Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Democrats Form a Circular Firing Squad

The Democrats Form a Circular Firing Squad

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A circular firing squad. It’s an apt metaphor for the Democratic presidential campaign these days. I never, ever thought we’d be in this position. Although I’ve never been known as a political pessimist (hey, I was rooting for John Kerry way into the night in 2004), I have become one. Only the Democrats could manage to turn this year’s Presidential sure thing into a possible rout. Okay, maybe it’s a bit hyperbolic to say so this early. But I’m beginning to dread the fall.

And who'd have thunk it? A long and costly (and unpopular) war; the unitary executive; the emasculation of Congress; the Supreme Court; an economy that everyone but George in Wonderland perceives as tanking; a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan that promises to erase any gains we may have made prior to Iraq; Blackwater; Halliburton; an army stretched to the brink, with stop-loss orders threatening the lives, livelihoods, and well-being of our veterans; a health care system that is an embarrassment equal only to our loss of our credibility on the international stage. The list goes on. And on. And yet… let me get this right: Clinton and Obama are sniping at each other? Circular firing squad indeed.

The stakes are way too high this year to allow the Republicans to keep the castle… er… White House. Nearly eight years of damage cannot be piled atop another (even) four years of an imperialized Republican executive.

So, here’s my two cents worth (and in this economy, it’s not worth very much). Everyone just take a breath. Then readjust the circular formation and re-aim. But this time, instead of aiming at each other and assorted feet, this time take aim at the real enemy: John McCain and every up-for-election Republican who sits in the House and Senate. They’re the enemy. They’re the guys who’ve let our country fall apart and fall away from the values (yes, values) and ideals that make our country great.

But, you wisely ask, aren’t Obama and Clinton running against each other? How else can we figure out who should have the nomination if they don’t attack each other’s Achilles heels and other weaknesses? How, indeed. And thanks for asking.

Fight the enemy. Fight McCain. What better target for practice? What better a test of wills? Of skills? Of merit? Who has the better claim against McCain? Show us. In real time. Because that’s what it’s all about, baby. Because that’s what’s going to matter in the final analysis.

You wanna see who should have the nomination? Fight McCain. Let us see you set the agenda against his, and theirs. Don’t give the guy a pass. Don’t let him embrace racists like Rod Parsley, demagogues like John Hagee. Don’t let him embrace eight years of a disastrous presidency and revise it to suit his (and the Republican agenda). Because, believe me, he will. And they will. You think Karl Rove has been vacationing in Aruba? You think those 527s have laid down their arms? No way. And while Hillary and Barack are taking pot shots firing at each other, they’re taking their eyes off the prize and watching it disintegrate into sand right in front of their (and our) eyes. They’re distracted from the real war; from the real fight.

Like I said, my advice isn’t worth a lot. So, I do think we’ll continue to see more of the same. Democrats shooting at each other and themselves in the foot as the Republicans plan the autumn offensive. And they’ll be ready. But the real question is will the Democrats? This campaign sorely needs John Edwards back in the fray. I miss his role as “the adult candidate.”

So I will end with a plea to the adults in the upper echelons of the Democratic party. Will someone — John Dean? Al Gore? Teddy Kennedy?  someone (or all of you) — put a stop to this? For the sake of the party, for the sake of the race, for the sake of the country — and the sake of the planet.

Powered by

About Barbara Barnett

Barbara Barnett is publisher and executive editor of Blogcritics, as well as a noted entertainment writer. Author of Chasing Zebras: The Unofficial Guide to House, M.D., her primary beat is primetime television. But Barbara writes on an everything from film to politics to technology to all things pop culture and spirituality. She is a contributor to the book called Spiritual Pregnancy (Llewellyn Worldwide, January 2014) and has a story in Riverdale Ave Press' new anthology of zombie romance, Still Hungry for your Love. She is hard at work on what she hopes will be her first published novel.
  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Despite being well qualified what with being convicted of multiple felonies, John Dean is not actually a Democrat.

    BTW, your article is a terrible example of mindles partisanship. I give thanks every day that Obama and Clinton are exposing themselves and their party for the corrupt, venal and vicious pack of socialists they are.

    They are showing voters that they only thing they are fit for is to destroy the country and sell out our sovereignty and drive us into economic serfdom.

    Dave

  • Jonathan Scanlan

    “BTW, your article is a terrible example of mindles partisanship….They are showing voters that they only thing they are fit for is to destroy the country and sell out our sovereignty and drive us into economic serfdom.”

    Hehehe. Nicely put Dave.

  • STM

    I agree. The Dems have almost certainly shot themselves in the foot. They have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and I don’t think I’m going to be wrong about this.

    But it’s got a lot more to do with another factor than Hillary and Obama sniping at each other, although that doesn’t help.

    The next occupant of the White House will be a silver-haired elder-statesman Republican )f there is such an animal :)

    The reason is this, and it’s really simple even if some might find it unpalatable: America is still a deeply conservative nation.

    Offering two candidates that were radical departures from the norm in one election was always going to be fraught.

    Simply, IMO, America is not ready, for at least a generation, for either its first female president or its first black president, sad as that may be.

    I believe that many Democrats will either vote for McCain or just not vote. You can see and feel the mood already (and I’ve worked as a political adviser so I have a fair idea of how to interpret this and have a better-than-average strike rate).

    No, this is more about America the country than it is about Obama and Clinton the snipers.

