Porschy (not her real first name) is a part Pyrenees, part Golden political novice running as a respresentative of the t-bone wing of the GOP (Grassroots Organization for Pooches). The pooch party’s t-bone faction, a burgeoning social and political force among animals in captivity, espouses a single-message social agenda: Personhood for dogs. The loosely organized coalition contends that in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United in 2010, dogs, like corporations, should be granted First Amendment rights as citizens. Some more extreme member groups additionally espouse the principle that personhood (and citizenship rights) should date from the point when sperm and egg combine to create a canine embryo. Porschy has not indicated a position on this controversial contention.

In a prepared statement, Porschy characterized her Vice Presidential pick, Louie-the-Pug, as a “a tireless and unflagging advocate for the principle of animal personhood.” Louie, who lives in a California coastal county, “has passed the litmus tests for honesty, personal dignity, and sensitivity to issues of justice for animals in captivity,” Porschy noted, stating: “As a Beltway outsider, Louie is unlikely to be swayed by the persiflage of Washington pundits or led astray by specious reasoning. He will stay on message.”

Louie-the-Pug will make an ideal vice president, Porschy added: “He is pugnacious and tenacious. Louie will hound legislators on behalf of my agenda as Commander in Chief. He will also stand up for the little guy.”

“Together,” she added, “we will make a winning team, which can capture the White House and achieve real changes for the condition of ordinary animals everywhere. We are the real outsiders.”

The golden-haired candidate tends to be wary of the press. In a rare interview with buckdata.com, Porschy explained that she, like Louie, has a busy schedule “occupying the yard.” and cannot take out much time to speak with representatives of the human media. She has not appeared on Fox News and prefers to stay home Sundays with her human family, rather than appear on talk shows.

Buckdata.com has learned, however, that selection of other members of the t-bone transition team is already quietly under way. Under consideration at this time, according to a highly-placed source with the campaign, speaking not for attribution, are Massachusetts residents, Daisy and Tucker, who are being vetted for cabinet posts at State and Homeland Security, respectively. Both reportedly have the winning charm of able politicians and impressive pedigrees in inter-species relations.

Porschy has not yet opened a campaign office in Iowa, but contends that that is not a problem. “The caucuses will be able to hear me from the West Coast,” she said, adding: “My bark is definitely bigger than my bite.”

Porschy declined to comment on the failure to include her in the recent Iowa debate, noting only that her participation at last week’s event would probably have leavened the quality of discourse.

It shouldn’t just be votes for dogs. Porschy should aim higher. She should run for president herself. She’s qualified. She is smarter than Perry, better informed than Cain (I talk to her a lot about public affairs, and even a casual listener would have an idea what’s going on in Libya.) Unlike Gingrich, she has never orchestrated a government shut-down.

She is not cruel: she has never promoted waterboarding or executing anybody; she is firmly opposed to electrified fences. She would take me to the vet if I needed it without even asking whether I was insured.

Porschy has been consistent and unwavering about these positions. Further, she is popular with pets and pet owners to boot. She has never, ever, put anyone into a dog carrier on a luggage rack (even one with a windshield) during our seasonal trips to the inlaws’ place in L.A.

If the GOP frontrunners were all who were running, I wouldn’t hesitate to form an exploratory committee and set up a Super PAC: Pooches for Prosperity. I’ve already taught her to answer to the words “President Porschy.”

But oops – she’s probably too smart, I might not be able to talk her into running. I’ll have to beg.

And the federal government is sort of progressive, too, when it comes to protecting children. For example, it is against the Mann Act to bring a minor across state lines for sexual purposes.

But what about when the purposes are political? Are there any penalties—local or federal–for bringing a minor across state lines to display her—unmarried and pregnant–on podium and television for political gain? Legal or not, like Chris Kelly at the Huffington Post, I find this pretty disturbing.

About 20 years ago, when an angry mother in California planted her youngster out in her front yard with a sign around his neck, detailing what she perceived to be her offspring’s wrongdoings, her public humiliation of the child provoked public outrage and disgust.

So we’ve abandoned the stocks and moved beyond Hester Prynn and her scarlet letter. Or haven’t we?

