(I have not been as consistently thrilled with the TA’s editorial’s of late as Nate is, but there’s no question this one merits special recognition. – promoted by odum)

Kudos to Sue Allen in today's Times Argus in her editorial, Loose Lips. So far, I haven't seen any MSM accountability call for Clinton's Cold War posturing and language, but at least our leading editorialist in Central Vermont is calling out Clinton on unacceptable, escalatory messages to our allies and friends overseas.  Here's Allen's lead in: 

Our leaders must be accountable for their words, and the words “totally obliterate” mean nothing less than nuclear annihilation. If John McCain had unleashed a threat of nuclear annihilation against Iran, the cry would go up that he was a crazy man

Not to fawn over today's piece to the point of a lack of a critical read, Allen's used of the now tired phrase, “Where's the outrage…?” followed by, “…is she getting a pass?” might not have been necessary.  But heck, this observation should be directed to the entire spectrum of national MSM.  

Besides today's editorial, we should note the high quality of Sue Allen's daily writing in the Argus.  Since an editor most often hears only about what readers don't like about their daily paper, I decided to send her a note last week to let her know what a good job she's been doing with the editorials.  

I've put Allen's column on my daily read list.  My note to her last week is below the fold.  But if you're pressed for time, just check out today's piece a la Allen.

Since you have been Editor of the Times Argus I am confident you have received commendations from readers on the rising quality of the daily news as well as your own editorials.  I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation for your leadership in journalism as well as your brilliance in writing. 

Today's  editorial, “Start Talking”  reminded me of a piece you wrote  several years ago titled, “Bankrupt” in your call for the level of integrity Americans deserve from Washington and the national media.

But I am not writing today to simply offer kudos on two particular editorials written by your hand.   My letter today comes from a cumulative impression about the rising level of quality of the Times Argus and how you have created this trend through your leadership, writing, and very smart political observations.

Thank you for work well done.  No breakfast is complete without you.

The United States by itself far outspends the entire rest of the world in military spending, and we are the world’s largest military weapons exporter to boot!

In a well written article for Axis of Logic, columnist Chalmers Johnson writes in part

There are three broad aspects to the U.S. debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on “defense” projects that bear no relation to the national security of the U.S. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels.

Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures — “military Keynesianism” (which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic). By that, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the U.S. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world’s number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs, an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.

(The Pentagon Strangles Our Economy: Why the U.S. Has Gone Broke, Axis of Logic, 04/26/08)

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the combined efforts of the Democratic and Republican parties for their part in bringing us the above. And I would like to point out that none of Clinton, McCain or Obama are looking to do anything different about this.

Go ahead … hit the play button …

by I know there is talk here and there about an Obama/Clinton ticket being the perfect combination.  The problem is that while she brings strong demographic assets to the campaign, but also brings a major political liability to it, in the form of her husband.  

Bill Clinton has made this combination impossible.  It’s not because of incidents like him ranting about Obama for 50 minutes or accusing Obama of playing the race card.

Any of those things, in fact, would prove irrelevant if not for one factor:

Absolutely no one can put any control whatsoever on him.  

If Bill weren’t part of the picture, Barack and Hillary could reconcile their differences and put on the proper face and play nice with one another, creating a unified party.  But no sane politician would put anyone on a ticket who’s so directly connected with Bill Clinton.  He’s just too much of a loose cannon in this race to be expected to behave appropriately, responsibly or (dare I say it) politically.

I think Obama knows this by now, which is one of the reasons he’s being so cagey about this.  Presidential candidates need to have a vice presidential ticket which is willing to submit to some control.  It’s admittedly a bad role for the VP candidate; it hurt Edwards in 2004 to be in that position and left Lieberman so bitter that what was left after the process was nothing more than a decaying husk of humanity, forced to roam the Senate, attaching himself to other politicians and bleeding them dry for his own survival, like…

Hmm.

No, I think Lieberman was always like that.  But I digress…

So this is what it boils down to: if Obama wants to win in November, he needs to pick someone who covers some of Clinton’s demographics, but doesn’t present the world with someone who’s so emotionally invested in the race that he can’t keep a lid on his darker instincts.

We need Clinton to go back to being a foundation leader who tries to inspire people to do better, not a public humiliation for his party and his legacy.