    Democrats living in the big cities might be comfortable with either of those two options and see them as totally normal, but outside the cities, America remains a bastion of conservatism with a reluctance for change, even among traditional, middle-of-the-road Democrats, and that’s where it will be lost.

    Nevertheless, I hope I’m wrong ….

  • Jonathan Scanlan

    Hmm…. I kind of disagree with that assessment Stan, and my reasoning goes something like this…

    No matter what period it happens in, people are always going to say “the country isn’t ready for…” until it actually happens.

    Meanwhile, when you actually look at the turnouts and surveys, I’m inclined to think it might work out.

    And to top it off, the public are often way ahead of the politicans and the commentariate. I mean, how old are these guys compared to the average age of the voters?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I’d also disagree with Stan. I don’t think the country has a problem with a black or a woman as president, it’s just these particular candidates with their baggage and policies which the country isn’t ready for.

    The American people are NOT stupid. They know perfectly well that in a time of economic problems raising taxes on private citizens in addition to high food, housing and oil prices is going to be personally devastating and they aren’t going to stand for it.

    As for Obama and Clinton, I give them credit for defeating their party honestly just by showing their true colors.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I have to side with Jonathan and Dave* on this.

    Based on the current head-to-head polls and the results of the last two presidential elections, at least half the American electorate is ready for a black or female candidate.

    What the eventual Democratic candidate has to do is convince at least a few of the other 50% that his or her policies will make America better. He or she must focus on the war, the economy and other relevant issues and not allow McCain to make it about personality.

    As for the Clinton v Obama sniping, well, I’ve followed American presidential elections for many years and it seems to me that internecine warfare is a standard and accepted part of any primary campaign.

    * Although speaking of mindless partisanship, Dave’s opening comment is just priceless.

  • Bennett

    “…corrupt, venal and vicious…”

    These words accurately describe Cheney and Rumsfeld on Frontline a few nights ago (“Bush’s War”).

    Watching them repeatedly lie about the situation in Iraq made me think of Dave’s comments here on BC.

  • Barbara Barnett

    Despite being well qualified what with being convicted of multiple felonies, John Dean is not actually a Democrat. Guess I was being too (and not successfully) glib in invoking John Dean instead of Howard Dean.

    Mindless, no. Partisanship: guilty. Partisan against the domination of a party that embodies cynicism, corruption and brutal self interest above values (and I do mean values–not what passes for the term amongst the republicans).

    They are showing voters that they only thing they are fit for is to destroy the country and sell out our sovereignty and drive us into economic serfdom. Speaking of the republicans, are you, Dave?

    This country has already in the past eight years been exposed to a radicalization that would have our founding fathers turning over in their collective graves. I have to agree with Bennett here.

  • JustOneMan

    Rasmussen Reports – “Old White Man Caught Beating Up Old Lady Socialist and Young Black Racists”

    Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 51% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 51% to 41%

    JOM

  • Dan Miller

    Perhaps I missed something somewhere, but it doesn’t look like a circular firing squad to me. Rather, it appears that both candidates, Senator Clinton far more effectively, are aiming their guns at themselves. The order to shoot seems to be, “ready, fire, aim!”

    Senator Clinton has managed, through her Bosnia Moment, not only to turn off large numbers of potential voters but also to make herself a laughingstock. Intentional humor, properly directed, is a valuable tool of persuasion, particularly when it is self deprecating. It is inconceivable that Senator Clinton’s Bosnia Moment was intended to be funny; it just turned out that way, quite predictably. The Obama campaign has not said much about it, because it has had no need to do so. The media have had a field day, but I don’t notice much Obama imprint on it — unless one accepts unreservedly the thesis that the Vast Main Stream Media Conspiracy has been corralled by Senator Obama and is working overtime on his behalf. The media compete for audience, so that toothpaste ads can command premium prices. When something like the Bosnia Moment comes along, it is irresistible.

    A Bosnia Moment can easily be deadly. Dull, mundane facts and issues are quickly forgotten. Funny stuff has a longer shelf life.

    Senator Obama has not become a laughingstock, and probably won’t. Although I think his race speech was about the best that could have been done in the circumstances, the circumstances were of his own creation, just as Senator Clinton’s Bosnia Moment was hers.

    It is, of course, true that by focusing their fire now on Senator McCain, Senators Clinton and Obama could show their mettle in partisan politics. Although one of the factors to consider when awarding the nomination, I hope it is less important than the ability to rise above partisan politics and actually foster a realistic hope of something worthwhile getting done post election. Telling the troops to get out of the circle and form a straight line, with all guns pointed at the Republicans, strikes me as a bad idea for the Democrats.

    It is a good thing for the flaws of candidates for nomination to be exposed during the selection process. The winner can and should, during the general election, focus on the candidate of the other party. Currently, a Democrat mutual admiration society meeting posing as a campaign for nomination is, I submit, a silly idea. It only seems otherwise because of the incredibly good job of self immolation being done by the candidates, again, particularly by Senator Clinton.

    Dan Miller

  • Barbara Barnett

    It is, of course, true that by focusing their fire now on Senator McCain, Senators Clinton and Obama could show their mettle in partisan politics. Doubtless one of the factors to consider when awarding the nomination, I hope it is less important than the ability to rise above partisan politics and actually raise a realistic hope of something worthwhile getting done post election. Telling the troops to get out of the circle and form a straight line, with all guns pointed at the Republicans, strikes me as a bad idea.

    It is a good thing for the flaws of candidates for nomination to be exposed during the selection process. The winner can and should, during the general election, focus on the candidate of the other party.

