BY TERRY ROSS, News and Information Center Director, The Sun

John McCain is getting  a bum rap regarding his comment about a “100  year war in Iraq.” His Democratic opponents and some commentators have jumped on the Arizona senator - and now presumptive Republican presidential nominee - for his supposed warmongering.

The implication has been that McCain wants to fight for another century in Iraq, but that is not what he said. He made it clear in his remarks at a New Hampshire town hall that he was referring to a U.S. presence after the war had ended, much like there are still U.S. forces in Korea and Japan.

He said such a presence would be fine with him as long as Americans were not being harmed or killed.

He has since expanded on that to say it was important to have a military presence in the Mideast because it is a volatile part of the world and because al-Qaida is there.

McCain has believed from the beginning that the war in Iraq is necessary and in the best interest of our nation, but his goal has been to defeat the enemy and end the fighting as quickly as possible. That is why he often opposed the way the war was being waged by the Bush administration, which he said was incompetent.

McCain actually wants to bring the fighting to an end, not continue it.

McCain is wrong to want to keep U.S. military forces stationed around the world during peacetime. The purpose of our forces is to defend the nation, not serve as chess pieces on the world stage.

Criticize him for that, not some false notion that he is a warmonger.

BY TERRY ROSS, News and Information Center Director

Remember the days of oily hair? I had pretty much forgotten about them until I watched a PBS documentary, “Ghost of Oswald,” about the John Kennedy assassination.

As part of the documentary, Dan Rather, former CBS anchorman, was interviewed because he was one of the key reporters who reported on the assassination. Also included was archival footage of Rather doing reports in 1963 after the assassination.

It showed a young reporter getting his first big story, one that would propel him to national prominence. It also showed the young Rather with a hair style that brought back memories. His hair was shiny and combed solidly into place because he had used some type of hair oil or hair cream.

I thought, wow, I used to put oil in my hair also, as did most males during much of the last century. It brought a flood of memories from my own youth.

I didn’t really like oily hair very much, but that was what people did, so I followed along as a youth. When the dry hair style came along, I was pleased, and still am. The use of hair oil now seems extremely odd to me.

I’m going to have to go through the family photos one of these days and see if I can find an archival view of myself with slicked down hair. It should bring a few laughs.

BY TERRY ROSS, News and Information Center Director

Sen. Barack Obama was able to make significant inroads against Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Super Tuesday primary in Arizona, but still found himself trailing her by 9 percentage points in the end. Compare that, however, to polling in mid-January when Clinton was leading Obama by 21 points.

The fact that he was able to close so much in such a short time is pretty remarkable given the uphill battle he faced in the state. The Clintons have long been popular among Arizona Democrats and one pollster noted that Hillary Clinton had “worked Arizona for years.” The heavily Latino population was also probably a factor in her favor, given analysis of previous primary results.

Despite that, Obama might have actually carried Arizona if two factors had not existed.

First, a majority of Arizona voters use early mail ballots. That means many of them had likely voted before Obama “caught fire” in late January. Would the tide have changed if they voted later? Perhaps.

Second, the presidential primary in Arizona is “closed,” unlike regular primaries which are open to independent voters. Independents can choose a party ballot in regular primaries, but not presidential ones. Had independents - who tend to favor Obama - been able to vote, would it have made the difference? Again, perhaps.

BY TERRY ROSS, News and Information Center Director

Did he or didn’t he? That’s the question being asked about whether Barack Obama “snubbed” Hillary Clinton at the State of the Union Address last week.

Obama said he was simply distracted by a question from someone else when he turned his back on Clinton when she approached him and Sen. Ted Kennedy, who had endorsed Obama only hours before. Clinton thinks it was deliberate, as do her supporters, who see the action as being disrespectful to women.

My guess is it was a deliberate, if perhaps not entirely conscious, action. By all accounts, Obama dislikes Hillary Clinton and the reverse is also true. They are in a hard-fought battle, and the Clintons reportedly believe Obama pushed in “front of the line” in his run for president since it was her turn. Obama, on the other hand, is not happy about the Clintons’ tactics, including playing the race card.

Clinton and Obama are both members of the U.S. Senate and Clinton’s effort to make “nice-nice” in public is characteristic of the collegial atmosphere typically seen in the Senate where even foes try to maintain civility.

Obama’s action violated that unspoken Senate rule and probably offended Clinton’s supporters, especially women who feel men tend to treat them disrespectfully. For that reason it may have been a bad political move - but it was nevertheless a lot more honest than Hillary Clinton’s make-believe show of friendship. And such honesty is a rare commodity in politics.

Unfortunately, Obama apparently decided he needed to make amends. So he joined Hillary Clinton in a “make-love-not-war” Democratic debate a few days later. I wonder if they really think anyone believes they are good political buddies, as they tried to portray there.

BY TERRY ROSS, News and Information Center Director

John Edwards’ decision to withdraw from the Democratic presidential race puts an end to another attempt to run a “populist” campaign that tried to pit the poor and the middle class against an elite, wealthy upper class.

This class warfare is a recurring theme in elections and politics, one that would seemingly be an easy sell, given that most Americans are not members of the “elite” and that we have become a society that expects the government to meet our needs.

Yet, the argument did not work for Edwards, despite his claim he represented the powerless and voiceless in America - the working class Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, just as his father did. He campaigned on a pledge to improve their lot in life. Like all populists, he planned to do this by taxing the rich and making powerful corporations conform to his vision of fairness.

Ironically, Edwards’ own life demonstrates that the core principle of populism - that the poor are being held down and subjugated to the will of the rich and powerful - is false. He rose from modest means to become a wealthy man and a member of one of the nation’s most elite and powerful bodies - the U.S. Senate.

No one, including the government, gave him these opportunities. He used is intelligence and ambition to gain his goals, becoming a lawyer who successfully battled the powerful elements he blames for keeping Americans downtrodden.

He embodies the “American dream” that success will come to those with talent and the willingness to work hard to achieve their goals, whatever their economic level when they start. He embodies the promise of opportunity given by the nation’s founders.

It is a mystery why he does not see the contradiction between his political thinking and his own life.