Unfortunately, I am about to do something that I (not to mention my long-dead Great Grandfather, my Grandfather and my dearly departed Dad) would have never contemplated doing, even in their wildest of dreams...

I'm seriously considering voting for a Democrat for President for the first time in my life.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has become only the latest high-profile hypocrite to get caught engaging in the exact same behavior that they've spent years crusading against. Here's a guy who, as Attorney General for the State of New York, brilliantly prosecuted large prostitution rings and other such criminal organizations in his state, but yet now finds himself the subject of a federal indictment under the Mann Act which bans the interstate transport of females for “immoral purposes” and laundering money to pay for them.

It all has a familiar pattern to it, doesn't it?

There's another wrinkle in the Florida and Michigan primary circus that has not (yet) been widely reported.

The Democrats in Michigan control both houses of their legislature as well as their Governorship. These politicians knew full well that passing a law to jump their primary ahead of others would result in the consequences they and their consituency in Michigan have now reaped from the Democratic National Committee.

Now that the topic of "national security" and the monetary cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has once again reared it's head in the Presidential campaign, it might be time to take stock of just what we've gotten for the HUGE amount of resources in blood and treasure we've expended in these wars.

Folks, as I've been saying, trade deals like NAFTA are NOT the primary reasons why manufacturing jobs are disappearing at an ever-increasing rate in our country. The REAL reason has far more to do with the manufacturing sector of our economy becoming more innovative and automated.

In fact, rather than falling, our output of manufactured goods in the United States has actually gone UP by some 66% since the NAFTA accord was inked. That work is simply now being done with fewer and fewer people.

An excellent article by Adrienne Lewis in today's USA Today tells the real story:

In a word…not much.

Mr. McCain is now the emerging leader of a political party in this country that USED to stand for limited government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility and a strong, but controlled military that would be used only as a last resort and then, only sparingly.

The more their campaigns go on, the more the clear differences between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton appear. They are not so much policy differences as they are personal differences. And, in a word, I believe those differences can all be chalked up to the "L" word"…."Leadership".

In exit poll after exit poll, an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters have said they would be "comfortable" with EITHER Mr. Orbama OR Mrs. Clinton as President. So what attributes of Mr. Obama's character are now fueling his growing popularity, and what attributes are now sinking Mrs. Clinton's?

The 2008 election is ALREADY over three years old and we are still only a little bit closer to knowing who the two party's top nominees will be.

The Democrats are, by their own admission, now feeling a "strong undercurrent of fear" if their little beauty contest between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton drags on for very much longer. The policy differences between the two candidates are minuscule, so it's really now down to their two personalities.

For Mrs. Clinton, the big story today has been about her latest rout in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary.

But, for Mr. Obama, there is little left to say other than he keeps winning. His victories have grown almost commonplace and his demographic disadvantages have become progressively slimmer.

The best available evidence suggests that marriage, as an institution is about 4,350 years old. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans.

But, back then, FAR from being a "spiritual union between one man and one woman", as the fundamentalist wing-nuts of today insist, marriage had little to do with neither love NOR religion.

Mr. Bush is now browbeating the US Congress to grant immunity from prosecution to various private wireless telephone companies that he and his ruling Cabal have forced into setting up wireless wiretaps to do their bidding. Any way you cut it, a grant of immunity would now enable Mr. Bush to use these companies to keep spying on his own citizens.

As sad as it may seem, rather than an abject failure, I'm now beginning to believe that Bush and his cabal's plans in the Middle East have actually been a resounding success from their point of view.

For their apparent collective "stupidity" has resulted in continued turmoil in the Middle East, which, in turn, allows the Government of Israel to continue its decades of racism, apartheid and hegemony in the region. What's more, Mr. Bush's, continued failure to "win the peace" in Iraq and Afghanistan has virtually guaranteed that our troops will now be there for decades.

When, oh when, are we Westerners going to finally wake up and realize that people who populate such far off places as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are simply NOT like us?

In most of South Asia and the Middle East, humans are primarily viewed NOT as individuals, but as agents of family, tribe, clan or sect. This helps explain why so many Arabs marry their cousins. In tribal societies, your blood relations are the only people you can really trust.

If the "War on Terror" is really a "war", then how come all the "terrorists" Mr. Bush is illegally holding indefinitely down at Gitmo are still being (politely) referred to as "detainees" rather than "prisoners of war"?

IF we are to assume Mrs. Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee for President of the United States (something that is still in doubt as I write this), has anyone given any thought about who she might choose as her running mate?

Many have suggested that a good choice might be Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards. However, given the hatred and vitriol that has been spewed in Mr. Obama's direction from the Clinton camp over the past week in South Carolina, I should think a FAR more attractive running mate for Mrs. Clinton might simply be her husband, Bill.