    I agree that it is a good thing that the candidates’ flaws be exposed during the primary process, but it is also good to not destroy your opponent to the point of making him seem feeble compared to the real opposition. As someone just said on Hardball, they are sort of on the same team when it comes right down to it.

    I want to hear policy ideas. I want to hear how Clinton and Obama plan on putting together coalitions needed to address the issues that face us, but also how to undo the damage done by Bush and Co.

  • Barbara Barnett

    No worries, Dan. The system sometimes gets a bit slow :) Thanks for your comments.

  • Dan Miller

    Barbara, I am probably a cynic. I do not apologize for it, and think it is a helpful quality.

    Like the old song, “cows may come and cows may go, but the bull will go on forever.” Issues raised during a campaign tend to be highly ephemeral and partisan, and the appeal is to one’s fellow ideologues.

    Character is the most important consideration for many of us, and that does not filter well through issues debates. It comes out in how the candidates actually behave. Senator Clinton’s Bosnia Moment was, obviously, not just a moment; it revealed something very important, and very damaging, about her. The widespread reaction seems to have been, “Oh my God. Another Clinton.” Senator Obama’s race speech also revealed much about him, like it or not. These are the sorts of things likely to convince voters, and properly so.

    Dan Miller

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “People, people, let’s not fight. Let’s look at the real issue: who can beat John McCain in the general election.”

    “I agree. Let’s focus on that.”

    “Agreed. Well, I think I would be able to beat McCain in the election moreso than you.”

    “Nuh-uh! I’d have a way better chance!”

    “No way.”

    “Yeah, huh!”

    “So not true. I’m going to make some attack ads about you.”

  • Barbara Barnett

    Yup. Matt, I think you’ve hit it.
    Alas, it’s the number one story tonight on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown. I just hope that things get toned down a bit. Damage has been done, but in our sound-byte society with a limited attention span and epidemically short-term memories, it may not be irreparable. Or not. The Pew Poll says that 10% of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim.

  • Bennett

    Barbara, The Pew poll also indicated that Obama beats McCain by ten points come Fall.

    BTW, I enjoyed reading this piece.

    Matt… Ha!

  • Barbara Barnett

    I hope you’re right, Bennett. I’ve been thinking about this for about two weeks, the last day or two has just gotten to me. Glad you enjoyed the article.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The Rasmussen and Pew polls quoted by earlier commenters are really out on a limb. Given recent presidential election history, surely even JOM can’t seriously expect either side’s candidate to win by ten clear points come November.

    The Real Clear Politics average currently has Obama beating McCain by a whisker and McCain beating Clinton by less than a point.

    And, on STM’s contention that America will elect McCain by default because it isn’t ready for a black or female president, MSNBC reported earlier today on a poll that showed most people thought America was readier for a female president (71%) or a black president (70%) than for another fossilized president (61%).

  • Clavos

    …more ready…

    [Slinks furtively into the shadows.]

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    [Commandeers police helicopter, climbs to 1500 feet, shines spotlight pitilessly into shadows.]

    ‘Readier’ is a perfectly good word, documentary proof of which I would have provided if Akismet hadn’t inexplicably decided that ‘Merriam-Webster’ is spam.

    Besides, Clav, as a fellow able writer, even if it wasn’t a word, wouldn’t you agree that only once one has become a master of the English language does one know when to break the rules?

  • STM

    DD: “MSNBC reported earlier today on a poll that showed most people thought America was readier for a female president (71%) or a black president (70%) than for another fossilized president (61%).”

    That don’t mean diddly-squat Doc, and you knows it!!

    What people say to pollsters and what they do at the ballot box are two different ball games.

    Besides which, 100 per cent of Americans don’t vote.

    Those polls should be canvassing people who actually intend to vote, and even then, in a country that doesn’t have compulsory voting, those who say they are going to vote often don’t bother on the day (the poor saps).

    Clinton and Obama are ho hope, for the reasons I’ve stated, and McCain gets the walk-up start, saloon-passage ride to the White House because there is no one else within coo-ee*.

    *Aussie term pronounced koo-ee, meaning within hearing or seeing distance. Sorry for having to explain it, but Yanks and Poms don’t know much about anything.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Well, Stan, one poll does not gospel make, and I know as well as anyone that polls don’t always reflect what actually happens on election day (the 1992 UK general election being a notable example).

    But on this one it basically comes down to your opinion vs. some hard numbers.

    I’m not holding up this one solitary poll as some sort of prophecy. As I said before, no-one seriously thinks McCain is going to win by ten clear points over either Obama or Clinton. Nevertheless, polls can be a good predictor if you average them out, and the more polls you have the more accurate your average is likely to be. So that’s why I’m watching Real Clear Politics for right now, and once the Democratic nominee is finally confirmed and the election campaign begins in earnest I’ll be tracking the Electoral Vote and Election Projection sites, both of which got it pretty much right in 2004 and 2006.

    Oh, and I know what ‘coo-ee’ means. I have been to Oz twice, remember?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Just some (unbidden) thoughts from the mountains of Samaria….

    1. The last time the Democrats had anything resembling socialists in their party was over 60 years ago when the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota agreed to be swallowed up by the Democrats there. It was “Saint Hubert’s” greatest achievement.

    Since then, the DFL has become what the rest of the Democrat Party is – a bunch of corporate shills. The Republicans are no better, just more obvious about it.

    And Dave, none of the idiots in the Democratic Party are socialists. They wouldn’t recognize socialism if it slapped them in the face, not one of them.

