The Missing Competence Factor Among Democrat Hopefuls

America is passing through a deceptively dangerous time. As a result of the diligent efforts of those agencies devoted to the security of the homeland, no major attacks have been carried out within our borders during the six years that have elapsed since 9-11. The unfortunate side effect of this is that many are dangerously interpreting the outward appearance of calm as a signal to let down their guard.

Current jockeying among presidential hopefuls is highly reflective of this situation, particularly among Democrat candidates. For these people, competence in performing their fundamental duties of office takes a back seat to the politicking and pandering needed to seize the office. Worse yet, recent history has shown that such people regard the workings of the nation as nothing more than a large game board on which to roll dice and play games.

If the current tenor of Democrat campaigning is any indication, the entire field of "top tier" candidates is made up of mindlessly ambitious individuals who are not only unscrupulous, but completely lacking in the basic competence needed for this critically important job.

In particular, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have in recent days displayed an alarming lack of comprehension as to what the nation needs. In its place they offer the sort of platitudes which attest to their belief that the American people are easily deceived by smooth but empty rhetoric.

To assert that their campaign tactics have thus far been inept and irresponsible is to grossly understate the problem. While a badly run political campaign may conceivably indicate nothing worse than poor public relations, the specific nature of the Clinton/Obama blunders gives evidence of something far more ominous.

America, in this precipitous time, simply cannot afford to entrust its future to people who are so arrogant and ideologically obsessive, yet concurrently blind to the consequences of their actions. With militant Islam continuing to metastasize throughout the world, Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear capability, and the multiple looming crises in Asia, a few careless false steps by our government will most certainly yield disastrous consequences. This is not a time for amateurs to be playing games.

Nevertheless, by their own words, Hillary and Obama prove that they are willing to take any stand, say virtually anything, or deny every past statement in order to reap some political gain. Worse yet, both are doing so in an extension of the past political patterns they have exhibited. Consider just a few examples.

In what appears to be an emerging pattern of "off the cuff" statements that generate enormous and unexpected backlash, Barack Obama postulated that America might see fit to attack Pakistan, while pursuing "diplomatic" resolutions to the growing tensions with the Syrian or Iranians. Making matters worse, he has since characterized the American operation in Afghanistan as "air-raiding villages and killing innocent civilians."

It may have been sufficient for him to offer such drivel when he was an Illinois State Senator (where he acquired the bulk of his political experience), but clearly he has no concept of the inevitable aftershocks of even speculating on such possibilities as a presidential candidate.

The Pakistani government reacted swiftly and sternly, which is understandable given that, with the treacherous participation of Democrats, America has developed a reputation around the world of flippantly attacking other nations for no good reason. Is it any wonder then that the citizens of Pakistan might be alarmed by such a possibility?

Though Pakistan's leaders likely do not believe Obama's words to indicate an eventuality of war, they inarguably recognize the effect such mindless speculation by a prominent political player will have on their citizenry. Thus they were compelled to counter the statement in very vocal and unequivocal terms.

As to the remarks concerning Afghanistan, once again a Democrat has characterized America's prosecution of the terror war in a manner that can only bolster the standing of its enemies. No doubt Obama's fraudulent description of American action is being incessantly repeated throughout the region as a rallying cry for those who intend to continue the fight against the "Great Satan."

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton is still alternately offering her vows to stay in Iraq forever or pull the troops out tomorrow, based not on any rational military strategy, but rather on the expedience of the moment. When a potential commander can ascribe to two diametrically opposed plans of action in such a short period of time, it is clear that neither has been developed out of any heartfelt conviction, but instead as a matter of political expediency.

Despite any particular interpretation of Hillary's comments by either her political opposition or the sycophantic media, the image that emerges among militant Islamists worldwide is one of confusion and contradiction.

Clearly, if such a person acquires the reins of leadership, she can be circumstantially manipulated. Such was the case throughout the 1990s, when Bill Clinton responded to the ever growing terrorist threat with meaningless exercises, designed not to deal with the terrorists, but rather to impress the viewers of the nightly news. Yet such games cannot be played indefinitely without eventually harming the nation's interests.

While a certain amount of latitude might be granted to the candidates at present, given that each is furiously attempting to outdo the other in the eyes of the voting base, neither Clinton nor Obama have to date displayed any understanding of the ramifications that their political contortions might yield, both now and in the future, on the world scene.

Can Americans expect anything but disastrous results if either goes from playing such games on the campaign circuit to playing around with the nation's future?