The American heartland was once exemplified by a Grant Wood painting depicting an upright rural family. In Wood’s iconic “American Gothic,” a staid farm couple pose before an arching farmhouse window. He is in overalls, pitchfork in hand, gazing straight at the viewer. She is in a patterned apron and looks to her left with a world-weary face. Times are tough, as their faces show, and they appear a bit puritanical, but neither appears a likely candidate to publicly humiliate a pregnant teen.

But the times are apparently a’changing. Now we have new images for the heartland: a candidate for president whose recurring mantra in his acceptance speech-–kind of like the chanting of a Cold War-era high school pep rally—is “fight.” A man who needs his wife’s assistance to get onto the Internet and who in his maverick independence has plucked up a caribou hunter from Alaska to serve as a political ideal of motherhood and women’s achievement. An honored vet whose vetting is in question. And his choice for vice president is a parent who would do this to her own kid. Wow.

Readers, would you let either of these people carpool your child to soccer practice? Would you hand either one the keys to the car? To the country?

This goes way beyond gothic. It’s American grotesque.

As women in America, we have still not achieved equality on a lot of fronts. Anyone who disagrees need only look at her Social Security benefits statement. We can vote, we can mobilize, we can run for office. A majority of the population, we still do the majority of the housework and the low-paying jobs. We still bear the children. And some of these—the poorer ones especially—still go to war.

My husband served in Vietnam. He, like many who experienced that war, is left chilled by Republican John McCain’s joking response to a student’s question about his age. The 70-something candidate is quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 16th as responding in part: “Thanks for the question you little jerk …You’re drafted.” I, too, am chilled by this.

A woman could do better, I always told myself. A woman would prize community over its destruction. A woman would understand that it takes a peaceful village to raise children. A woman would not see war as the solution. A woman would make the connection between excessive spending on war and the squeeze on household budgets.

But perhaps that understanding is no longer a shared feminist one. While initially elated by Hillary Clinton’s spirited run for the White House, I was still troubled by the fact that her vote was among those which enabled George Bush to launch a war on Iraq based on fraudulent information. I did not like Saddam Hussein. I do not like the situation now. On the Internet, I see women mourning their dead children in the street. I see figures indicating millions of refugees–families, children.

I voted for John Kerry in 2004, despite severe discomfort with his own vote authorizing the war. Despite his lengthy clarifications, it still sounded to me like complicity. Feeling helpless, wondering whether any of those in Washington consider the consequences of their actions, I attended a candlelight vigil called by MoveOn.org. In following months, I stood in a village center close to home on Wednesday evenings with others from my rural community, protesting the war. Just before the 2006 election, I brought along the flag which had lain on my father’s casket, and we held it up as traffic passed us.

My father was no pacifist. A very private person, he served in World War II. He did not die in battle. A New Deal Democrat, he had worked to mitigate the impacts of the great depression before the war; later, after it, he labored for the success of farmer cooperatives and crop insurance. He did not live to see these times, so I cannot know what he would say today. I know that he valued his country, as do I.

I must speak for my family now. Holding up my end of the flag in 2006, I spoke to my community, to the commuters’ cars, to the bus and delivery drivers, to the headlights. Then a fellow demonstrator, who had held up the other end—for these casket flags are really long and heavy– helped me fold the flag correctly back into a triangular package, as he had learned to fold so many other flags during the Vietnam war.

Last week, a report in the Huffington Post included a tape of Senator Clinton blaming the “activist base” in her party for state caucus losses, and disavowing MoveOn, specifically. This may have seemed an expedient move in the wake of Super Tuesday defeats, but it was unwise. It made caring people into things.

The Irish poet, William Butler Yeats wrote in his iconic poem, “Easter, 1916” that “too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart.” I believe that too much expediency can do things to the heart as well: It can cause a candidate to harden hers. It can fracture mine.

It can split a party wide open.

–Shelley Buck lives in Northern California. She was a founding editor of Her Say News Service. Copyright, 2008.

This may be good news for many voters concerned about the environment who have paused quietly on the sidelines throughout the current campaign with the polite demurer, “My candidate isn’t running.”

In the report by Devlin Barrett, Obama is quoted as stating that he will make a commitment that Gore–who won a Nobel Prize last year for his environmental efforts– “will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem.” Senator Obama reportedly did not mention a specific job post for the former Vice President, but reportedly characterized climate change is “something we have to deal with now…” Hey, it’s about time!

Has Vice President Gore agreed to this? What job might he accept? Does this mean an endorsement is forthcoming?