one of the more democratic Mideast countries, they might not be so paranoid and intent on developing nuclear weapons.

By common good, I mean considering world opinion, not arrogantly doing whatever we want, unilaterally. The first Bush--a former U.N. ambassador, by the way--achieved that brilliantly in the first Gulf War.

His son disdained any other nation's view and look where that got us. He ridiculed the French and started peddling "Freedom Fries" when it turns out the French were dead on right about our invasion over WMD being premature.

I believe Obama (and Hillary, for that matter) will pursue a more reasoned policy of mulilateralism.

Good Lord Sam, I'm not sure it's any use in posting.

Maybe you should take on more of a moderator role, throw the issues out there and let posters fight it out.

Otherwise, those of on the conservative side are going to disagree with almost everything you say (see the health care string), and we won't improve the discourse at all.

Just a thought and, please don't vote for a Democrat....Seriously man.

SAM RESPONDS:
Seriously, "Tiger," if conservatives can't take a little bit of debate or disagreement, it only exposes an inherent weakness and lack of confidence in your positions.

In a democracy, the point of free debate is for everyone to expose their positions for public scrutiny, and see which ideas survive--often after moderating them one way or the other to gain majority approval.

I think you folks can handle a little debate, don't you?

I read your post, and while we can agree or disagree with the relative merits of the candidates, you lose me totally in your response to Sue.

Okay, for some unknown reason you think that Obama will secure the ports. Whatever, I guess it is an article of faith or something else that I am unaware of. I did not know that two years in the U.S. Senate and a few years as Illinois State Senator imbues upon someone the ability to control safety at ports.

Then, you truly reveal yourself by repeating Bush Derangement Syndrome of "shredding the Constitution."

Are you kidding me? What a load of crap. Yeah, trot out Padilla--yada yada yada. Give me one person that has had his rights trampled on. Give me one newspaper closed down. Give me one politician arrested for crossing Bush. C'mon. You talk that kind of talk and I stop reading because it is absurd.

Finally, more BDS with torture. Tell me who has been tortured? Also, tell me how many times we have been attacked in the U.S. since 9-11. It was a given that we would be hit regularly. We have not.

I will go out on a limb and say that Bush and his administration has had something to do with this.

I am sorry to rant, Sam. I love your blog and appreciate your opinions and the fact that you allow a healthy dialogue, but you have to be called on this.

SAM RESPONDS:
James, anytime the President of the United State takes it upon himself (or, perhaps in the near future, herself) to unilaterally assume the authority to declare American citizens "Enemy Combatants," toss them into jail and then deny them all due process of law--seeing an attorney, hearing all the charges and evidence against them, getting a fair and speedy trial before a jury of their peers--we have left democracy in the trash and become a dictatorship. That is exactly what Mr. Bush has done.

Anytime a President unilaterally decides that he has the authority to wiretap conversations involving Americans without bothering with court oversight or warrants makes this a nation of men (and women), and not a nation of law. We are all at risk in such an arbitrary system of "justice."

As for torture, what went on (and perhaps is still going on) at Guantanamo Bay and in Abu Graib has already been well-documented. We cannot defeat our enemies by sinking to their level of barbarity. Otherwise, they have already beaten us.

Sam, you said: "As for torture, what went on (and perhaps is still going on) at Guantanamo Bay and in Abu Graib has already been well-documented. We cannot defeat our enemies by sinking to their level of barbarity. Otherwise, they have already beaten us."

I guess you would prefer that we litigate our enemies to death.

I do not agree with how Bush handled the entire war againts the terrorists. However, bringing in the lawyers does NOT solve the problem when our enemies do NOT recognize our laws.

I am a registered Democrat, longing for a new Harry Truman. Since there is none on the horizon, I felt I could do the best for the country by voting for Obama in the primary and try to eliminate Clinton from the fray.

Then, come November, grit my teeth and vote for the Republican candidate.

Wow, Sam, you can really stir things up. So let's get it on.

As an American citizen, if you are fighting for a country we are at war with, you should be held as an enemy combatant. I believe those persons should not have rights in this country at all. It is clear they did not want to have anything to do with our country anymore.

