It is ironic but fitting that the aristocrat who rhapsodized about the common man in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, lived on mountaintop Monticello, away from the rabble -- not far from his state's capital, from which in fright as governor he fled the British. He was surrounded by slaves whom he disdained to free (and one of whom it is believed he took as mistress). In contrast is Hamilton, an illegitimate child of the West Indies, who knew blacks well because he had lived with them, a true abolitionist in New York, defended wealth and order as essential to the common good.

More: who left Washington as trusted aide-de-camp to risk his life as brilliant commander in the Revolution's front lines. Who so mastered military strategy in his 20s that easily rivaled older men in leadership. Who in peacetime taught himself the law so well that he became New York's finest advocate. Who anticipated the Constitution earlier than even Madison. Who stirred the yearning for federalism by penning most of the Federalist papers. Who pushed the federal government to assume all states' debts. Who as first Treasury secretary created the financial system to establish the credit of the United States when bankruptcy was a favored outlet. Who insisted domestic debt and foreign debt be assumed at full value from which it was contracted, over Jefferson's opposition, and who got it accepted by brokering the deal that sent the national capital to Jefferson's South.

Who conceived the United States bank chartered to dispense our first currency, anticipating in some ways the Federal Reserve. Who warned that Jefferson's favored revolution in France would lead to anarchy. Who readied himself as the army's inspector general, Washington's right arm, as war with France seemed imminent. And who disclosed details of an immoral love affair with another man's wife to forestall blackmail, and who was prevented from running for president because of it.

Who first advanced a broad interpretation of the Constitution, arguing the federal structure had "a right to employ all the means requisite" to attain the peace and liberty of its citizens. Who, as Washington's de facto prime minister and counselor in all the works of the presidency as well as ghost-writer, penned the immortal Farewell Address.

Who tried precedent-setting jury cases with, and sometimes opposite to, Aaron Burr (his future murderer), including for the defense in a murder case on Wall Street, moving candles on both sides of a witness' face, announcing to the jury in words memorialized in the law: ''The jury will mark every muscle in his face, every motion of his eye. I conjure you to look through that man's countenance to his conscience'' -- with the witness breaking down and confessing on the spot -- just like on ''Perry Mason,'' and the case ending at 1:30 a.m. with Hamilton not having slept for 48 hours. The jury, out five minutes, returned the verdict "not guilty." As Hamilton strode from the courtroom, a woman from the confessed murderer's family shouted, ''If thee dies a natural death, I shall think there is no justice in heaven.''

That chilling curse was redeemed. In his last unrequited act of service for his country, Hamilton tipped the presidential election of 1800 (which was deadlocked in the U.S. House) to Jefferson, whom he disliked but preferred to the unscrupulous Burr. Hamilton's defeat of Burr led to the duel. The next greatest American but for Washington died a day later. Where's his monument? Not on Mount Rushmore, where Jefferson coldly stares, but all around us.

An air of unreality is polluting our country's political discourse on the U.S. role in Iraq. Opponents of the coalition deployment were already questioning the continued U.S. presence and second-guessing the intervention itself. Now they are raising the bar for a "successful" handover of power in Iraq to absurdly high levels.

Iraq is and will continue to be a contentious issue -- all the more reason for every political side and interested party to restore some perspective to our national debate. To begin: Where do our Iraq operations really stand? The first phase of the country's transformation was completed when the U.S.-led coalition overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein. The second ends this week when an interim Iraqi government assumes power.

These are important milestones, but when Iraqis awaken July 1, they will not suddenly find themselves denizens of a stable democracy. This momentous day will merely be one of many steps on the long, hard journey to democracy. To reach the end of that road, the international coalition and Iraqis must work together to build accountable government, a viable economy, effective security structures, reliable media, the rule of law and other foundations of a civil society.

I share the administration's belief that relinquishing sovereignty over Iraq from the coalition to an Iraqi government now will facilitate and expedite this process -- but there will be setbacks, and the process will be arduous. I do not agree with those who suggest we are doomed to failure or that we have achieved little. Yes, the battle is ongoing and victory cannot yet be ensured in some quarters, but we have accomplished much.

As President Bush has noted, some targets have been reached at a faster pace than in postwar Germany and Japan. For the others, remember that the United States is in its ninth year in Bosnia, where we have spent roughly $29 billion and still have about 1,000 troops deployed to enforce a flawed peace plan that legitimizes ethnic divisions and paralyzes the central state. In Kosovo, where several hundred U.S. troops are deployed, the United Nations controls a national economy that is in worse condition than when the U.N. was entrusted with restoring it five years ago.

Meanwhile, in only 15 months in Iraq, the coalition has facilitated the production of more than 150 newspapers, the operation of an effective police force, the reopening of schools with propaganda-free textbooks, the rebuilding of more than 400 villages razed by Hussein, the re-creation and appreciation of a national currency, and the return from Iran and Turkey of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees.

