Teresa Heinz Kerry, like every first-lady hopeful must make some speeches on behalf of her husband. She must stand behind him at every step of the campaign trail. She must be the strong, faithful, compassionate backbone that makes us all believe that she will make sure her husband gets the job done, WELL. But if we are to believe that Teresa Heinz Kerry represents her husband’s beliefs and opinions, I fear what this potential world leader wants for our country. While Kerry might be a known flip-flopper, a waffler who changes his position depending on the situation in order to ensure his votes, Teresa, at times, is caught having to surrender some opinion to the hungry public. She cannot always keep up with Kerry’s switeroos. It costs Kerry nothing to say that he believes in compromise and in the multilat-eral unity, which he claims is our only chance at peace. If it doesn’t work out, the consequences will only be seen in later presidents and Kerry will be off the hook. In fact, he can easily blame Bush for putting him in a disadvantageous position to begin with. But this article is not about Kerry, it is about his wife.

I first heard Teresa speak at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and within 15 seconds of her speech, I quickly understood her obvious liberal rhetoric. She started off her speech welcoming all the different races and religions that happily intermingled at the DNC. While I believe in diversity and love how both Stanford and America are full of different cultures joining to form the complex character of the United States, Teresa’s call to diversity was different. She, like many other liberals, loves to play the underdog card. She knows that the Democrats want to be seen as fighting for the little man. She knows what to say to appeal to those marginalized, but at the same time remains vague enough not to offend the majority. However, as she continued to speak, one sentence grabbed me and after it, I knew that this woman was no good for the American people.

“To me, one of the best faces America has ever projected is the face of a Peace Corps volunteer.” That was it. That was the sentence that got to me. What is so horrible about it? Well first of all, why is it that one of the best faces in America, the only face she chooses to mention, is that of a Peace Corps volunteer? Why is it not that of a small businessman, working hard to keep his business alive, in the face of increasing taxes, trying to put food on the table of his family as well as the families of his employees? Teresa is using the Peace Corps volunteer as an example of someone kind, compassionate, idealistic and hopeful. Yes, those are all important. But America stands on different principles and it is specifically the Democratic Party’s goal to shift the original American paradigm. A real American ideal is the working man, one who starts with nothing and, because of his hard work and innovation, creates a life for himself and his family. He is a man that votes and chooses wisely. He is the ideal of a man who cares about independence, individualism, but most importantly, freedom. He is the man the works hard so that he can choose to give back to his community. He is the man without whom, the faces that Teresa describes would not exist. The man that Teresa presents is the altruist: a man that works for others and gives everything he has to others. However, let us not forget that the money for which the benevolent Peace Corps vol-unteer uses to help those in need comes from the working man. He is the one that allows our country to have a Peace Corps. I am sure none of us have seen a Peace Corps coming out of Somalia. It is quite obvious that their citizens can-not afford such a luxury. If everyone was a Peace Corps volunteer, rather than the world being a cheery place, it would be a place without the existence of a Peace Corps, as such kindness would be unaffordable. It is essentially Teresa’s screwed up understanding of American values that makes her a threat to these values themselves.

This was not Teresa’s only blunder. The second time she caught my eye was even worse than the first. Recently, at a fundraiser in McAllen, Texas, Heinz Kerry announced that “John will never send a boy or girl in a uniform anywhere in the world because of our need and greed for oil.” She was sim-ply stating that the reason we went to war in Iraq was over oil. There are two things about this that I find unbearable. First, she has no consideration for the morale of the troops in Iraq. Whether they want to be there or not, they are there serving their country. It is not an easy job, but Heinz Kerry makes it thankless as well. She is claiming that our goal was not noble and that all those that died, died for nothing. Has she no concern for those that must still suffer through the life-threatening conditions in Iraq, only to come home to be condemned for helping the robber barons of the US in their greed for oil? But even if morale did not play a role in this, to harp on the fact that the US went into Iraq for oil is a lie, a lie that is perpetuated by the Democratic party. I do not claim that the US goals in Iraq were noble or that it was a good idea to invade. However, I cannot believe that we would invade over oil because if we wanted oil we would have a much bet-ter chance if we didn’t invade Iraq. In fact, countries like France, Russia and China decided not to join us in the war in Iraq for specifically this reason.

In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program. France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil. No wonder France did not want to join us in war.

One thing seems clear, Heinz Kerry has been caught in more conclusive positions than her husband. And in these brief moments of clarity in the Democratic campaign for President, we must look not only at Kerry, for often we cannot tell what it is that he wants to get done, but at the those who are close to him, those who will be supporting him in every step. If Heinz Kerry has even a small influence on Kerry during his Presidency, the results should be clear. Teresa hopes for a land of Peace Corps volunteers, the self-less helpers who themselves depend of the charity of the hard-working upper and middle classes. She wants to perpetuate a lie and demoralize out troops. Why? So that her husband, who won’t even stand tall on these opinions can be president.