    2. America under the Bush regime has degenerated into an openly corporatist state. What is good for the corporate friends of whatever administration is in power is good for America – damn the constitution, or any concepts of due process of law. So either Obama or Clinton will be servants of their corporate masters, and the corporatist state will continue to grow.

    And for the politically illiterate among you (an awful large bunch, I might add) Fascism is a variety of the corporatist state. More and more, America resembles the comic-opera corporatist state that once attempted to run Italy. The difference is that this corporatist regime is engaged in the impoverishment of Americans. Mussolini at least attempted the enrichment of Italians. He failed miserably, but he was not a particularly smart fellow, and he did not have too much to work with in Italy anyway.

    3. Finally, the big issue that you Americans all face is that the war in Iraq has effectively bankrupted you, in a fashion that the Seven Years War bankrupted England two hundred and fifty years ago. No matter that you may have succeeded some there or not. Remember, England did win the Seven Years War. This war has still bankrupted you and the corporate masters of the economy do not give a damn for any of you, just for their own sorry asses.

    None of the idiots you are arguing over to be your “monkey-in-chief” has anything but gibberish to say about

    a)tying the war in Iraq and your bad news economy together, and

    b)figuring out a solution before you all start to sink into penury.

    Partly this is because they are nothing but corporate shills themselves, partly because none of them has either the brains or the balls to do what might be necessary to shift things to the better in your country. Having been both a Republican and a Democratic activist in America when I lived there, I know enough to say this with some authority.

    But don’t let me spoil the fun. Keep screaming at each other thinking that the fools you support will make a difference. You are all in for a sad disappointment.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    And Stan, anyone who has read Conan Doyle’s Boscombe Valley Mystery knows what “coo-ee” means….

  • STM

    And how many do you reckon that would be Ruve??

    OK, a COUPLE of you know. Apologies to Doc and Ruve.

    The rest of you are still philistines :)

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    That should be Sir Conan Doyle’s Boscombe Rivere Valley Mystery, Stan…

  • STM

    OK boys, try this other one without looking at google:

    A “furphy”.

    A clue: plenty of them told during the slow ultra-marathon known as “the race for the White House”.

    Not, however, to be confused with its close relative, the “porky”.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    And Stan, I’d be very offended at being called a “phillistine”, of all things!!!

  • Arch Conservative

    The powers that be in the Democratic party are exhibiting the mentality of the average American leftist. That being…they claim to care about everyone and want what’s best for the nation but when you get right down to it any fool can see that the only thing they truly care about is themselves and their own aspirations.

    I’m only 31 but I can not recall such a transparent, power hungry for the sake of power, dirty, underhanded, conniving, self absorbed, meglomaniacal politician than Billary.

    It amazes me that anyone who hasn’t been in a coma for the past twenety years, could, in the face of Mount everest sized piles of evidence to the contrary, believe that eith Bill or Hillary Clinton actually give a dman about anything but themselves.

    I think god himself is going to be asking for a mulligan for having allowed these two to even come into existence.

    Obama’s not nearly as bad as the Clinton but then that’s not really saying much is it now. That’s kinda like comparing little Jimmy in the backseat who hits his brother on long road trips to Pol Pot.

    Now we have John Mccain talking tough on the economy. No massive bailouts for morons who got themselves in over their heads………HAs Mccain finally seen the light. Can we conservatives trust him that this is not just political pandering to us on which he will not follow up after elected? Has Mcaain’s fomer nemisis Mitt Romney been whispering sweet nothings in his ear? “John if you elect me I can make it look like you know what you’re doing on the economy…hell I’ll run the economy while you go out and start a few more wars.” We all know Mccainw oudl rather be fighting wars than strainging his brain to understand economics now don’t we. What will happen? Only time will tell.

  • Barbara Barnett

    And Stan, I’d be very offended at being called a “phillistine”, of all things!!!

    Of the many things I’d be tempted to call you, Ruvy, phillistine would emphatically not be one of them.

    As for the polls, they seem to vary with the wind, which as someone said up there somewhere, makes them useless at this point. The fact that Hillary voters would rather vote for McCain than Obabma in greater numbers than Obama voters would him rather than Hillary can mean a lot of different things.

    The forthcoming primaries are also going to be dictated to a certain extent by republican voters who cross over not because they prefer a democrat, but because they want to select (what they perceive) as the weaker Dem to run against McCain. The fact that the republican is selected already gives repubilcan voters little to do in states where there are not other contested races.

  • Condor

    “The Democratic presidential contenders would do well to stop shooting at each other and take aim at the real opposition.”

    Why? This is far more entertaining. It would have been far more productive if the dems would have fielded real candidates of substance.

    Additionally, it would be a comfort to have a candidate that doesn’t bring a “co-president” to the table.

    I am not voting for a “co-president” and I don’t expect a “co-president” to be present in the elected office, doing the work that the elected official is elected to do. From what I’m seeing, both Obama and Clinton will bring “co-presidents” into the executive…that bothers me, and may even be unconstitutional.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I’m only 31 but I can not recall such a transparent, power hungry for the sake of power[-hungry], dirty, underhanded, conniving, self absorbed, megalomaniacal politician than Billary.

    That’s cause you’re only 31, Bing. Hitler, for all of the good he did common Germans (who were on the right side of the racial line, of course) was a murderous megalomaniac. Josef Stalin was not a megalomaniac, but he certainly was a dirty, underhanded, conniving and self-serving SOB who was responsible for the death of at least twenty million civilians (not counting the casualties of the Great Patriotic War). Then there was Mao dze Dung (an appropriate name for a pile of shit) who, in addition to being a dirty, underhanded conniving SOB, was responsible for the death of fifty million people.

