My previous post outlined why I find it difficult to identify with today's democratic party, and why the current democratic ticket of Obama and Biden does not give me reason to believe the their election will result in anything other than a shift towards a traditional blue platform. Granted, current financial events do give me moments to pause and consider a polar shift. But then my conservative nature grabs hold and I hesitate. Yeah, my 401(k) just lost ~25% on what amounts to an Amway Scheme on Wallstreet. No, I do not think this is an excuse to take Universal Healthcare out for a national test drive.

I posted this same thought here before, but I will reiterate for my own self-indulgence. I if I were to suggest, a year ago, that one ticket in the 2008 presidential race would have a candidate with a record of cross-party legislation that was at times unpopular but focused on reform and also include a female selection, which party would you predict that ticket would support?

Fast forward to post convention 2008 and I find that the answer even surprises me. Out of all the candidates that went through the tedious primary selection process - 'fer shit's sake we had to listen to Tancredo... and the shit-stain that is John Edwards. [side note: if i get time, I will outline why the Edwards candidacy was propped up by the MSM, and without it would have been a complete failure.] - I favored Mitt. I didn't think he was going to win. But I gave him the honorary rider award for shelling out his own cash and paying his way through the primaries. I agreed with him the most on a wide range of issues.

As it turned out, Dick Morris hit it on the head when he suggested that Romney paid for the most expensive delegates in history. Mitt isn't a national candidate. Neither is Joe Biden. So it goes.

That left me to consider John McCain. I knew Huckabee wasn't going to get the nomination. He's likable and honestly, an individual that I would like to see in federal office. I knew he wasn't going to fly. With Mac, you get a potpouri of legislation that, at the time, I felt was either hit or miss. Campaign Finance Reform was a step in the right direction, but also a step back, trading corporate financing with 527's. The McCain/Kennedy Immigration reform made me gag in places. At the same time, I don't consider myself dyed red. You have to take the best candidate for the current time. The primary was coming back to McCain.

Mac had the fortunate circumstance of Iraq and the Surge. He bet big time on it, and it was costing him in the early primaries. By the time January 2008 came around things were looking calm in Iraq and we were finally seeing a return on the investment. It took some serious balls to get up and support an increase in troop presence when the majority of the country wanted a withdrawal. Did he get lucky? Yup. So did Lincoln when Lee decided to toss all his forces into Gettysburg. After galactic ineptitude in managing Union Army leadership Lincoln finally got a break. Lee broke his personal rule of only giving battle when it is opportune. He took a gamble that his furthest progress north would push a political stalemate and an end to the war. He attacked when he had the low ground. If he did not, we may be talking more about the rube Lincoln.

Mac took a stance in what he believed was the correct course of action in Iraq. He's cut from a very similar cloth as Colin Powell in that, there is reluctance to utilize military force, but if it is to be used it must be overwhelming. They learned that from Vietnam. The Surge isn't really a gamble. It happens to be the only strategy Mac knows success can be achieved.

Add to that Campaign Finance Reform, Immigration Reform and you get a picture of a candidate that is actually doing what he is elected to do. I didn't agree with every piece of the McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill. But goddam, it sure was refreshing to see a candidate actually have their name on something that was a critical piece of legislation. It didn't pass, but there was action. Across the other side of the aisle is some fucked up combination of nepotism/osmosis/incest and hope about political action.

Seriously, in ten seconds, name a bill by: Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. These candidates have all had the political convenience of tested times without the accountability of incumbency. Agree with his positions or not, McCain is the only current candidate that has legislated. The others have campaigned. This country needs leadership in the former, not the later.

So upon further review, Mac turns out to be the candidate with an actual record that supports what the Dem. ticket is running on. If you think this country needs bi-partisan legislation, you should consider a candidate that has authored it. If you think reform is what Washington needs, try to consider a candidate that has put his name on the line of unpopular, yet needed, pieces of legislation.

Hope is an act of desperation, when no action can have an effect. Action is still on the table. I am strained. I am not desperate.