What's your priority?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq;_ylt=Atnmhg9ECt5u1Etu6f1zOfWs0NUE

In the attached news article, McCain points out the truism that removing troops from Iraq is less important than reducing casualties. Who would disagree that our primary goal in terms of troop levels should be minimization of casualties? He goes on to point out that withdrawing them is his goal but he doesn’t want to do it in a way that puts more of them at risk.

Two prominent Democrats disagree with this assertion: Joe Biden and Harry Reid. This is a time when having a VP nominee to go out and slam them would be great. This is the perfect time where someone should go out and say:

“Joe Biden and Harry Reid are simply echoing the irresponsible line from Barack Obama: that retreat from Iraq is more important than keeping American troops and Iraqi civilians safe. Apparently, having their Presidential nominee state that genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to get American troops home is not good enough for the Democrats. They now need other Democratic leaders to say that not only is genocide acceptable but sharp increases in American casualties is acceptable as long as we remove troops. This is unacceptable and naïve.

“The Democrats have been complaining for some time that people question their patriotism. When they come out and say such despicable garbage, when they say flat out that exiting Iraq is more important than keeping our troops safe, how can they not expect people to question their patriotism? Maybe they think that abandoning an ally begging for assistance to be patriotic. Maybe they think that putting civilians in the way of genocide is patriotic. Maybe they think that cutting off funding for troops in the field to make a political point is patriotic. Maybe they think that putting soldiers at needless risk for political gain is patriotic. Maybe they think that increasing American casualties is patriotic. I believe that most Americans would disagree.

“Let me be very, very clear on the topic. Joe Biden and Harry Reid should be deeply ashamed of themselves for their statements today indicating that safeguarding our troops should not be our top priority. The troops in the field of battle deserve better than to have their civilian leaders come out in public and say that their safety is not of tantamount priority.”

Notable Quotable

To summarize, Mrs. Clinton maximizes her chances of becoming president if she (1) does enough damage to Obama to snatch the nomination away from him, (2) failing that, does enough damage to him to bring about his defeat in November, and (3) gets herself on the ticket, whether he wins in November or not.

Some will say Mrs. Clinton is being disloyal to her party if she undermines Obama's chances of winning in November. But maybe she just practices a different kind of party loyalty. After all, if you can be a patriot while hoping your country loses a war, why can't you be a loyal Democrat while hoping your party loses an election?

-James Taranto, Wall Street Journal: Opinion Journal

Sen. Barack Obama says he clinched the nomination

BARACK OBAMA: Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled; millions of voices have been heard.

And how many were not heard ?

And because of what you said, because you decided that change must come to Washington, because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest, because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears, but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey…

Anyone else having a Qui-Gon Jinn vs. Yoda moment? "We must bring balance to the force..." "But the good guys are overwhelmingly winning....wait....."

(APPLAUSE)

… a journey that will bring a new and better day to America.

Because of you, tonight I can stand here and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for the president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

But I want to thank — I want to thank all those in Montana and South Dakota who stood up for change today. I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign, through the good days and the bad, from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls.

Didn't Obama lose S. Dakota? Is he thanking the minority or is he thanking the majority who voted for Hillary? Or is he thanking them because in his mind he won it all?

And, tonight, I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for president.

At this defining moment, at this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for office.

I have not just competed with them as rivals. I've learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

Oh crap....these are the leaders?

And that is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

She has made history not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she is a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

Vince Foster has no comment...

I congratulate her on her victory in South Dakota, and I congratulate her on the race that she has run throughout this contest.

(APPLAUSE)

We've certainly had our differences over the last 16 months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago, what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady, what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency: an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be.

That wasn't my impression of why Hillary gets up in the morning.

And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that victory.

Thank you...so is he pre-blaming it on her when that plan crumbles or when the plan succeeds and health care crumbles? Why is everyone so blindly lunging towards universal health care when there are so many examples how it DOESN'T work?

(APPLAUSE)

When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen.

Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I'll say one thing, the Republicans are better off from Obama vs. Clinton :)

(APPLAUSE)

There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well, I say that, because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time.

1. I can feel the unity among the Democrats
2. Aren't there Americans who cast their first ballot in every election? It happens when people turn 18....Obama-mania not withstanding...

(APPLAUSE)

There are independents and Republicans who understand this election isn't just about a change of party in Washington, but also about the need to change Washington.

There are young people, and African-Americans, and Hispanic- Americans, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.

Umm...nothing about Asians?

(APPLAUSE)

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that…

(APPLAUSE)

You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing.