    They may have been dictators, but in order to get to the top of the nasty systems they lived in, they had to be politicians first.

  • Jonathan Scanlan

    Being an avid behaviourist, reading all these cynical comments about the ruthlessness of politicians in their pursuit of the top job makes me think you need to systemic reform.

  • Dan Miller

    Ruvy,

    I agree with your comments on Stalin, Hitler and “Mao dze Dung.” They were far worse, in numerous respects, than any of the present candidates for U.S. president.

    Of course, when they started out, many in the U.S. thought they were pretty cool guys. Many, including lots of folks in FDR’s inner circle, thought Uncle Joe was OK, and FDR himself seems to have thought that Stalin was just sort of a politician from Georgia, who could be bought off with some roads and bridges. There was lots of anti-war sentiment in the U.S. prior to the end of 1941, and the U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James, father of the late and revered creator of Camelot, couldn’t find much bad to say about Herr Hitler. England continued to be essentially pacifist and oblivious until mid 1939. Dung was essentially given a free pass until the Chinese made their presence in Korea massively obvious, surprising the pants off even General MacArthur.

    While I am convinced that Senator Clinton would be a very memorable president, and that the memories would horrific, I don’t see in my crystal ball any pictures of any candidate turning out even remotely like the world leaders you reference. Nor, clearly, do you.

    Unfortunately, I have not heard any of the candidates explaining how they would deal pro actively with the current crop of Stalins, Hitlers and Dungs. They are out there, they are very dangerous, and some of their messages rival Herr Hitler’s warnings which were generally ignored until it became too late for many and almost too late for the rest of us who survived.

    Perhaps there is not enough time to look ahead at these matters, what with sleep deprivation, sniper fire shock, unflattering comments about “typical” White folks, and how best to force citizens to buy medical insurance.

    While I continue to disagree with Barbara’s view that the candidates are shooting too much at each other, and think that both of the Democrat candidates are making it unnecessary for their opponents to attack them, I do wish that some recognition that we have some very evil world “leaders,” and that we need some strategy to deal with them, could be articulated. Senator Obama’s plan to sit down with them and talk without conditions reminds me of PM Neville Chamberlain’s similar discussions with Herr Hitler in Munich, which not only failed to produce “peace in our time” but encouraged Herr Hitler.

    Dan Miller

  • Lee Richards

    After 8 years of “clueless”, the question is, do we want “clever”, “calculating”, or “codger” for the next 4/8?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Who’s Phil I. Stein anyway?

    ;-p

  • http://cqpinion.blogspot.com Krutic A

    It is so funny that all the Obama supporters are now all of a sudden concerned about the Party and are calling for Clinton to drop out. That is like Coca Cola asking Pepsi to stop making beverages.

    Last I checked, Obama is short by over 500 delegates and Clinton is poised to win in at least 2 upcoming states and most are battleground states. Who in their right mind would quit in that scenario?
    I expect Clinton to ignore these calls and continue her campaign and rightly so.

  • Dan Miller

    An insight just popped into my head, completely out of the blue.

    Speaker Pelosi has seemed to speak a tad more in recent days than had been normal for her. She just visited Tibet and met with the Dalai Lama; she just reminded us that she had urged against having the Olympics in China (although she opposes a boycott as unfair to the athletes); and she has tried to take a stateswoman like stance on the super delegates — albeit one tending to be more favorable to Senator Obama than to Senator Clinton — and has apparently caused pain in the Clinton camp.

    Is it conceivable that she is looking for the number two spot on an Obama ticket?

    Just a question. I haven’t heard any suggestion that such is the case, still . . . . .

    Dan Miller

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Obama needs a ticket which leans LESS socialist, not more. No way he’d take Pelosi. He ought to be looking at someone like Lieberman or maybe Barney Frank who has a solid reputation and hits a demographic which he doesn’t represent well.

    Dave

  • http://cqpinion.blogspot.com Krutic A

    Democrats wouldn’t go for Lieberman who supports the war as much as McCain. And Barney Frank is openly gay with a past incident of being involved with a male hooker – no way the country accepts him. Unfairly or fairly it’d be a ticket of a doubtful patriot who secretly is anti-American and an openly gay guy..
    haha Dave, was that idea intentional? I can see Republicans drooling already..

    If I had to guess, Obama would pick a military guy or someone to his right (shouldn’t be hard to find that!). I’d say Wesley Clark or Anthony Zinni..or even a Jim Webb type conservative Democrat would be a good choice.
    Pelosi – no way. The ticket of the most liberal senator with the most liberal congresswoman (from San Francisco no less) is a guaranteed way to loose by a landslide. Republicans would love it though.

  • Barbara Barnett

    Clark would be perfect. He has the foreign policy chops and the military service. And he’s a Clinton supporter. My dream ticket a year ago was Clark/Edwards, but this would be a good ticket.

  • Dan Miller

    I didn’t mean to suggest that it is what Senator Obama needs, or that it is what the country needs, just that she and others might be thinking about it.

    Let’s see: White Female, with “experience” in the Congress and some clout with the super delegates and now foreign policy “experience.” If she were to team up with Senator Obama, it seems possible that some of Senator Clinton’s base would lick their wounds and stay with the Democrat ticket.

    Not a “dream ticket,” but maybe not as much of a nightmare ticket for the Democrat party as Obama-Clinton or, Zeus/Athena forbid, Clinton-Obama.

