You aren't getting it.

We cannot go on like this. We can't go on spending more and more money on the military, money we *don't have*, much of which *is stolen from us by corruption*.

We cannot afford to be in perpetual war. And even if we could, it's morally wrong.

One day America will elect a President who will spend less on the military -- or America will run out of money and collapse. Take your pick

Obama proposes to increase military spendings, expand the army, send additional troops to Afganistan, keep forces in Iraq, re-occupy Iraq again if he feels they are not treating each other nicely (he knows full well they are not going to). Go to his campaign web site and check.

And find a less hawkish dove to defend.

While I have a certain affection for John McCain and certainly do appreciate his refutation of torture -- and his long tenure in the Senate -- I have to second what you have said about his being called a "war hero." He served. He went down. He was captured. He survived. It's a great story, but it's not heroic in the sense people are using the term, and that's true about so many word chunks which are being thrown around by people in the current frenzy.

I am a life member of a volunteer fire department in the suburbs of Washington, DC. I was an active firefighter and EMT for over 25 years. Once there was a major fire in a high-rise apartment building. While the first responders were trying to locate and knock down the fire, the rest were trying to search, rescue and evacuate the place. So far, so good.

One firefighter managed to get off on his own on the smoke-filled 14th floor. We call this "freelancing", when someone decides to go off on his own in a dangerous situation. Long story short, he fell 14 stories down an open elevator shaft.

He survived the fall.

The following spring at the annual awards banquet this fellow was named Firefighter of the Year for having, yep, fallen 14 stories and survived. It's a great story, and I'm glad he'll be around to tell it, but there was nothing heroic about it in the sense of going above and beyond. He'd rather not have gone down the shaft. It wasn't his intent. I'm sure McCain would have preferred not to have crashed and gotten captured and imprisoned for years. I'm sure it wasn't on his agenda. But in both cases it's part of the risk one assumes when one signs up.

I had an uncle who received the Silver Star and the Croix de Guerre for saving a group of his comrades through uncommon valor and remarkable bravery, during WWII. He was a war hero.

I like John McCain (although I am an Obama supporter) and you won't catch me referring to him (McCain that is) as a "war hero."

I wish people would just keep things a little more sane and level. Thanks for bringing this up.

I wish people would just keep things a little more sane and level.

We all do.

But it is not what is going to happen in general election.

McCain's campaign will be using and abusing the 'war hero.' And Obama's campaign (judging from how they react to Clintons) will not be able to resist the urge to swiftboat his war veteran (hero, or not) reputation.

Look, I don't want to be uncivil -- there's way too much of that in these letters. But I have to ask: have you ever even been to Kansas? Because your arguments don't betray much familiarity with the state beyond having read Thomas Franks.

Your original argument was: it has to be Republicans deliberately gaming the system, because more people participated in the Democratic caucus than there are registered Dems in the state. In other words, you asserted that there weren't 38,000 registered Dems in Kansas. That's just flat wrong, by a factor of more than x10.

Now you're changing your argument to say that it's disenchanted Republicans changing sides but they'll all change back in November.

But there were 400,000 registered Dems in Kansas back in 1996, long before the moderates started bailing out of the GOP.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_19991002/ai_n11736834

It's been kind of interesting watching the various and conflicting spins on Obama's Midwest and Western caucus wins play out here in the Salon letters. So far, I've heard:

1. It's the latte liberals; Dems in places like Kansas and Nebraska are more liberal than places like New Jersey and California. (I dare anyone to produce polling that proves this)

2. No, it's not that those Midwestern Dems are more liberal, it's that they're Neanderthals who won't support a woman. (Except when they do, like Sebelius)

3. No, it's that Republicans are gaming the system; there aren't even that many registered Dems in those states. (except that there are)

4. No, it's that all those small-town hicks are bamboozled by Obama's fancy talking. (salt-of-the-earth types are to be respected and honored, apparently, only when they are union members from the Northeast who support Clinton)

It's been pretty fun, actually, having the politics of my home state explained to me by people who are experts because they read one book.

And I'm still chuckling over the discovery that so many of my relatives must be latte liberals because they caucused for Obama: the NRA member, the 71-year-old secretary, the public schoolteacher, the waitress, the 20-something single mom... and all of them living 80 miles from the nearest Starbucks.

As a democrat, I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Barack and Hillary trying to keep a truly open mind.

And I found once again that for me, Hillary is truly the more qualified candidate at this time.

I don't have a transcript but both in presence and in words - they reflected who is truly more ready.

Barack said at one point, something to the effect of how he had to think long and hard about his candidacy, and would he be able to 'pull this thing off'...

It's very honest, but it's not what I am looking for in our next President. My preference is for someone in the White House not to be trying 'to pull this off'...

It really summed up for me, in his own words, one of the main reasons why he is not my first choice at this time.

I always felt that at the debates, Hillary knew what she was talking about, and he often didn't to the same degree. And I don't feel as comfortable about that.

Hillary said she knows she can do it, and you can feel it when she talks. She's presidential. She's solid, she's ready, she's knowledgeable, she's incredibly prepared. She's been there - she's been through it. Living in the White House for eight years, consulting with Bill, bringing this country out of a recession and deficit and into a surplus, with one of the highest rates of new jobs and prosperity. They made mistakes, everyone does, but they learned. The Presidency should be a job where experience and qualifications are the highest priority.

If Barack gets the nomination, I will vote for him. But it will not be with the strong confidence with which I would vote for Hillary. And that has nothing to do with race or gender. After all these years of Bush, I want experience and qualifications. Those are much more important to me than inspiration. Experience and qualifications are a lot more inspiring to me, than inspiration alone. Indeed my vote for Barack would need the backing of extra hope.

I do think he would be even more qualified after he's had more national experience. I am happy that he is in national politics now, and I would like to have him be for our president at some point in the future. But he is not my first choice. I don't think he is truly the most qualified choice.

I also pose a challenge to all here to see if they can discuss these issues without insults and name-calling.

That might be productive of something more worthy than animosity.