I don't believe we should give the same rights to any person caught on a battlefield trying to kill our solidiers that we give to our citizens.

By the way, the President of the U.S. is the Commander and Chief of the military and can declare these people enemy combatants. It has been done in the past.

As for the wiretaps, check the facts. The only conversations tapped were phone calls coming into the country from known terrorists. Please tell me you do not have a problem with that. I want our country protecting us from these scum who attacked our country.

As for the so-called torture or waterboarding, so we are supposed to let these [expletive deleted] torture and behead our troops and civilians, then we are supposed to ask them nicely if they would give us some information?

Being nice doesn't always work, especially when you are dealing with terorrists who want to blow themselves up to kill anyone they do not like.

As for the war in Iraq. The first time around we and the other countries were removing them from Kuwait, which was done. Then Iraq violated the cease fire agreement 17 times!!!! There were all kinds of reports stating the WMDs were there. Some reports said they were taken to Syria.

Have mistakes been made? Yes, but from the friends and troops I have talked to who have been there, they say we have made things much better and most of the people there like us being there, but that never gets reported.

As for France they were just affraid of being hit by a terroist attack. But the terrosists have tried to attack them. Appeasement does not work--remember Europe in the 1930s? Look where that got them.

As for foriegn policy and dealing these whacko dictators who have really taken away rights of their citizens, I say we should not deal with them. They do not want to deal with us, and I believe they want to do us and our allies harm.

I could not vote for Obama because I do not think for one minute he changes the tone in D.C. The only way to do that is to have a whole new House and Senate, and that ain't going to happen here in the real world. I do not like his position on illegal immigration and securing our borders. But he will secure the ports and nuclear facilities, huh?

I believe he will raise taxes on more than just the wealthy--which on any given day, just who is wealthy is not real clear. I do not belive he will cut spending. At least Bush is trying to cut out the "earmarks," which would have helped, say, 7 years ago.

I am not sure who I will vote for yet. But as a business owner the Dems have proven they love to raise taxes and spend even more than we are doing now. They say they want to cut spending, but tell me the programs they will cut.

I real enjoy the blog and the lively debate.

SAM RESPONDS:
Dave, I am not talking about soldiers captured on the battlefield (although I do believe the Geneva Convention and due process of international law should be applied to those people as well). I am talking about the presumptuous and unconstitutional ability of our president to unilaterally imprison an American citizen right here at home, without any due process. Aren't we all presumed innocent until proven guilty? If not, we are all in big trouble!

As for dealing with whacko dictators, we seem to have no problem dealing with the Saudi royal family, despite the fact that their record on human rights--particularly with women--is atrocious. Ah, but they are our allies! I see, so they can do whatever they want to their people, free from any U.S. criticism, as opposed to others who are " evil."

Negotiation does not mean appeasement. Bilateralism does not equate to weakness. We just have a very different view of how to do business.

I'm with you, Sam! Obama all the way!

I don't think I've ever done so much wavering in all my life when it comes to voting for a President this year, but at the same time---what fun!!

While I like what you say about Obama and I tend to get caught up in the "real change" wave, the experience factor worries me, along with the sheer fact that there are still so many close-minded folks out there who will vote against him merely because he is black--although most will deny it to their graves.

I also honestly fear an assassination attempt were he elected, as there are still enough whackos out there that would see his election as the end of their "white" country.

On the other hand, Hillary does have the experience and the contacts in Congress to know how to get things done--but, as you indicate, there is abnormal hatred for her out there which may prevent real change.

In addition, I fear she may be more liberal than Bill and more than I would like to see (regardless of what most people think, Bill was a moderate and had sound fiscal policies in place with a REAL surpluses before they were wiped out by GW).

Finally, on the other side of the aisle is McCain, a true bi-partisan senator who is a true moderate, regardless of what he is saying in his campaign, and not afraid to go against the party lines when he knows the Democrats are on the right path (for example, the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, Bush tax cuts that aggrevate the deficit, etc.).

On the other hand, will he have to pander to the conservatives just to get elected (Huckabee for VP?) and owe them favors in the end?

I've got about a week to make up my mind. Where's my crystal ball?

