Norm Crosby suggested during the Jerry Lewis Telethon that this may be the election when voters "hope that nobody wins." He might be right.

Sen. Barack Obama has suggested that Sen. John McCain would be a continuation of the Bush administration. I wish that I thought one of the presidential candidates would be as effective a president as George W. Bush, but I don't. The current set of major party candidates may be the worst since the 19th Century.

I would rather have four more years of George W. Bush or Bill Clinton than have four years of either Barack Obama or John McCain. I would rather bring back Jimmy Carter or George H. W. Bush, in spite of their ages, than have four years of Barack Obama.

Neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton will be considered a great president, but both are likely to look good compared to which ever of the major party candidates wins this year's election.

The only ability Obama seems to have is the ability to con people into thinking he can handle the presidency. He has never handled any executive position and doesn't understand the War on Terror or the current economic situation. There is more to being president than just looking good on television. Fred Thompson knows how to act like a president on television, but I wouldn't have voted for him either.

Obama is less experienced than the 20th Century's least experienced president Warren G. Harding. Obama shares Harding's tendency to associate with corrupt individuals. Unlike Harding, Obama may himself be corrupt considering that he attempted to earmark a million dollars to his wife's employer after the employer more than doubled her salary Providing government benefits after receiving money is usually consider bribery.

He cannot understand that regardless of whether or not the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, the country has become a battleground in the War on Terror. If we leave before the Iraqis are able to keep al Qaeda from taking over, Osama bin Laden (OBL), or another al Qaeda leader, will move to Iraq and use its oil revenue to fund al Qaeda's operations.

Obama doesn't understand that if OBL is hiding in Pakistan, OBL is doing so because even if the U.S. kills him there, his successors might be able to use the action to either take over Pakistan or at least gain access to some of its nuclear weapons. Sending troops into Pakistan, as Obama wants to do, could spark a full scale war with Pakistan which not only has nuclear weapons, but also a population nearly as large as the combined populations of World War II Germany and Japan.

OBL is not a Hitler type leader who wants power for himself. OBL believes he is pursuing a cause that is bigger than he is. He believes he might benefit in the afterlife if he became a martyr to that cause.

Obama's comments about the current economic situation are just simplistic partisan nonsense. He fails to recognize that the sitaution results from global economic problems rather than the policies of President Bush.

The basic problem began with a boom during the Clinton administration. Historically, economic booms fuel greed and encourage those with money to feel they cannot lose regardless of the risk. Booms may also encourage politicians to believe that busts are a thing of the past. The boom could have gone bust with the double shock of 9/11 and the Enron collapse, but Bush helped prevent that outcome.

McCain isn't much better on economic matters than Obama, but he does recognize the dangers of tax increases in a bust situation. If I remember standard economic theory taxes should be increased during growth periods to prevent a boom situation and pay off any debts and reduced during recessions to stimulate the economy. Reducing taxes is less expensive than sending out economic stimulous checks.

As an experienced executive McCain won't be distracted by having to learn how to be in charge of an organization. McCain has a better understanding of what can go wrong because of his experience during the savings and loan crisis in the late 80's.

McCain understands the War on Terror and recognizes the need to win on all battlefields. He is unlikely to make the mistake of starting a war with Pakistan.

McCain's weakness is that he doesn't come across as a strong enough leader. I don't expect him to be another Roosevelt (TR or FDR), but he could exhibit the fiestiness of Harry S. Truman. McCain was too laid back during the debates which is one way he is like George W. Bush.

Obama also shares a trait with Bush. Obama decided to follow Bush's example and choose an older vice president who could tell him how to handle foreign policy. If Obama really were as intelligent as his supporters claimed he would have selected a woman for his vice president.

I'm not a fan of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, but I would concede that she would have been a better choice for vice president than either Sen . Joe Biden or Gov. Sarah Palin. She would have been a better choice for President than Obama or McCain.

Obama's foolish decision to choose Biden allowed McCain to select Palin as his running mate. She's the only bright spot in this dismal election. She is better prepared to be president than Obama. Like Vice President Calvin Coolidge, who became president after Warren G. Harding died,. she was selected for the vice presidency during her first term as governor.

Theodore Roosevelt, who like Palin was 42 at the time he was selected as vice president, was also in his first term as governor. However, he had also briefly been an under secretary of the navy as well as an army colonel (the army equivalent of the rank achieved by McCain in the navy). It's too early to say Palin is another TR, but she has a similar enthusiasm. TR may have been the ultimate presidential maverick.

