A tough question for the candidates

First of all, to any "moderates" who might be reading this: There is a substantive difference between McCain and Hillary. McCain might have been a straight talker in 2000, but now he is beholden to the far-right, including neo-con pro-war Repubs that lurk behind Bush's worst policies. Hillary, even if she chooses Wesley Clark as her running mate, will be need to keep Nancy Pelosi and others more liberal than her happy. Think about it.

Second, I believe Obama is more electable than Hillary, due to her divisiveness. After 8 years of Bush, what a waste to make the election a referendum on Hillary rather than a referendum on Bush. Obama would pick up the states Hillary won (CA, NY), but Hillary would not pick up Kansas, Idaho, etc. Think about it, superdelegates.

Finally, I think that the candidates need to be asked a serious question, since all 3 of them are in the Senate and may get to vote on this horrendous military budget that swallows up all chance of making any real social or environmental progress on this ice-cap-melting planet. The answer to this question may determine who I end up voting for (and I'm not above a write-in), so c'mon candidates, answer this one right, and you may get the prized Rumsfeld Invaders constituency:

“Senator, in all your previous debates, you have not criticized the bloated military budget so often documented by the media, Pentagon audits and GAO reports for Congress to be replete with waste fraud and abuse. The Soviet Union is gone. Yet military spending now consumes half of the federal government’s operating expenditures. 1/2 a trillion dollars a year?! While New Orleans still lies in ruins?!

“Specifically, what would you do to significantly reduce the tens of billions of wasted dollars and eliminate redundant weapons systems? Would you support cutting the military budget in half, starting next year?

“And, further, would you abolish the missile defense project, deemed by the American Physical Society and other leading physicists to be technically unworkable (and the original inspiration for Rumsfeld Invaders)? It costs about $10 billion a year with a total expenditure of over $150 billion since its inception under Ronald Reagan, without any indication that it can fulfill the function for which it was designed?
What about the Iraq War? Remember, the sooner you de-fund it, the sooner our troops come home, and the sooner we can work on Real National Security, and Real Homeland Security (renewable energy, green collar jobs, healthier diets and lifestyles, etc.)
Please be specific.”