We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say: Let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

A future of running, hiding, surrendering, and sucking more than post-bastille France? Oh, don't forget pandering to dictators. No offense France.

In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically.

(APPLAUSE)

I honor, we honor the service of John McCain, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine.

1. Passive aggressive much?
2. What accomplishments? He still hasn't named any?

(APPLAUSE)

My differences with him — my differences with him are not personal. They are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign, because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

I voted for George Bush twice. I'm sold. Thanks Barack, I'm set for McCain :)

It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college, policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

How much of that mountain of debt is a lack of personal fiscal responsibility??

It's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians, a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.

Safer than a policy of genocide and turning the United States into a giant vi-jay-jay

So I'll say this: There are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new, but "change" is not one of them.

(APPLAUSE)

"Change" is not one of them, because change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.

I'm not even going to bother with that

(APPLAUSE)

I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years, especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

Or he is ignoring General Petraeus...?

(APPLAUSE)

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in, but we — but start leaving we must.

Careful genocide....as opposed to careless genocide? I suppose if you are going to let an entire people get wiped out you don't want to leave any stragglers...

It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care and the benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will second strengthening the military and better benefits for the VA. Since the government did such a crappy job, how about privatizing it?

(APPLAUSE)

It's time to refocus our efforts on Al Qaida's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.

1. A group that has no allegiance to a land is not restrained in said land...Just because the NY Times won't call it AQI, even when AQI says we're AQI, doesn't make it not AQI...
2. How are you going to fight terrorists if you won't fight terrorists? I'm going to start calling him Obama the Ostrich.
3. I vomited in my mouth a little.
4. I thought he was ok with genocide? Or is only genocide by disease he will fight. I suppose you can't negotiate without preconditions with a virus or a bacterium.
5. What is change? The threats are change? Rallying is change? Is it just that he is changing his mind on what he said before?

Change, Minnesota, is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy: tough, direct diplomacy, where the president of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for.

Tough, direct, diplomacy where the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know that they can have what ever they want without preconditions with a legitimized discussion with the president. Hell, maybe I should become a dictator...I don't even need to be "Terrible" or "Magnificent" or even "Corrupt"...all I need to hit is petty, and I can have an audience with the US. Hmm...I'll need to do something to get above "Apathetic", and I'll need to work on my oppression skills. And my nunchuk skills...

(APPLAUSE)

We must once again have the courage and the conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy. That's what the American people demand. That's what change is.

Umm...let's see....Invaded Europe, Nuked Japan, Invaded Cuba....All Obama is willing to invade is my bank account... If that's what the demand is, can someone check on how many US Soldiers were killed in combat actions directed by each of those Presidents?

(APPLAUSE)

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and the workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a middle-class tax break to those who need it, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation.

So why is he taking away my George Bush given tax break?? I am middle-class! I'm not one of the uber-wealthy like Sean & Tanya with their mansions (oh wait...), their fleet of expensive cars (oh wait...), their entourage of servants, all minorities of course (oh wait...), their champagne dreams and caviar wishes (well...they might have those) ;)

(APPLAUSE)

It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was president.

Umm...riding a boom that was already in motion? Why didn't I think of that....Obama you are s-a-m-r-t-er than me...

(APPLAUSE)

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy — cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota — he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

Kind of like when Obama came to Detroit (oh wait...) a suburb is close enough, right? It was close enough for Michael Moore since he grew up in Flint....right?

(APPLAUSE)

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy.

Am I healthy and wealthy? I need that on a T-Shirt!

She needs us to pass health care right now, a plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need, Minnesota.

Isn't his plan post-procedure insurance? How will that bring down premiums? How will it be cheaper if he bankrupts the insurance companies?

(APPLAUSE)

Maybe if John McCain went to Pennsylvania and he met the man who lost his job, but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators.

Then LET US DRILL HERE! What was Obama's vote for ANWR?????

That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future, an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need, Minnesota.

Hmm...so let's see, all auto workers lose their jobs, corporation workers lose their jobs, oil company workers lose their jobs. I guess it won't matter since there will be no cars made for the no oil people can't afford. What's the millions of new jobs...unemployment line place holder?

(APPLAUSE)

And maybe if John McCain spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul, Minnesota, or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, Louisiana, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early-childhood education; and recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; and finally decide that, in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the few, but a birthright of every American.