    Just a thought, and I hope it doesn’t happen.

    Dan Miller

  • STM

    Ruve, I was actually saying you WERE’NT a philistine :)

  • STM

    Dan wrote: “Senator Obama’s plan to sit down with them and talk without conditions reminds me of PM Neville Chamberlain’s similar discussions with Herr Hitler in Munich, which not only failed to produce “peace in our time” but encouraged Herr Hitler”.

    Mind you, Dan, former British PM Tony Blair kept pushing Sinn Fein and the IRA (one of the most murderous and cold-blooded terrorist organisations the world has seen) to sit down and talk, without conditions, and lo-and-behold, peace broke out in Northern Ireland for the first time in decades. It’s taken root to the point where 99 per cent of those in both the north and the south don’t want to see a return to the killing grounds of The Troubles. See, one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist, and vice versa.

    In fact, those talks were so successful that the real opponents of the peace became not the republicans but the radical loyalists – those extremists on the side wanting the six northern counties to remain part of Britain.

    Talking achieves much, so long as it’s backed up by all the right actions and so long as everyone’s as good as their word.

    As my old man used to say when I was a young and bolshy teenager: “Sorry’s not a word mate, it’s an action. Do something about it”.

    He also told me: “If someone breaks their word without a good excuse, brush ‘em and don’t trust them again”.

  • STM

    And please note Ruve, I only ever used the one “L” in philistine …

  • Arch Conservative

    The writing is on the wall. As the Clinton and Obama camps tear their party apart we are seeing Mitt Romney campaigning with John Mccain. This will be the GOP ticket for sure.

    On one side we have a military vet who spent part of his life as vietnam pow and a hotshot from the private sector who has a greater understanding of the economy than all of the Democratic candidates combined. Both of these men have put their differences aside and started working together to provide real solutions and ideas to move the nation forward to a better place.

    On the other side we have a carpet bagging, pandering, phony shrew riding her serial adultering, former president, husband’s cooatails and a political hack with no real experience or leadership accoumplishments outside of being a community organizer in Chicago, and who obviously habros some passive agressive racial hostility.

    Obama’s message has been one of unity. He’s going to bring us all together. How the hell does he or any other Democrat expect anyone to believe that when they can’t even find common ground as a party? The damage these two camps are doing to their party is quite severe. Make no mistake about it. When you screaming mad dog Howard Dean telling you to cool it it’s time to reexamine your gameplan.

    It would seem that the two parties are on vastly different courses as the nation hurtles toward the November election.

    With Romney making numerous campaign appearances with Mccain it appears that Mccain has realized what he must do to receive absolution from the conservatives he has so often scorned. He is prepared to make the only move he can if he truly wants to win in Nov. He will be naming Mitt Romney as his VP. When he does he will have done what he needed to do to get the votes of people like myself and we are legion.

    The Democrats meanwhile appear headed to a very nasty and drawn out conclusion to thier nomination. This will only serve to leave the nation with a very bad taste in it’s mouth for their party and many dems/liberals, being the petty, vindictive, smug, petulant, narcisstic, creatures that they are will not vote for the Dem nominee if it was not their choice.

    It’s not even April first yet but the Democrats are once again looking like world class fools as we go into another presidential election.

  • Dan Miller

    STM,

    I agree. Sometimes, talking works, and it should be the first step. And maybe the second, third and forth steps. However, there comes a time when, as you say,

    “‘As my old man used to say when I was a young and bolshy teenager: ‘Sorry’s not a word mate, it’s an action. Do something about it’.

    “He also told me: ‘If someone breaks their word without a good excuse, brush ‘em and don’t trust them again'”

    Back in the 1930s, the will of the British people was well represented by PM Chamberlain. It took them, and him, a tad too long to recognize the point at which something more vigorous than talk had become necessary. As the talk went on, Germany was furiously re-arming (in violation of treaties) and Britain was doing very little beyond allowing strategic opportunities to slip away. In 1935 or 1936 or even later, Hitler’s attempted conquest of Europe could easily have been stopped by a very modest show of force. Continuing to talk, and to make concessions, simply convinced even Hitler’s generals that Hitler was right and unstoppable.

    We have tried lots of talking, but the people referenced in my post are not much like the folks in Northern Ireland, who did not have an agenda of world conquest and conversion by physical force to Roman Catholicism. There are other differences, but that’s a biggie.

    “Talking achieves much, so long as it’s backed up by all the right actions and so long as everyone’s as good as their word.” We agree.

    Dan Miller

  • Lee Richards

    RE #46:
    McCain/Romney-what a dream ticket! One doesn’t know the difference between Shia and Sunni, or understand economics, and the other is for something until he’s against it and believes the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

  • Barbara Barnett

    That’s the least of McCain’s problems. He doesn’t know the difference between Iran and Iraq, Insurgents and Al Qaeda; his economic “plan” is a muddle of gibberish and platitudes that would ensure a Bush III term of office. He and Rom make any “flip-floppery” of John Kerry’s pale in comparison. Combine that with (what should really be) the democratic strategy of running against the eight years of Bushocracy and it SHOULD be a piece of cake.

    (I’m in a more optimistic frame of mind this morning)

  • http://cqpinion.blogspot.com Krutic A

    Anyone who thinks McCain doesn’t know the difference between various Iraqi factions is delusional. I promise you that line of attack on him is not going to work.
    And as for the economy, McCain made a mistake – he was honest in admitting he isn’t an economic genius. That is the appeal of McCain. He doesn’t pretend to be our savior.
    I seriously doubt Clinton and Obama are anymore qualified on the economy. They just don’t admit it because they are sly politicians.

