One of the more curious questions arising from a very curious campaign for the presidency this time around is one that even the N. Y. Times has not addressed, which by itself is curious. Here is the question: If Obama does not get the nomination will he get the ACLU, the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam to support him in suing for race discrimination? If Ms. Clinton fails to get the nomination, being a Caucasian she is automatically prohibited from suing on the basis of race but will she sue for gender discrimination?

Well of course the questions are so farfetched as to be whimsically silly at the most charitable, but the basis of such questions is far from being so. Putting aside for the moment that all politicians are lying, cheating, conniving and corrupt scoundrels that would sell out their own mothers for political power and advantage; that as Emerson pointed out no one would choose to be a politician if they had the character and qualifications for any noble profession, that all politicians are no better than pickpockets, that in my opinion they are all on the Devil’s payroll, the fact remains that this campaign unlike those of the past is bringing up some curious questions, questions that include possible unintended consequences arising from the peculiar candidates being offered.

We know brilliant people are capable of making really stupid blunders; that the Darwin Award does not always go to those with an I.Q. of room temperature. But I ask myself how it came to pass that the money power driving the Democrats could possibly have made such blunders as to advance candidates like Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton? Neither is electable in my opinion, but clearly Obama has no qualifications for the presidency and his much-praised “oratory” is sophomoric at best appealing to those who are ruled by their emotions rather than common sense. But even if he were a gifted pulpit orator, such orations remain as Emerson pointed out nothing but meaningless, shallow rhetoric in the study. Alas for America, the distinction is not being made that while the universities and schools are so far gone one can be an English teacher though unable to read, but an algebra teacher must know mathematics. You simply can’t wing it in math as is commonly done in the social sciences. God knows America desperately needs a change from Caesar Bush and his ruinous rule, but America needs a great deal more than change simply for the sake of change. We need someone who is well qualified for the office, someone that is prepared to do more than wing it.

And what is to be done about Bill should his wife win? The potentially nightmarish Constitutional can of worms this presents should Ms. Clinton become president borders on lunacy! But why didn’t the power behind the Democrats realize both of these candidates posed a nightmarish scenario for their party?

The GOP is in little better case than the Democrat Party, but has the definite advantage of not having to deal with the seeming lunacy driving Democrats. While showing his age and wear, should McCain find a suitable running mate, but not one associated with the Cayman Islands, he clearly has the advantage of not having to wage a race or gender battle. And as far as any innuendoes over sexual peccadilloes, they remain in the realm of Walt Kelly’s “Vice Party.” As he pointed out, given a real choice wouldn’t you be for vice? I know that as a normal human being I’d sure be for it. It’s just a real shame we can’t be more openly honest about the subject.

While I also agree with Walt Kelly that writing for TV is a step below robbing graves for a living, it is a given the presidential candidates are politicians before anything else, meaning they will say anything to get elected, bottom feeders not qualified for any noble profession and are on the world screen for all to view and hear the ongoing lunacy of this spectacle. But like my suggestion the historic Padre Hotel in Bakersfield be turned into a world-class brothel, something that would definitely put the city on the cultural map and getting one over on San Francisco as a toney town, it is very unlikely we are going to have any of the presidential candidates showing any real class by openly advocating a Vice Party.

Such honesty while refreshing simply isn’t going to happen, though we all know every one of the candidates would find their proper role in such a party. But wouldn’t that be something, a presidential candidate that would come right out and say they were for vice? Sad, but they invariably turn out to be the kind of people that publicly believe in all the gods in order to get and stay elected but privately believe in none of them.