How about instead of an army of new teachers, we give America a division of qualified teachers? How about that? And no offense, but I get annoyed when people start talking about privilege vs. rights. I have the right to free speech and bear arms and due process. I don't have the right to go to college. I'm sorry, in a perfect world everyone would get to go to college. But in reality, 1. college is not for everyone. 2. It's not a right, billions of people in the world do not get to go to college. By calling it a right, you set up the expectation that the metaphorical I gets to go to college for free without working for it. College is 1. a privilege you have to earn, and 2. you get more out of it if you have to earn it, in my opinion. It's like the right to vote...it is not a right, it is the privilege of a good law-abiding citizen.

That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for president of the United States.

Insert pithy comment. I hope he gets Mondale-d

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a good thing. That is a debate I look forward to.

Can we quote him on that? I do look forward to that debate...

(APPLAUSE)

It is a debate that the American people deserve on the issues that will help determine the future of this country and the future for our children.

But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon…

I don't know...it seems to me that the primaries of the Democrats were pretty much governed by fear, innuendo, and division. Or was he saying that he got it all out of his system at this point.

(APPLAUSE)

What you won't see from this campaign or this party is a politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to polarize, because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Then why does he want America to lose? If he wants America to lose, and he is an American first, then by logic he wants to lose and we should all vote for McCain to give him what he wants!

(APPLAUSE)

Despite what the good senator from Arizona may have said tonight, I've seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I've brought many together myself.

I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the south side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools.

Like Rev. Wright and that Ayer guy? Hmm....there was a reason everyone told me to stay away from the South Side of Chicago.

I've sat across the table from law enforcement officials and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent 13 innocent people to death row.

And how many guilty people were set free from prison? How many monsters physically can't do anything anymore because they're dead. I'm not trying to excuse mistaken executions, and I understand the principle of innocent until proven guilty (or you can convince a jury that the crime you wrote on your company check is not a crime), but in no other country do death row inmates get appeals (Sean, check me on that). So while it is an imperfect system, people are an imperfect species, how do you attain perfection from imperfect minds?

I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break, to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent, and reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

cite your source Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because, behind all the false labels and false divisions and categories that define us, beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes.

Unless you're a church-goer, a gun-owner, or a blue collar worker

And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union, and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines, the women who shattered glass ceilings, the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better and kinder and more just.

And so it must be for us.

Did he just compare himself to Revolutionary War vets, Civil War vets, WW2 vets, and Civil Rights activists?

(APPLAUSE)

America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past…

(APPLAUSE)

… our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge — I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.

What are they? What do you feel are your limitations, Senator?

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless…

(APPLAUSE)

… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…

umm..Jesus? I'm sorry...Moses?

(APPLAUSE)

… this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

I suppose it is easy to end a war, when you give up...he wants the US to give the military equivalent of a soccer own-goal.
Last, best hope on Earth? Wasn't that the tag line for a super-hero?

(APPLAUSE)

This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

Thank you, Minnesota. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Unless you're his spiritual minister for the last 20 years....I guess we should be glad someone apparently slept through church for 20 years....

The London Times comments on the election...so I comment on the London Times

Yes it's politically incorrect but race matters
The Democrats must admit it: Obama would lose to McCain
Anatole Kaletsky
The London Times
April 24, 2008

American Presidential elections have been compared with reality TV series or game shows, in which a gaggle of jumped-up nonentities aspiring to be celebrities are ritually humiliated in public and offered entertaining opportunities to self-destruct, until only one survivor remains. But this time round, a much more elevated analogy is sadly apposite.

Whose fault is that? How do you as a party lose the 2004 election? Talk about a handicapped gimme....It's like playing golf against Tiger Woods except before the game your friends have slipped him a roofie, broke both of his hands and replaced his clubs with a limp ramen noodle. I think the 2004 victory by Pres. Bush is less a commentary on the American people and more on the utter unqualifications of the Democratic candidates.

The 2008 US election has all the makings of a Greek tragedy, in which noble heroes and heroines are forced to follow a course to catastrophe, divinely preordained as punishment for sins and blunders committed by their forefathers in the dim and distant past. In acting out their ineluctable doom, the eloquent protagonists do not just destroy themselves but also their cities, their nations and even their entire civilisations.

Oh boy....someone loved the lit classes in college... I think there were more adjectives in this sentence then anything else.

If this description sounds too grandiose, consider yesterday's results from the Pennsylvania primary. The outcome seemed to be precisely calibrated by the gods to maximise the agony of the Democrats. It gave Hillary Clinton just the support she needed to stay firmly in contention, but not quite enough to turn the tide in her favour.

