Think of a map.

Think of population numbers.
Think of that famed "diversity".
Think voting history:
Florida, Arizona, California, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Tennessee. Heck, Arkansas and Oklahoma for good measure...

Tell me again why we shouldn't listen to the people in these places, and should bank it all on the hopes and promises of folks in places like Utah, North Dakota, Iowa and Missouri? When they've got a Republican in front of them to vote for, isn't it more likely such states will go red? I mean, are many of you really willing to bet that Utah is going to vote Democrat this year, or North Dakota or Missouri? Again, if I were a betting man, I'd put a little something down on even Minnesota turning up in that red column, the shifting to conservative leanings and strategic choice of St. Paul as the convention headquarters this year...

So why not give the people -- the true-blue Democrats, who have shown in the past they aren't johnny-come-lately's who don't really understand the platforms and just want fresh parties and fear this Clinton administration will be less about the fun and more about getting the job done -- what they want?

And please, don't tell me what the folks overseas, the Europeans especially, want in an American leader. I mean, I'm not GWB fan, that's for sure, but I don't want to see America as a foreign policy laughingstock, a boob knowingly wearing a kick-me sign and playing it for laughs, just to show how much we disagree with the previous commander-in-chief. That's exactly what the Europeans want to see: a total 360 from the Bush administration, damn the troops or any progress that can be salvaged from our massive expenditures. They want us to wave the white flag and get the hell out, and the more casualties and destruction left in our wake, the better to show they were right all along and we should quiet down and take our medicine. Except... it really isn't us, the liberal American elite, who will be bearing those costs. They can join in with the other team, laughing at America' follies.

Listen, I was against the invastion from the start too. Used the work "quagmire" and understood that when you try to take over a sovereign country, instead of letting them do their revolutionary work themselves, eventually the occupier comes to be despised. Why? Because you never live up to your promises. It's human nature that the natives naturally care more about their own than any well-intentioned force can do. In short, you gotta do the work yourself if you want to truly reap the rewards. The price paid in human lives... let's just say such a maneuver would have been handled much more conservatively -- slow it down and maintain control, dammit -- had the leaders been natives of the country undergoing the change. Check your history; plenty of examples of internal revolts, and the necessary measuring and compromising necessary to best face reality.

Not only were we too arrogant to consult any native leaders, we didn't even listen to those practiced in the art of warfare. (And no offense, but I don't think being a prisoner-of-war, no matter how much sympathy that might garner, automatically makes one a hero or wise leader. Again, no offense to all the POWs out there who did what they had to just to survive. But they're not running for Commander-in-Chief on a military record of "surviving" either. If you had something to offer at the time, and couldn't convince others of it when it could have made a difference, you don't beat your chest belatedly reveling in your "rightness". See General Colin Powell as a classy example, and consider why he is not running politically for this office.) At the time, we -- America -- knew better than the native leaders or miliatry men, and made promises we were under-equipped to keep. Now, we're (barely some say) holding our own, and salvaging for that country the most we can from what has proved a colossal leadership blunder. Now matter how nice it would be to turn back the clock and elect a leader who would have done a better job the past two election, we can't and we won't. Let's not just dream and promise about the future, let's think about realistic options. Where we are now, and where we go from here.

And if you want to join with those laughing at America and run away escaping the consequences instead of owning up to our actions and making the best of what we still can, go for it. But I say, let's listen to the loyal people in those states mentioned above. Mistakes in life have to be tolerated, and I've found it's really all about how you respond after they're made that counts: Did you learn anything? Did the costly price paid buy you anything in terms of wisdom, other than acknowledging you won't do that again? How will you pick yourself up and get on?

Something tells me Hillary Clinton is a lifelong learner, and understands there will be less partying, more pain that must be withstood strongly, and more compromising and lowered expectations and promises made. But isn't it better to inch forward slowly and hold your ground, than to turn the vehicle around or try and "overcorrect" so that you end up out-of-control and running off the road? Experienced drivers matter: they've simply seen more conditions and the wisest have learned from them. And that my friends, is why -- if we really care -- we don't let the youngsters take the wheel except in the safest conditions, no matter how much they are convinced that they can do it better, faster, and with more fun going on inside the vehicle than their more responsible elders who often really do know best.

Added: We can always fly over to France, or visit Mexico or the islands to escape reality here, and enjoy an easy getaway. But there really is only one United States of America folks. And despite the past almost-decade now, I for one am not willing to fly the white flag and surrender on what got us here thus far. And I've a feeling I'm in good company with those willing to own up to past mistakes and continue inching forward, no sudden moves necessary.