I agree with everything you said, Sam.

My husband, on the other hand, voted for Sen. Clinton. This is the first time we have disagreed on who to vote for in 33 years of marriage!

Just a thought. I was bothered by your references to "Hillary" and "Obama." They both have first names and last names, and they are both senators.

I think it belittles Sen. Clinton to be referred to by her first name, when Sen. Obama rarely is (except by Sen. Clinton).

I don't think this is entirely a man-woman thing (although that is certainly part of it).

As you note, Sen. Clinton is very familiar to the country--those of us with severe Clinton fatigue find Sen. Obama very appealing!

But these people are running for President! We don't see references to "John," or "Mitt," or "Mike"--only Hillary!

Anyway, I enjoy your blog.

SAM RESPONDS:
Point well taken on the name aspect...I will be more consistent and respectful from now on. In a blog, the tendency is to be more informal, but if I refer to Hillary, I should also refer to Obama and Barack, or McCain as John.

All that I have learned since Harry Truman to now, through observation of performance by government leaders, both domestic and foreign, and through listening to the candidates, has led me to conclude very early in the process that Obama is essentially a capable orator and nothing more, using the pulpit to appeal to the populist desire for something other than Bush-Cheney-Rice, et al.

Obama's popularity is at best a sad commentary on the leadership void in the U.S., and perhaps the naiveté of his supporters, who must truly believe that speech-making translates to head-of-state competence.

As a Democrat, I voted for Senator Clinton. If Obama is nominated, I will vote for McCain, simply because I prefer government experience and demonstrated acheivement over oratory.

While Senator Clinton and Senator McCain may not fit my ideal profile in terms of priorities and programs, and one can parse and argue their differences and faults, they stand together in their desire and competence to lead the U.S. on a better path forward.

I agree that referring to Iran as part of an Axis of Evil was straight talk the world may have not wanted to hear. Iran's seeking nuclear weapons capability while rejecting international inspectors and its exporting of Hezbolloh terrorists to other countries has certainly been honest information, though.

Churchill experienced the same reaction with his straight talk when he tried to warn England that Hitler was arming Germany again, against the terms of Germany's World War 1 surrender.

Yes, its correct that Iran is presently a democracy; however, we all know that Dr. Ahmadinejad has tossed secular instructors out of Iran's educational institutions and intends Iran to be a theocracy; which is okay by the Ayatollahs. And, he insists Israel be wiped off the face of the Earth.

It appears that this straight talk, though, is acceptable as few have condemned him. An American university even invited Ahmadinejad to visit after his comments.

Can the first Gulf War really be considered a success? Remember, Al Queda did not exist in its present form back then, but we know Osama Bin Laden was livid that Mideast countries allowed the U.S. on their soil to push Iraq out of Kuwait. And now look where we are.

Saddam Hussein used WMDs against his own people, the Kurds and killed many tens of thousands of them with these weapons so, of course, the world approved when we policed him, based on this fact.

This, in turn, led to President Clinton signing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and stating himself in his speech to the Pentagon that Hussein would use WMDs again and we had to prevent it. Hence the U.S. and U.N. forces going in.

We can't keep our heads in the sand and pretend that foreign policy appears overnight. Foreign policy is something that evolves throughout different administrations.

My only question is, what would the evolution be in an Obama administration? I still have not been able to figure it out.

The really inspirational thing about our political process is that we do have the opportunity to debate, disagree, get behind our final elected officials (or continue to disagree) without the threat of prison or hanging.

The really uninspirational (and deeply disturbing) thing about our political process is embodied by the photo of Senator Obama posed in front of "Superman." This picture incorporates much of what is wrong within our society.

How have we come to equate "Hollywood" with ability? Despite the allure of the big screen, flashy magazines and nightly news fixes on Britney Spears' latest sad debacle, star power does not make a person a great leader.

Our country is in a mess. Jan. 20, 2009 can't come quick enough. Our next president needs to be more than visionary, more than a great speaker, more than a "star."

We need a president who knows the ins-and-outs of getting things done in Washington. We need a president who understands the nuances of diplomacy and thus can repair our damaged image across the globe.