By grandiose, do you mean uppity? And please... is the outcome a Greek tragedy or just the result of having 2 equally ambitious and minimally if at all qualified candidates (for their own reasons) squaring off for their own success? If they truly believed that a Dem should run the country for the sake of the country and/or the party, why did someone not just drop out and ask for VP? this democratic primary season is an early Christmas present for the GOP, and I very purposefully say Christmas present and not "holiday present".

Worse still, this result underlined the fear that senior Democrats have long been aware of, but have never dared to express in public: America may not yet be ready to elect a black President. Worst of all, it has created conditions for the possible election victory of a militarily belligerent and economically unqualified Republican candidate who supports many of President Bush's worst policies. Given the Bush Administration's domestic and foreign failures, the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan and, most recently, the slump in the economy, the possibility of a Republican victory in November would seem to overturn every principle of proper democracy - and also the hope of America and its system of government being rehabilitated in the eyes of the world after the Bush years. The fact that Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton are both such impressive candidates, intelligent, sincere, articulate and in command of the issues, while John McCain does not qualify on any of these criteria only makes matters worse.

1. Could it be not that America is not ready, and more that a 1st term Senator with the same foreign policy experience as my 12 year old cousin, the attitude toward genocide of Pol Pot, and the health care plan of Elmo from Sesame Street is not a qualified candidate? 2. By militarily belligerent does he mean not a giant vi-jay-jay (not sure if Websense will have issue with the actual word) ? I can think of nobody better than McCain that is running with a true sense of the cost of war... 3. Why is it that Dems always seem to have the attitude that the president rules like a king, with no advisors, counsel, and completely and solely based on themselves? I mean not everyone can invent the internet and save the planet with the ingenious plan of starving third world countries with rising food prices so they can't cause pollution for the rest of us? Still, I wonder...HOW DO YOU WIN AN ACADEMY AWARD AND THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WITH THE SAME 2 HOURS OF WORK??? Wouldn't the "achievement in film" and "peace prize" inherently describe 2 probably very different areas of accomplishment?? 4. Disasters and failures? Don't even need to go there, somebody just smack him and take away his sippy cup. He needs to go home and learn to walk and talk at the same time without sounding like a preschooler. 5. I can find no possible explanation how either Obama or Clinton are sincere or in command of the issues. I tap out, if this is the way the country truly believes, I wonder if Thomson has any offices in Australia...

That Mrs Clinton will now carry on with her campaign is not just probable but essential. For the voting in Pennsylvania confirms that she has a much better chance than Mr Obama of winning the White House for the Democrats. According to the Associated Press exit polls published yesterday, 16 per cent of white Democratic voters considered race an important factor in the Presidential election and 43 per cent of these said they would either vote Republican or not vote at all, if Mr Obama were the Democratic nominee.

To me race is a non-issue as is gender. I don't know any other Republicans to whom race is a issue more than qualifications, experience, and future strategies. It seems to me, that it's always the ones who whine about race and equality (mind you, not legitimately complain, but whine) are the ones for whom it is a an electability issue which can change their vote.

Given that Mrs Clinton's clear victory over Mr Obama in Pennsylvania followed similar results in other "must-win" states with large working-class constituencies, such as Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan and even New York and California, the conclusion would be fairly obvious, were it not for the political correctness that makes it almost impossible for American politicians or commentators to express such a view: Mr Obama may by unable to carry large industrial states with socially conservative white working-class populations simply because of his race. This is especially true now that the televised rantings of Rev Jeremiah Wright and Mr Obama's own gaffe about the "bitter" white working-class culture of "guns and God", have reminded Americans that race is not just a matter of skin colour. Rev Wright embarrassingly revealed in his "God damn America" and "Chickens come home to roost" sermons that his African-American vision of America is be profoundly at odds with the white majority view.

Does Michigan and Florida really count as clear victories for Clinton? I mean beating nothing is a win....I suppose. I do note that Rev Wright is brought up as a sign a political mis-speak, not as a potential issue when looking at a presidential candidates advisers and personal counsel.

The latest polls in the two most important swing states show Mr McCain easily beating Mr Obama in both Florida and Ohio, while Mrs Clinton comfortably beats the Republican in Ohio and is neck and neck in Florida.

Mr Obama has, of course, apologised for his condescension towards working-class church-goers and hunters - probably the most important group of floating voters in the electorally critical mid-Western states. He has tried even harder to dissociate himself from Rev Wright's anti-American tirades, which really have to be seen (on YouTube) to be believed. And Mr Obama's supporters have chastised Mrs Clinton for turning to "negative campaigning" and "scorched-earth" strategies in her desperation to stay in contention.