    Anyone candidate who pretends to know everything about every problem a President will face is a con man/woman and people who believe them are sheep who come january will realize how they were swindled by words and abstract concepts like ‘change’.

  • Arch Conservative

    “the democratic strategy of running against the eight years of Bushocracy and it SHOULD be a piece of cake”

    Barbara….wasn’t it supposed to be a piece of cake in 2004? There was an extremely unpopular presiden tin the middle of an unpopular war…..How did that work out for the Dems?

    The fact is people like you and Lee don’t get it Barbara. You’re part of the problem the Democrats now face. You represent the typical self righteous, condescending attitude that most Democrats and liberals have. “We will win because we’re always right, the GOP is evil and everyone knows that. I don’t even know why we’re having an election.”

    If I recall that’s the same gamplan you moonbats lost with in 2004 so by all mean’s trot it out again.

    Each passing day that Osama Obama and Chelsea’s mama are at each other’s throats while the GOP powers that be and rank and file grow more unified is doing irrepairable damage to the Dems chances of winning the white house. Being the typical liberal with your head stuck up your ass you are too stupid to notice.

    Conservative Republicans like myself have always known that Obama and Hillary are bad news. NOw millions of independents and moderates know it too. It looks like there is no end in sight for the in house fighting on the left either. Hillary’s mission in life is to become president. It’s the only thing she truly cares about and she will stop at absolutely nothing to take Obama down. If she can’t be president neither can he. Then there’s Obama’s “I’m not a racist I just hang out with racists who make a lot of good points,” problem.

    The bottom line is that the Dems just can’t get their shit togather once again because when push comes to shove and the truth is laid bear we see once again that despite all of the BS about being compassionate and caring for others most liberals are just in it for themselves and if their guy can’t win then damn let’s just ruin it for everyone else. However on the other side are people like me. Three montsh ago I swore I’d never vote for John Mccain but after having witnessed the ugly spectacle the Dems have been putting on an with the impending naming of Romney as VP I have fallen in line. I have resigned myself to do what must be done for the greater good. Wow who would of thought I’d be sounding like Karl freakin MArx? Oh well I have to do it.

    But by all means you’re free to yet again cling to those same tired notions of liberal progressive righteousness ruling the day that once gave such a sense of contentment and helped you sleep at night one Monday night in November 2004 Barbara. You do that and I’ll continue to deal with reality. Deal?

  • Barbara Barnett

    Arch…who’re you calling self-righteous? Give me a break. Continue to live in the deluded self-satisfying fantasy that all is right with the xenophobic, paleo-world we are quickly becoming part of. Just keep telling yourself: Muslims are evil (let’s bring back the crusades!); there’s no human impact on (the alleged) global warming of the earth; Might over right! Send ‘em all back where they came from. The universe was created 5768 years ago and not a day earlier; Darwin is the devil.

  • Arch Conservative

    Like I said Barbara. You’re observations on the current state of our election are not based in reality but in a sense of your own superiority and the superiority of those agree with you.

    Come talk to me in mid November. We’ll sort it out then.

  • Lee Richards

    AC:
    Did the Democrats at school gang up on you? Did a band of liberals steal you away in infancy from your family? Was Great-Grandma scared by a herd of donkeys?

    You’re sounding positively paranoid; are you frightened of making left turns, and uncomfortable around south-paws? Do liberal arts make your skin crawl?

    Vote for whoever you want for whatever reasons you choose. But can’t you sometimes find positive reasons for what you believe or say, and back up your many opinions with facts, evidence and reason?

    Your 3rd paragraph in #51, directed at Barbara and me, is pure hysteria. You have no evidence for anything you wrote, just anger and malice, and make no attempt to see things from any perspective but your own narrow, close-minded one.

    Nobody get more self-righteous than you’ve made yourself sound. That’s not conservatism, it’s narcissism. And what I wrote in #48 is still true.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Don’t worry about Arch, Barbara. He is so in tune with the political landscape he predicted the Repubs would hold the House and Senate in ’06. He also claimed there would be a Romney/Rice ticket, which shows that his issues with pandering only bother him when someone on the left does it and may imply he only has an issue with the racial attitudes of a candidate’s church only in relation to white people.

    When he gets something right he has deluded himself into thinking he knows what he’s talking about when it’s obvious it’s the stopped-clock theory at work.

    He claims three months ago he swore he would never vote for McCain, but of course flip-flopped like his man Romney because he is not a man of his convictions or his word. You should just ignore him until he pulls his head out of his ass.

  • Arch Conservative

    Vote for whoever you want for whatever reasons you choose. But can’t you sometimes find positive reasons for what you believe or say, and back up your many opinions with facts, evidence and reason?

    Fair enough. There are many positive reason for what I beleieve. I believe in limited government that helps those who make a concerted effort to help themselves but still fall a little bit short of the mark. I believe that all citizens should try to do as much as they can through their own actiosn to better their own lives. is life fair? Of course not. Do we all need a little help now and then? Yes and it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

    However I do not but into the BS that many leftists and liberlas peddle (and you know they do Lee) that everyone is a victim of the ills of society and that government is the answer to all of our problems.