We need a leader who can pull together a miracle economic team to dig us out of this enormous burden of debt. We need a leader who understands the importance of education from early childhood education through college, and who will initiate financial programs to support the school system and the student.

We need a leader who will encourage science, green growth and job growth. We need a leader who is sensitive to the crisis in health care and who will protect our seniors' and veterans' rights and yes, our Constitutional rights.

We need as President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Enthusiasm and youth are fun to watch; it's uplifting, true. But youthful enthusiasm will not keep Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Putin and Chavez under control.

In these grave times, we need the gravitas of experience to put us back on the right path. If it takes another Clinton to clean up after a second Bush, than I'm willing to stay through one more Clinton presidency to get there.

I have truly not seen an election this pivotal since 1960. It is really great to see so many people engaged in the political process.

I have watched more Democrat and Republican debates than I thought possible. Watching both sides unfold shows what a magnificant country the Founding Fathers established.

Sam, you and I are misinformed on Iran. We both referred to Iran as being democratic.

I was corrected by a well-informed colleague who stated: "Iran is not really a democracy.
The religious leaders select who goes on the ballot. The religious leaders are also the ultimate authority on any decision made by those elected."

SAM RESPONDS:
Indeed, you are correct. But it's more democratic than our ally, Saudi Arabia. We never seem to have a problem with their system of government.

Our own system isn't exactly a perfect democracy, either. Despite all the primary hoopla, getting the nomination of one of the two major parties isn't exactly straightforward democracy. And don't even get me started about the Electoral College. A lot of our current problems would never have arisen had we chosen a president based on who actually got the most votes.

Lot's of points taken here in this blog. Like they say, politics and religion bring out all the feelings.

For the first time in over 20 years, I changed parties and voted for Mr. Obama. Why? Because we need someone who hopefully can be a mediator between the two totally devisive political parties we have today. We need to get compromise back into politics.

We also need someone who will have ideas that are fresh along with getting us our of some of the messes we have been put into over the last 20 years. We do not need the old guard (Clintons or McCains), as they have their own agendas along with old agendas and hard feelings, will bring back their old cronnies and the trash that comes with the past.

We know that Ms. Clinton will go the route of our current leadership in the White House of 'my way or the highway,' which would lead to getting nothing accomplished.

Some out there have said that none of us have had our rights taken from us since 911. Have you gone to the pharmacy lately? You will see a sign that alerts you to the penalty of obtaining Actifed or Sudefed for illegal activities (making Meth) is confinement and a fine up to $250k UNDER THE PATRIOT ACT, not under the normal laws that DEA would act under.

What this means is that under the Patriot Act, you can be held indefinetly as you can be considered a terriorist. Rights not taken away? This is just one example of what has happened over the last 6-plus years.

I am not in favor of people being considered rich if a family makes 120k a year, as one of the candidates says. That is the base salary of a husband and wife who work on the assembly line of an automotive company. Or two teachers who have taught for 15 years in many states, or the average salary of a lot of postions in the Insurance Industry at the 10-15 year mark for two people.

Hopefully Mr. Obama will remember it is the middle class that helps this country keep moving, as I really feel that Ms. Clinton has no desire to help the middle class.

The Republicans have also lost touch with the people, and we need to send some shock waves around.

In all honesty, it is time for a real third party to come of age. Many countries have more than two parties, and it is the third party that at times can bring some assemblence of sanity to the vote in the resepective chambers.

Enough rambling. Go Senator Obama! Get the country on a course that has not been followed for the last 16 years.

Yes, Sam, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy like Jordan. And no, we were never set up to be a true democracy by our forefathers; hence the reason why we are a republic.

J R--The reason the Patriot Act included the pharmacy inclusions was because it was determined dirty bombs could be made from over-the-counter pharmaceuticals. A really good reason for their removal from the grocery store shelves is due to increases in meth labs from over-the-counter pharmaceuticals--kids were dying from overdoses.

Just ask the pharmacist for the packs and he'll oblige.

Finally, I've read that Obama would raise the Social Security threshold above its current cap of $97,500. So, those making above this amount can expect a larger Social Security withholding from their paycheck.

