Who's asking the questions here?

In the two weeks since the DNC and the RNC have made their plea to the public, it has been a barrage of finger pointing, accusations, and promises that are supposed to appeal to the general questions occupying the minds of Americans. One group says what we need is change - which reflects a change in the economy, health care, education, and and an overhaul of the American image. Another group (now) says, "we need change." This one is about corrupt politics, "those liberals," and more organized and tougher fighting against terrorism. It's true that in either case, McCain and Obama will certainly change the face of America, even if they sit in the Oval Office with their hands tucked between their legs. The sheer anticipation of change is enough to get the ball rolling; it's just a matter of which ball.

Still, the media leads much of the discourse by plowing us with polls and statistics that are supposed to represent answers to the questions of the general public. Most of these are based on very low participants and, I suspect, a small amount favor certain areas over others. These statistics also do not take into account the fact that not all Americans have access to the internet, or for that matter, the time to take a survey. Surveys are the kind of projects you complete when you've got nothing to do, or when you're in the middle of something you would rather stop doing for a while. If the focus of this election is on the working class, I'd like to know how many of these surveys reflect those who rarely have the time or the means to take a survey? But, this is only one question out of many that is left to the general populace to either ignore or take for granted. We are supposed to assume the analysts are fair and objective. We are supposed to trust the sources of our information, especially when big labels precede the findings. I'm not buying.

Of Obama, I want to know more specifics about how he plans to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Not a long list of things I am not likely to understand, but just a general idea. Will he speak to the Iraqi officials and negotiate a number on a weekly, monthly, or yearly basis? The Republican Party implies that Obama plans to yank out the troops without consideration of the possible consequences. And, by the way, please explain what those consequences are. The Republicans keep implying that it'll be tantamount to death. Terrorists will storm the nation's capitol, rape the women, throw the rest of us in Muslim veils, torture the men and spread Islamic fundamentalist principles all throughout the land. In addition, we can expect to pay somewhere around $20 a gallon at the pump because we'd be at the mercy of the new fundamentalists; they'll "purge" us like never before. Like the IRS, in the words of Jerry Seinfeld, "it'll be the equivalent of a full rectal examination" followed by a rather unpleasantly forced enema. And, of course, the image of America as the most powerful country in the world will go up in flames our enemies proudly produced. Scary enough, but can I get some basis for this? Horrible as it was, 9/11 hardly qualifies as proof since the parties involved have largely dispersed, been disabled, or captured and punished. I'm trying to understand. I realize there are still cells and suicide bombers. I don't know how many children were trained to be Al-Qaeda soldiers, but one who has turned adult is one too many. From the way the Republicans are talking, I doubt we can get them all without having to kill anyone who remotely resembles them. Thus, of course Islam. But if that's the plan then I'm sorry, I'm not open to genocide of an entire group to catch a few. Can I get a little clarity on the plan here? Can I get a name we should be looking for? Or, maybe, some idea as to which group, specifically, is still operating as a threat and has done things in the past to give reason to suspect future catastrophic occurrences? You can't just say, "it's anybody that subscribes to Islam." That's absurd. I also realize that some things cannot be revealed, as it would "jeopardize national security" but I'd like a little more than leaving me to my imagination. I realize you can go far with that, but it won't do.

Also, who are Obama's allies in the Congress, Senate and the House? Can I get a general idea? Are the houses going to block everything he tries to do if he wins? What are the views of those who rule alongside the President? I was around during the Clinton years and I saw some of the worst examples of political sabotage in my life. Until Ken Star posted his very explicit text on the specifics of the Bill Clinton blow job, I thought my country was able to exercise some discretion and dignified expressions of disagreement and strife. Never was there such an example of the lengths one party would go to oust a member of another party. The Clinton mess is a moot point, but not the tactics. Am I going to be lounging in my living room when a video clipping of Barack and Michelle having sex in the Oval Office surfaces? Should I be worried that every time Barack makes a suggestion and it doesn't pass, it'll be paraded down the street as an example of ineptitude and general weakness? I mean, cause if that's the case, and he does pass legislation that does the country good, it won't mean a hill of beans because the already irate international arena will have an even lower opinion of America - and Americans will feel even worse than they do now. Is sacrificing America for four years on this year's election ballot?

