I've been in some interesting discussions at Centerfield lately.

I've heard so much talk about McGovern recently I may need to read up. He certainly lost the election. If he hadn't been the peace candidate who could be beaten by an exit from Vietnam, I wonder if we would have exited as promptly, or spent more lives searching for 'peace with honor' while earning neither honor nor peace.

Here's a hard question. Suppose Bush has put us in a situation comparable to World War II, worse than after 9/11. Suppose we cannot win without massive increases in spending, so much so that we cannot borrow so much without seriously endangering our economic position. There's no question that a tax increase is not a popular proposal, but suppose that we really need the money and can only borrow some of it, as during WWII.

Where is the candidate who dares say that although he opposed the war, he respects those who supported it and believes they would have done so even if told the truth about the cost? For victory we may need to learn to consider paying taxes patriotic again - and whining about them unpatriotic. Who will call for sacrifice, ask those who support this war to consider joining the military, and those who cannot do that to pay their taxes ungrudgingly? I'm actually having a few doubts about Dean, but I'm thrilled that he sees no need to buy the support of middle class Democrats with short term payoffs. Dare I hope he will tell the other Democrats that he thinks primary voters are more interested in long term prosperity and will be insulted by demands to spare them?