SAM RESPONDS:
Just one note on the drug issue. To get the drugs with meth concerns, one has to present photo idea and sign and register on a document sent to the federal government. It makes everyone who buys Sudafed feel like a criminal, or at the very least, "registers" you with Uncle Sam and makes you a "suspect" of some sort. I personally think it's overkill.

I agree, buying Sudafed and its equivalents over the counter has become tedious. I guess I've gotten used to showing my ID/having my signature on file for so many things--driver license, mortgage, employee payroll, credit cards, even buying groceries to get sale prices, etc.

Sam, what would you recommend as an alternative to preventing dirty bombs and meth labs? We need more ideas and I, for one, am always listening.

SAM RESPONDS:
I would have to bone up more on the subject to comment with any authority on this particular circumstance, but risk management and loss control can go so over the top as to become suffocating if we're not careful.

Seems odd to be going nuts about Sudafed sales, but leave our ports and nuclear facilities as sitting ducks in many ways. Focus attention and resources where it will have the biggest impact for the biggest number of people.

I don't know how this conversation got so derailed, but I'll chime in on the Sudafed/Dirty Bomb issue.

The only ingredient for meth that comes from Sudafed is a dirty version of ephedrine--a drug that up until a few years ago could easily be purchased in America.

Now it can just be easily imported instead. Most meth labs are using pure ephedrine that was NOT tediously extracted from Sudafed.

The only small fraction of meth produced from Sudafed is from small-time producers in trailers or hotel rooms. So this has little impact on the meth problem.

Moreover, most of the Sudafed that was used was stolen, not legally purchased.

You can therefore put the Sudafed behind a locked door, like other high-shrinkage items freqeuntly are (liquor, condoms, spray paint) without forcing people to add themselves to a federal list.

As for the dirty bomb nonsense, anyone who is afraid of this really has a thin grasp on reality. You cannot synthesize heavy particle radioactive materials from over the counter medicine. So it's really a chemical bomb we're talking about.

Even if you could, the kind of radiation that is emitted in any dirty bomb would not have a very large effect. More people would be killed by the blast in the bomb than the irradiation--hence why we haven't bothered to develop conventional versions of these weapons. They're not effective.

Any reasonable national security analyst (and this speaks to James's post earlier about not being attacked since 2001) would agree that one of the most serious risks in the immediate future is from militants armed simply with assualt rifles going into public areas and opening fire.

We have been attacked by terrorists several times since 2001--Virginia Tech, Salt Lake City, just yesterday in St Louis. These people have bizzare political/religious motives that drive them to kill indiscriminately.

Fortunately, they are generally so mentally unstable that they are not very good. The Vt. killer had one of the highest death tolls, but if he was as motivated and well-trained as the attackers on 9/11, and had even one accomplice, there would have been over 200 deaths easily.

Given then that a demonstrably graver threat to national security comes in the form of terrorists crossing the border, arming themselves and shooting people than from dirty bombs, I would have to assume that anyone who is all for strict government intervention in our lives for something as simple as cold medicine, is then looking for a strict tightening of gun laws.

Or does this cross party lines and so it's off the table?

Port security has been a concern of mine, too, and is something I've been following.

You are most likely aware security funds for ports has increased 700% since 9-11. This has translated into 825 radiation portal monitors, 14,000 handheld radiation devices and over 1200 canine teams being implemented at our ports.

And cargo manifest information must now be provided 24 hours in advance of any cargo being loaded at any foreign port bound for the U.S.

We are also screening 100% of cargo before it is loaded from foreign ports onto vessels bound for the U.S. And screening is performed on cargo while enroute in international waters.

The Port Security Council recently announced additional federal grants of $388 billion from the Department of Homeland Security. My understanding is this is part of the Department of Defense budget, but I'm not entirely sure.

There's also a Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorists, consisting of over 6,000 importers who work with the feds to control their shipmments in the face of terrorism.

But don't take my word for it. Visit the Web site for the American Association of Port Authorities. (Recognize that not all ports are federal; many are state authorized.)

Also, visit the Port Security Council's Web site. Some of this can also be found at the DHS website.

I must comment on the meth labs. As someone who has worked with numerous agencies training the narcotic-sniffing K-9 dogs, I have some knowledge on this.