I wasted another evening Tuesday Oct 7, watching one of the
media events ignorant journalists insist on misrepresenting
as debates. The candidates repeated the same cliches they used
in their first debate.

Once again Sen. Barack Obama demonstrated that he is dangerously
ignorant in the area of foreign policy and the War on
Terror. Once again journalists ignored his mistake.

Obama. is apparently incapable of understanding the fact that sending
military forces into another country without permission is an
invasion. It doesn't matter why the troops enter the country, it
is still an act of war. The fact that Osama bin Laden might
be in Pakistan doesn't mean the U.S. can invade Pakistan without
fear of retaliation -- and Pakistan most definitely does have
nuclear weapons.

Obama doesn't understand the volatility of the situation in
Pakistan. The country has been on the brink of a civil war for
many years and its government could fall at any time. An American
invasion would force the government to declare war on the U.S. to try
to keep the country united. The first action in that war might be
a nuclear attack that would wipe out our forces in the Middle East.

Obama's obsession with bin Laden and Afghanistan indicates he doesn't
understand the War on Terror. This war isn't a traditional war
against an enemy with a geographic base.

Al Qaeda can function without bin Laden and might even benefit if
the United States killed or captured him. Others are available to
head al Qaeda if something happens to bin Laden.

Death at the hands of the U.S. would make bin Laden a martyr and
violent Muslims would rally to avenge his death. Capture
of bin Laden would provoke efforts to capture Americans any where in
the world in an attempt to obtain hostages to trade for him.

Al Qaeda doesn't have a fixed location that it has to
defend. If pushed out of one area, al Qaeda will move to
some other area with a large Muslim population. If the U.S.
leaves Iraq before the Iraqis are able to maintain
stability
in the country, al Qaeda will move in and use Iraq as a base.

It is no longer important whether or not Iraq should have become a
battleground in the War on Terror. The fact is that Iraq is a
battleground in the War on Terror and we cannot afford to turn that
battleground over to al Qaeda.

Something interesting happened during the debate while they were
talking about Iran. Sen. John McCain made Sen. Barack Obama look
foolish.

At about the 1:05 mark into the debate Obama made various attempts to
interrupt McCain. Navy Captain McCain got tired of this tactic
and basically steamed over
Obama and left Obama in McCain's wake, to use a nautical analogy.
At one point Obama was
sputtering like an old outboard motor.

The situation was similar to the old movie scene of the kid challenging
the champ to a fight. The champ uses an arm to hold off the
kid who flails his arms without hitting anything.

Obama challenged McCain by interrupting and McCain responded by
verbally dominating Obama. McCain talked over Obama so Obama
couldn't get a word in until McCain was ready to let him do so.

The spot isn't easy to find because McCain literally almost
drowns out Obama. The volume needs to be turned up to hear
Obama. I noticed it when I was watching the debate, but
didn't write down the time so I had to go back to find it on the copy
on my DVR. There may be another point in the debate where something
similar happened.

Obama claims he wants to negotiate with the leaders of other
countries. The incident with McCain indicates he shouldn't even
consider it.

Talking with other leaders isn't just a matter of
exchanging ideas. It can involve using the voice to
dominate. Obama's sputtering against McCain indicates he
isn't ready
to deal with leaders who are even better at verbal domination than John
McCain.

Obama seems incapable of understanding the basics of international
affairs. Serious negotiations are normally handled by people who
specialize in negotiating rather than by national leaders. Only
dictators attempt to "negotiate" with other leaders because dictators
believe they can dominate through the force of their personalities.
President John F. Kennedy acted like he was
weak when talking to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and we nearly had
a nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba.

Leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are often master
psychologists. They hold their positions because they know how to
manipulate people. Obama would have a better chance taking
on Michael Jordan one on one in basketball than challenging Ahmadinajad
one on one in negotiations.

Obama still doesn't understand that attacking another nation is an act
of war. If the United States were to openly send the military
into Pakistan or try to bomb Osama bin Laden like Obama wants to do
that would be an act of war against the sovereign state of Pakistan and
Pakistan would be justified in retaliating. The fact that bin
Laden is an international criminal is irrelevant.

Obama also seems incapable of understanding the volatility of the
situation in Pakistan. Violent groups are very
powerful in Pakistan and could use an open U.S. invasion to gain the
necessary support to take over the country and gain control of
Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Obama may not understand that catching bin Laden would not do anything
to reduce the treat posed by al Qaeda.

Many Americans believe it was a mistake eight years ago to elect
a president who needed to have his vice president give him
foreign policy advice. Many of these same Americans now want to
repeat that mistake and elect Barack Obama who plans to take
foreign policy advice from his vice presidential running mate.