Leaders struggle to shake election campaign addiction

Mrs. Clinton made a push for the 2008 election yesterday...uh...I mean she interviewed Mr. Donald Rumsfeld and other generals in a serious and intellectual discussion of the current status of the war.

As you know, Hilary has always been a leader. From these times by Bill's side, to just a year ago displaying her power as a Senator.

As she and others make their run for the elections, I sort of noticed a flip-flop the past two days and wonder if we will be flip-flopping all the way to '08?

It seemed that by the announcement yesterday by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that Iraqi forces would take over by year's end could be interpreted as a blow to the Democratic party. Why? Because that would be a positive outcome in the region and there would be no "I told you so's" or one less thing to hit the Republicans with in the upcoming House and Senate elections this year. (although I personally think year's end is very optimistic...I tend to agree with some of the General's comments yesterday concerning that Iraq is on the verge of civil war)

Then yesterday, the Senate called upon military leaders for an election commercial...uh...I mean an update to the situation in the war on terror. Well, they were called failures and incompetent by the panel. They were beraded in a way that allowed leaders to establish campaign slogans and 6 o'clock sound bites. Why does everything have to be about getting elected? I thought it was the other way around. I thought that you got elected to support the people and make change if needed. To fix problems.

If you are always in constant "getting re-elected" phase...when is there time to focus on what you were elected to actually do?