The only time the documents are at the pharmacy are used is if there is someone who is buying stuff at every location they are available. The pharmicists I personally know have told me this.

The person who has a cold and needs some Sudafed is not buying the max quantity at every pharmacy and therefore is not in danger of being thought of as a criminal. J.R., the sign said for illegal activities, and if you are not doing illegal activities what is the problem?

The meth problem is one of the worst things to ever come along, and any reasonable way to stop it is worth it. Note I said reasonable, and showing an ID and signing a form in my opinion is not unreasonable.

I wonder if the feelings about personal freedoms are consistent with, let's say, the rights of gun owners. Some have no problem taking away this constitutional right of law-abiding citizens who have never committed a crime.

SAM RESPONDS:
Dave, you've opened up a Pandora's box on the gun issue, but here goes. A gun is a deadly weapon--it has no other use, whether against animals or people. In my opinion, it is not an infringement of rights to require licensing, a criminal background check, proof of training so we're sure you know how to handle it safely, and yes, perhaps even proof of insurance if you hurt someone with it that didn't have it coming.

Jeez, we need a license to drive a car in this country. Why not to own a gun.

Yes, I know, the right to bear arms is constituionally protected. But so is freedom of the press, but that doesn't give me the right to libel someone with reckless disregard of the truth. There are reasonable limits.

Sam, I would like your opinion on one issue I have been following for a year now. In your opinion, was this a "bad" time" for both Clinton and Obama to enter the nomination process?

Two years ago, 85% of America was saying that the Democrats were a shoe-in for the White House due to the blundering of the current administration. Now you have this influx of new, younger voters and reinspired voters who have not attended the polls for a long time.

With Republicans you have moderates and even independents who will vote for McCain, but even the hard-line conservatives in the end will not cross party lines (in my opinion).

But now you have "self-described" Dems who say if one or the other gets the nomination, they will cross lines and vote for McCain. The inner-party fighting going on within the Democratic Party is the worst I have seen in my 41 years.

I hear a lot about "experience" in this campaign. Well, let's be honest. If "experience" mattered to the Dems, then Sen. Biden and Gov. Richardson would still be in the race.

Ultimately when it comes to the general election, "experience" is really going to go out the window because Clinton and Obama together are not going to match the experience factor against McCain.

I'm not a racist person of any kind, but do you think that now was not a good time for the Democratic party to experiment with "a polarizing woman" (to quote others) a "junior African-American Senator" (to quote others), both of whom have little to no experience, in my opinion.

On that last part about experience, no, I don't think either one of them has experience in true politics, and experience "by proxy" doesn't count in my book.

I would be interested to hear your take on this, as quite frankly I've been confused about it from the beginning.

In case you are wondering, I'm a registered independent. I think the idea of agreeing to something no matter what, or "following party lines" is foolish. I like to leave myself open to new ideas, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. With that said, I tend to lean farther to the right than to the left.

Your thoughts or any from your readers would be appreciated.

SAM RESPONDS:
You raise some interesting points, sir.

I don't think intra-party competition is a bad thing--it generates excitement in a race, draws a lot of attention and energizes a lot of new voters. In fact, I am amazed at how many qualified Democrats ran this year.

That said, however, I am now concerned the Obama and Clinton will beat one another up through the summer, and then only have eight weeks to regroup for the fight against McCain, who will be able to recharge his batteries and raise money in the interim.

I don't any way around this, however, as neither candidate will just walk away. If Clinton gets the nomination and picks Obama as her running mate, they would make a formidable team. I'm not sure Clinton would accept the veep spot to the clearly junior Obama, however, so forget vice versa.

I would not discount Clinton's experience so cavalierly. She has been a good senator, and very active on the Armed Services Committee, where she has earned the respect of the military, and earned her stripes, so to speak.

But then again, experience alone can be overrated. The Bush administration has one of the most experienced defense teams ever, and look where it's gotten us.

I went for Obama because I think he displays unique leadership skills that will unite this country, while Clinton may very well divide us. It's a gamble, I know, but I think we need to take an entirely new direction to turn this country in the right direction again.

I hope that helps.