i watched some clips of the McCain/Obama debate, and found myself more interested in what they didn't (or couldn't?) say than what they did.  For instance, nuclear Iran.  Obama says that we must avoid an arms race in the middle east, and that to do this we should stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  McCain said essentially the same thing only a little more aggressively and a lot less coherently.

Hello?  Isn't the best way to stop an arms race in the middle east to address the issue of the individual who already started running?  Both candidates are clearly hampered from mentioning this by their mandatory declarations of support for Israel (which along with proclaimations of religious faith - Christian, obviously - seem to be a fundamental requirement to run for high office in the US.  From reading his books i doubt Obama is much more religious than i am).  Seriously, is it impossible to address the question of what might make Iran want to acquire nuclear weapons?

Here's a learning point:  The president of a very powerful country declares three countries to be part of an 'Axis of Evil'.  One of these countries has nuclear weapons, and the other two don't.  One of the non-nuclear countries then watches its erstwhile non-nuclear 'friend' (actually mortal enemy, but dont let the facts distract you from a really strong catchphrase) get invaded, its government overthrown, upwards of a million of its citizens killed in the resultant chaos which descends into civil war.  Meanwhile its nuclear 'friend' is treated to diplomatic engagement and aid agreements.  What is the government of this country likely to make their number one priority?

Even if this was not the case, the nuclear arms race in the middle east has already started when Israel acquired the bomb.  Does Israel really need nuclear weapons, since it already has the strongest army in the region?  Could there not be some discussion about the possibility of Israel phasing out its nukes?  Not on a presidential debate apparently.

Is it out of the bounds of possibility that our leaders and potential leaders could talk to us like adults?  Iran may be involving itself in Iraq, funding the insurgency.  Maybe, but why have i yet to hear any politician anywhere say something along the lines of "Well duh, of course they are - how do you think the US would react if a hostile power was occupying Mexico?".  Something above the level of the prevailing comic book good-vs-evil analysis would be nice.

  [/rant]