Andanh.com

Sometimes your best defense in politics is to take offense. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., appears to take that tack when she condemns "sexism" in media coverage of her campaign as "deeply offensive to millions of women."

In an interview with the Washington Post's Lois Romano, she criticized the "vitriol" from "misogynists" along her quest for the presidency. She complained that media discuss the race factor much more than gender, even though "every poll I've seen (shows) more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman (than) to vote for an African-American, which rarely gets reported on, either."

Does she have a point? You can bet your "Hillary Clinton Nutcracker" -- on sale at many airport souvenir shops -- that she does.

I don't begrudge Clinton one bit for feeling upset about some of the more extreme insults she has faced, even though she knew what she was getting into. She's hardly new to controversy. Still, she aspires to be regarded as a strong, historic leader in the mold of Britain's Margaret Thatcher, except from the political left. Instead, she's often ridiculed by pundits and other wiseacres as a political version of the maniacal and murderous spurned lover played by Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction."

Clinton may have a point when she says we have not talked as much about gender in our national media chatter as we talk about race. The double standard grows out of a fundamental difference in demographics and political psychology: Barack Obama, presenting himself as an agent of change, benefits from transcending race. Clinton benefits from using gender to give her campaign the gloss of a higher cause -- and a coverup for her past political baggage.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the polar opposite of John F. Kennedy. Judging from recent comments, Obama apparently would pay no price, bear no burden, forsake any hardship, support any foe and oppose any friend that wished to pursue liberty.

Kennedy understood that evil exists in the world. He saw it in World War II as his generation defeated the evil that gripped Europe and Japan. And he witnessed it as president when Nikita Khrushchev approved the building of the Berlin Wall and the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba, acts that flowed from Khrushchev's perception that the young president was weak and inexperienced.

Obama thinks he can negotiate with evil and transform evil into something else. Initially, his foreign policy platform was a naive pledge to meet "unconditionally" with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and other nations dominated by dictators. In recent days, he has changed his tune somewhat. He would still meet with the heads of these mini evil empires without preconditions, but he said "there must be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda."

This leads to an important question: On what basis does a free nation negotiate with nations that are not free? Does Obama expect leaders who got where they are by undemocratic, even violent, means, to embrace press freedom, religious liberty, political pluralism and rights for women? What would evil leaders demand of him?

In his recent speech to the Israeli Knesset, President Bush pointedly noted that evil cannot be accommodated, negotiated with, pampered or appeased. It must be opposed and defeated.

Congress will soon decide whether to increase Medicare Part B premiums even more to cover the cost of increasing payments to doctors.

People on Medicare always have been willing to pay their fair share for their health care coverage. And they understand that doctors who treat Medicare patients must be paid fairly. But forcing older Americans to pay even higher premiums because of a flawed physician-payment system is just not fair.

The monthly Part B premium that people on Medicare pay has more than doubled since 2000. Another premium increase will hit many older Americans hard, on top of the already rising costs of prescription drugs, deductibles for basic health care, co-insurance for doctor visits and care that Medicare doesn't cover, such as hearing aids, eyeglasses and routine dental and nursing home care. And each time the Part B premium is increased, it significantly erodes -- or even eliminates -- the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment.

In return for their premiums, seniors gain access to a fine medical care system. However, doctors are not required to treat Medicare patients, and many do not because of lagging reimbursement rates. Critics claim some doctors provide more services than necessary, seeking to make up in volume for low reimbursements. AARP doesn't want to see physician reimbursement levels cut. Shifting more of the financial burden to employers and employees or adding more to the national debt to keep Medicare solvent are not answers, either.

To keep premiums affordable, Congress should fund needed physician payment changes by adjusting other Part B rates, and revise incentives to reward quality, rather than quantity, of care.