On the side of McCain and Palin. My concern here is specifically Palin. I'm sorry but if McCain wins, then she's a heart attack away from being President. With Obama, those who lived through the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, are worried. Well, we learned a lesson from the sixties and so have the "assassins." They now know that character assassinations are far more lethal than actually taking a human life. The latter just makes martyrs. But even if they haven't gotten the bloodletting out of their system, I'm OK with Biden. In McCain's case, I'm not feeling Palin as President. I get why she's so "cool." She a "hockey-mom" who talks tough and probably hangs the same drapes in the kitchen as most American middle class women. She's kinda mean like that popular kid in high school who could dish an insult, and she probably honed her skills there when the victim of her barb was weaker and less popular than she. I get the impression from her style that she hasn't quite outgrown that phase. Still, as they say, those kids tend to have confidence when it comes to fighting and she has fought those in her party, as the tabloids say. The thing is, wonderfully nostalgic as that may be, I'm going to need to see an example of some diplomacy before I stop worrying about her taking over the White House. Those barbs work at home when you're attacking big brother and baby sister, but it doesn't work when the opponent controls much of the oil we still depend on. And it doesn't work when other countries are on standby to blast your ass if you make one irrevocable decision. Some feel they've been bullied by our country for years. An untrained "bulldog" from this group isn't going to go over well. People like Sarah will have to negotiate - a lot. And while she may be a fast learner, I don't think social skills are something you should be learning in the White House (to respond to her rhetoric that the "White House is not for self-discovery"). Sorry, she's no Hillary. If she's a "bulldog," then she's only good as a pet. Soooo, what about John McCain?

Since, despite some angry and bloodthirsty individuals who would rather be in the thick of a fight than in the possibility of stability, many are worried that we will have to set Palin "loose," McCain is going to have to convince me that he is not likely to die in the next four years. What do his health records say? How's his heart? When did his parent's die? How old were they? What did they die of? Does McCain exercise? How often? What does he eat? Not to seem prejudiced against age, but I'm going to need a little more evidence that the man is in tip-top shape. That his heart, lungs, and kidneys are working at optimal levels. Sure the master is not as interesting as his pet, but he's the only one that can get it on a leash (hey, it's not sexism; Palin set this image up all by herself).

In addition, if it is at all possible for Palin to become President, I want the same investigation into her background that McCain and Obama got at the start of this campaign. The woman is a pro-life advocate. As President, she would defer to her religious leaders, I'm sure, and appoint Supreme Court judges that would overturn a woman's right to choose. It would be a setback that would take the breath out of over 100 years of labor in defense of women's rights and civil rights. But what else? How far does this rabbit hole go? She home schooled her children. Is that because she doesn't believe in the American educational model? And, please, don't try to convince me that it's just because home schooled children are better educated. Bluntly, what exactly does she believe? Who is her pastor? What church does she go to? What does her pastor say about the roles of women, men, the church, etc.? I want a full account. I realize it's not likely that the pastor made disparaging remarks about America (Jeremiah Wright), but that doesn't mean that the stuff he/she is selling isn't as offensive and threatening to our democratic process. What kind of environment does Sarah Palin call home? Does she believe that Creationism should be taught in the the schools? Does she believe that all children should pray to the Christian God, or pray in general, at the start of the school day?

How much of the conservative agenda are we looking at here? I get a feeling McCain knows how to negotiate and understand those he might not agree with. I have a little confidence that he understands the consequences of turning this country into a despotic system where there is room for only one ideological point of view. He's tough, but dignified. I can't say the same for Palin or the faction of the Republican party she serves. Her "kind" uses muscle to mask personal anxieties and insecurities. Exciting as that may be for some, I'm looking for leaders that "get it."

(Upon further investigation, I found the answers to Palin's religious affiliations. Here is the web-site that goes into it: http://www.zimbio.com/Ed+Kalnins. I find it interesting that this isn't paraded in the media. I thought that was the point of the Jeremiah Wright debacle.)

These questions are not addressed by the media or the campaigning officials. Let's go. Seven weeks to go and counting!