For pro-lifers to consistently and enthusiastically vote for leaders whose foreign policies will admittedly lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians — women, children, babies — in order to achieve political objectives is something I cannot understand.
Obama promises to redeploy "combat troops" from Iraq. In practice, however, there's no difference between "combat troops" and "advisers." Four years from now, Americans will still be fighting, killing and dying in Iraq.
I suspect the Secret Service has a difficult task ahead of itself, one way or the other, as our immediate past president hits the road determined to make some real bucks. For wherever he goes on the post-presidential speaking-tour circuit, George W. Bush will have to duck for his supper as well as sing for it.
After the hype blows over, it's hard to say whether the President-elect can deliver on his sweeping promises. Like Carter with Nixon, Obama is in the awkward position of being an apologist for his warmonger predecessors. And while the comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq wars have become almost cliche, Obama's biggest test will be in ending the Iraq war.
The attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords brought about another finger storm of thunderpoints in the media, each one blaming the other for the rhetoric that seems to be turning our nation into a tinderbox.
As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton battle for votes, the Democratic nomination could be decided at the national convention, so local delegates -- and the caucuses where they're elected -- were buzzing. On Saturday, Massachusetts' 10 congressional districts held an election for each candidate.
Every presidential candidate pledges energy independence and fewer emissions. But this country imports more than 200 billion gallons of oil a year. How will we replace that with nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, which together make up only a fraction of our energy portfolio?