Back to politics...

---

My support for Kerry has strengthened as a result of the first presidential debate. In the debate, I found Kerry articulate, intelligent and much more presidential than Bush. Apparently, the majority of people who watched the debate agree with me, and the vast majority of commentators have ceded a clear victory in the first debate to Kerry. More importantly, the underlying subconscious messaging based on stature, poise and body language was an absolute and total defeat for Bush. Kerry looked much more presidential and this is going to win him quite a few "undecided" votes in the long run. If you'd like to review the dichotomy of presidential "stature" between Kerry and Bush, check out this video:
http://mfile.akamai.com/8082/wmv/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/video/faces/faces.asx

Oddly, it was the pro-Bush Fox Channel running the cameras, and they had agreed not to broadcast "reaction shots", so Bush was probably ambushed by a Democratic camera/production team. Anyway, the reason I focus on Bush's lack of presidential bearing is because the next debate is in a town hall format, where Bush cannot control the composition of the audience. I expect for the liberals in the audience to get VERY nasty, causing him to wilt further - no matter what his handlers are telling him. Bush is simply not good at handling criticism, and the first debate - on foreign policy and security - was his best shot at looking presidential and he simply blew the opportunity.

And in the VP debate, expect Edwards to take off the kid gloves and mop the floor with Cheney on all issues, foreign and domestic. Edwards is a world class orator, dashing and trustable, a compelling trial attorney able to collects hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements from juries, etc etc. Cheney is... well, let's just say that Dick Cheney is Bush's weakest link. It's going to be a slaughter.

Anyway, I am now convinced that Kerry would be able to prosecute a war based on effectiveness, realism and international support. The bottom line is that Bush has been far less than effective in prosecuting the war, has run the Pentagon on a "closed information basis" (as Paul put it), and has blown whatever international credibility he had going into the war. In the words of Admiral Stansfield Turner who served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency: "George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief has got us into a morass in both Iraq and Afghanistan. John Kerry is a true veteran, and would be a much better commander-in-chief." I mean, THIS IS THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE CIA. He's not your typical stupid liberal jerk, ya think?

Pretty much everyone in the know sees that Bush has seriously screwed up here, and that it's time to fire him. But how well would Kerry do in fighting terrorism? Consider the recent Kerry endorsements by military leaders, in additional to Stansfield Turner and Wesley Clark --

• <>Admiral William J. Crowe (United States Navy, Retired), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officer in the U.S. military.

• "The current administration has an overly simplistic view of how and when to use our military. By not bringing in our friends and allies, they have created a mess in Iraq and are crippling our forces around the world. John Kerry has a realistic understanding of the requirements of our military and the threats that we face."

<>General John M. Shalikashvili (United States Army, Retired), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officer in the U.S. military.
• "I believe in John Kerry. As a young man, he heeded his country’s call to service when it needed him. He commanded in combat and did so with bravery and distinction. He knows from experience a commander’s responsibility to his troops. He stands with our troops and with their families."

<>General Johnnie E. Wilson (United States Army, Retired), Commanding General of the U.S. Army Material Command, responsible for the Army's wholesale logistics, acquisition and technology generation operations.
• "Senator Kerry is a principled, patriotic leader with the requisite skills to lead America in the 21st century."

<>Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (United States Army, Retired), the first and only woman to achieve the rank of three-star general in the United States Army.
• "John Kerry understands the future as it is framed by the international community and by the people at home. He will make the right decisions about education, defense, intelligence, economic development both foreign and domestic, and sustaining international relationships. He is a leader I trust."

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Recently, 500 military flag officers came out and endorsed Kerry.

Finally, my vote is still primarily based on the fact that Kerry would be much better for high tech than Bush and also, I'm very worried by stuff like the following:

---

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to Head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of productive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth Control pill is an abortifacient.

All Americans should be concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives or to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.