Legions of dedicated American and other soldiers, public servants, businessmen, and nongovernmental workers in Iraq have struggled to complete these tasks and will continue to fulfill their mission in the face of unimaginably difficult obstacles. Terrorists are trying to drive them out by capturing and gruesomely murdering innocent civilians. At the same time, a group of U.S. troops has damaged their collective credibility by beating and ritually humiliating Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Here at home, critics carp and, intentionally or not, too often suggest that Americans are serving and dying in Iraq in vain. Some suggest that if we had it to do over again, we would not and should not.

Some Democrats even claim that the coalition's failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq invalidates their earlier explicit support for our intervention. In fact, their own statements at the time show that they supported the war not only because it would eradicate the weapons threat but also because it would end human rights abuses and regime-sponsored terrorism, as well as create conditions for democracy. This isn't just "selective amnesia" in an election year. It's irresponsible hindsight.

Backbiters and back-stabbers are as entitled as anyone to ask questions, but they, like the rest of us, must remain realistic and credible. Today Iraq is poised for increased prosperity and a better political future. Many, if not most, of its people are imbued with hope. Thousands of brave Americans, with the support of most of us here, are slowly but surely turning that hope into reality.

If our hope is not fully realized, it will not be because President Bush decided to withdraw on the advice of those who expected miracles and instant gratification. We will have set noble yet tangible goals, worked diligently and sacrificed honorably. If we succeed -- as I believe we will, sometime after this wretched political season is over but in the not too distant future -- the people of Iraq and their neighbors in the Middle East will benefit from political rights, civil liberties and freedom of a kind that the Arab world has never seen before.

It seems to me that anyone who follows the Illinois GOP would know that the leadership has no constituency with the power to compel Jack Ryan to get out of the race. If in fact Jack had the base with him he could withstand any attack by the GOP leaders. When this story came to a head with one week left in the primary, and a campaign manager for another campaign mailed his affidavit to the media, the wheels of Jacks campaign started falling off.

Yes Jack received 35% of the primary vote, but it came because Jack had strong ties to grassroots groups, that he brilliantly spent years cultivating. He called and wrote grassroots leaders and gave them his word that the story didn't have any truth and that he was just protecting his son. From day one the files were the story not the conservative ideas Jack ran on. As time went by and it became clear the records had to be opened. People started thinking Jack might have not been straight with them, his campaign never took off.

The grassroots leadership, which is so important to a GOP statewide candidate, stood on the sidelines waiting for the other shoe to drop. When the records were opened, it was the base of the party that never came to Jacks defense, and without that he went into a free fall. It is allot like the George Ryan situation in that the base of the party was not there to insulate him from the press and his enemies.

The GOP is different from the Democratic party, because republican voters have never put up with the corruption the democratic voters put up with. GOP voters do not necessarily like the political process the way democrats do. They don't like the strategy, they go for ideology and personality. When there is a scandal they will stay with someone on their word. If it is found that the person lied they will bail out. A great example is President Nixon, he could never have been removed from office had Republicans not been the ones to do it. George Ryan could have stayed Governor if he had the base, after all he was elected with the charges pending. But the base left him when he started pushing Illinois First. He thought he could make up for the loss by going for the middle voter. He vetoed a bill to stop government financing of abortion, he backed HB101 (giving homosexuals special rights) he cultivated the middle of the road voters, who he thought would replace his base, he was wrong. He found that conservatives RUN the primary process. After 1996 there are not the votes to elect a pro choice, pro homosexual, anti gun Republican in a statewide primary.

Jack ran as a pro family, pro life candidate. When the story came out there was nobody there to hold him up. You can say it was a sexless sex scandal. It didn't matter if the story was true or just the product of a nasty divorce. When Jack was seen as lying to his base he was finished. Even if the GOP leadership wanted to keep him, they couldn't; the base forced him out.

Allot of us joined the GOP because we don't allow our pol's to get away with graft and lying. Jack's mistake is he used the goodwill he banked over the years to get through the primary so there was nothing left when the rest of the story came out. For the GOP and it's base the question became; Should we change candidates or write off the Senate seat? They chose the former. All but one of the primary candidates were pro life, all were pro gun, anti tax, pro military so the change will only be in personality not in message, unless the party tries to pull a fast one.

It will be difficult but Obama is the most liberal candidate to ever run for statewide office for a major party in Illinois history. He can be beaten! The homosexual marriage issue is one Obama is trying to be on both sides of. In an advertisement in the Windy City Times he says he is for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage act (signed by President Clinton) that if repealed would FORCE states to recognize Homosexual marriage. But publicly Obama forcefully says he is only for civil unions. He is for a government run health care system. He is against the war on terror and would not have voted to fund our troops in Iraq the list is endless. Illinois might be leaning Democrat but not socialist.

Now a message to the GOP leadership. Pick someone and lets get this thing going! The longer this goes on the more fake candidates will use this as a way to get their names in the paper, just to say no. Don't try to put someone in this race who can't win a primary. That means you have to pick someone who is pro life, pro family, pro second amendment and a conservative. If you don't, what happened to Jack is nothing compared to what you will see. If conservatives left Jack, think of what they will do to you.

==>Dwight D. Eisenhower