Note: Dear Hillary. Please continue the scorched earth strategies. It is delicious, it's like gold when it touches your lips. Thank you, Eric.

The trouble is that Mr Obama's efforts to suppress the race issue are doomed to failure. For the influence of Rev Wright on him is a matter of public record. Indeed, the phrase "Audacity of Hope", which is the title of Mr Obama's political autobiography as well as his presidential leitmotif, is attributed in that book to a sermon by "my pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright". The Republican political machine, which demonstrated its mastery of the arts of character assassination in the two Bush presidential contests, will have no compunction in exploiting the Wright relationship and portraying Mr Obama as an anti-American in the general election, even if the Clinton campaign and the media observe a self-denying ordinance on the race and patriotism issues, as they broadly have so far.

Demonstrated art of character assassination? Then what the Dems do, character apocalypse? I have seen no one more completely and totally attack the personal character of people than Democrats. Is it character assassination to bring attention toward Wright for everything he has said? Or is it a legitimate look at a candidates personal friend and spiritual adviser?

The certainty of a no-holds-barred attacks by the Republicans brings us to the potentially most tragic aspect of this election. If ever there was an election the Democrats ought to win this is the one. Yet on the basis of the primary results so far, they are all too likely to lose it. Mr Obama may be marginally ahead of Mrs Clinton in the popular vote but the Democrats seem to have forgotten that all the votes cast so far have been by their own supporters. In the general election their candidate will have to win over Republicans and right-leaning floating voters. Most of the evidence so far suggests that the Repulicans will find it much easier to frighten voters about the prospect of a President Obama than a President Clinton.

If there was ever an election that the Democrats should win it was 2004. But let's not dwell on the utter and complete failure of the DNC, which should be expected considering their core is MoveOn, Code Pink, and all of the leftover eco-nazi, communist, hippies who had nothing to do when all of their ideologies failed on their respective merits or lack thereof.

Professional Democratic politicians now have the casting vote in their party's nomination and could yet force the two candidates into a "dream ticket" led by Mrs Clinton with Mr Obama as Vice President which would sweep all before it and would probably make Mr Obama unbeatable as a presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016. Yet the Democratic superdelegates who could now secure years of hegemony for their party seem to consider it "unfair" to use their professional judgment to overturn the "democratic" verdict of primary voters.

By professional democratic politicians do they mean "Oh crap the voters have too much power so let's change the rules so the candidates can buy our nominations"? Is the article really advocating the buying of votes of to secure "hegemony"? The one fair thing the superdelegates could do is vote the way of the party....isn't that what primaries are for? And if you had a dream ticket, so to speak, is anyone else picturing a west side story style showdown between Obama and Clinton in the oval office?

The Republicans will have no such compunctions about the fairness of launching personal attacks against a potentially vulnerable Democratic candidate. In this respect this Presidential contest may again manifest the tragedy of left-wing politics through the ages. Parties which care more about fairness than about power, end up achieving neither.

Are they vulnerable candidates or are they candidates which have a lot of quality weaknesses? Is it a personal attack to complain that McCain is too old? Because I've already seen that. Is it a personal attack to say he is unqualified because he isn't an economist? If that's the case, then Hillary and Barack have absolutely no business being president because of their foreign policy which consists of making up stories worthy of an episode of 24 dodging snipers in a helicopter and playing tag with a bunch of yellow children in grade school. The tragedy of left-wing politics is that they are the only ones that don't see the weaknesses transparent in their party, and then they wonder what went wrong. Tanya, what was that definition of insanity again? And since when have the Dems ever cared more about fairness than about power? The Clintons....really?

END RANT....McCain 2008, Rice 2012, Petreaus 2016

An Agent for Change?

Senator Obama makes much of being an "agent of change". He along with Mr. Edwards, represents himself as an outsider who seeks to change the "good old boy" network which is, admittedly, in too much control of the process. However, the hypocrisy of this stance is staggering.

If Senator Obama was truly dedicated to ending the "special interests" that dominate politics, he would have gone into the early primary system differently. Instead of repudiating a corrupt system focusing on special interests, moving from a convention and caucus primary system to an election, he has actively worked with his party to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan. For someone who says he stands against backroom politics, he's gone well out of his way to commit himself to them.

Happy New Year

After a lengthy break for the holidays, we're back. My best hopes that everyone had an enjoyable season and will enjoy a healthy, fruitful, prosperous 2008.