    That being said how can anyone with an ounce of objectivity not admit that what the Dems are doing to each other right now could spell disaster for them in the fall? The Obama and the Clinton people are getting downright nasty toward each other whereas the the GOP nod was locked up awhile ago and Romney and Mccain as well as every other player in the GOP all singing follow the yellow brick road as they skip down it toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    It isn’t fair for me to lump you and Barb in with the moonbat leftists that control your party …you’re right about that..I don’t know you personally. However the Democratic leadership just doesn’t get it. theey’re stuck in stupid. Time and time again they think that blaming the other guy is good enough. They call the Republicans evil 24-7 and promise somemore governemnt programs and aid to help everyone and then act dumbfounded when that startegy fails them yet again. DUH!

    Another thing……how can anyone, with all that we know about the Clintons today, actually believe taht the Clintons would put the concerns of the nation above their own neverending grab for power? Say what you want about Mitt Romney but at least he had the dignity to step aside when he saw the writing on the wall. He stood down because he knew it was not meant to be forhim and he wanted to do what was best for the party that he thinks is best qualified to lead this nation, and yes there probably was a thought that he might get the VPO slot too. But not Hillary. It’s becoming more and more clear that she cannot wint he Dem nomination through any traditionally legitimate practices. Does she stand aside for the good of the party that she believes should control the white house? No…she’s fighting a lost cause tooth and nail and is trying to go against every longly held norm of American politics to finagle the nomination into her fat little hands. This was supposed to be a coronation not an actual vetting process whereby the Democrat voters decide who they want. I guess Obama and his supporters didn’t get the memo. Oh well if Hillary can’t be president she’s going to try and ruin it for anyone that stood in her way. If she can’t be president we all might as well kill ourselves now because any other person as president would pale in comparison to the leadership that she has to offer. None of mere mortals are even fit to lick the poop stains left behind on Hillarys granny panties. We might as well just nuke DC if HILLARY FUCKING CLINTON CANT BE PRESIDENT IN 2008!

    Her entire being is so disgustingly transparent. Hell hath no fury like Hillary in a pantsuit scorned. She sold her soul a long time ago and apprently she’s madder n’ hell because it appears as if Beezlebub isn’t going to live up to his end of the deal.

    But hey what do I know. I’m just a right wing nutjob that doesn’t want to admit all of the good that Billary has doen for the world.

  • Arch Conservative

    And I obviously need to take a typing class. Either that or we could have a spell checker for posts.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Arch, the most robust of spellcheckers couldn’t catch all of yours. Your problem is that you get so hot under the collar about some of what you write that your brain goes faster than your fingers and you don’t stop to proofread before posting. That’s what the ‘preview’ button is for.

    Chris and I do correct spelling sometimes but our main priority is to leave comments ‘as is’ without tinkering too much. And there’s a difference between commenters who absolutely cannot spell and those, like you, who simply need to slow down a bit.

  • Barbara Barnett

    Not to get too “meta,” Google toolbar has a really good spell checker for comments forms.

  • Clavos

    So does Firefox browser…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Dan,

    At your comment #34.

    We’re in violent agreement in terms of historical background.

    The problem, and it is worth repeating this for the many boneheads who refuse to even see it, including the author of this article, is that none of the present “candidates” for “president” have a solution to the hemorrhaging of the American economy – the steady bleeding of its life-force into the Tigris and the Euphrates known as “involvement in Iraq”. That involvement is killing the rest of your economy.

    It isn’t that I have the wisdom of Solomon, that I have a solution. But I’m not standing for office, am I?

    Further, and more to the point, none of the candidates seems willing to admit to this terrible problem. The only one who even came close was Dr. Ron Paul, who was shunted off into irrelevance by a media determined to bury him.

    You Americans have been well and truly fucked over. You’re being systematically deprived of the opportunity even to understand the problem that will draw many of you into penury in the not too distant future. You’ve been lured into useless races where the real stakes are your lives, your treasure and your sacred honor – and instead fools have you thinking its Christians versus lions and you are the crowd getting to cheer. And you believe them!!!

    You all have my sincere sympathy. A blind man listening to his tunes on an MP3 being tracked by a tiger, is what you all remind me of….

    “Vanity of vanities. It is all vanity!” [Ecclesiastes]

  • Dan Miller

    Ruvy,

    I hadn’t previously heard the expression “violent agreement,” but I rather like it and hope it wasn’t a typo.

    History is important, dammit, and is the best predictor of the future I can think of. The present does not exist in a vacuum, and what happens now and what will happen in the future are largely functions of what happened before. This is true not only in terms of cause and effect, but because people tend to do the same things over and over and over again because they don’t understand what happened when those things were done in the past.

    If I hit my thumb with a hammer, it hurts. I know this because I have done it. I try to avoid doing it, for that reason. But if I hadn’t had this as a personal experience, I should know it by learning that someone else did it, and it hurt.

    I could go on to the point of nausea about the need for people to read history, but won’t. I have made the point as best I can.

    I am not in complete agreement with your views concerning the U.S. involvement in Iraq, but any expectation that during a campaign a candidate for President will articulate solutions to any problem which are simultaneously politically acceptable and viable seems naive. Most viable solutions are not politically acceptable for numerous reasons, including that most people lack an awareness of history.

    I am far from convinced that this problem is unique to the U.S., and don’t think that you mean to suggest that it is. I suspect that you will agree that Israel has similar problems.

    Dan Miller

  • STM

    Dan,

    There’s an explanation for Britain’s reluctance to engage the Germans in a second European war barely 20 years after the first one. Wanting to believe Hitler was very much a case of wishful thinking on the part of the British. I didn’t live through the first world war but my grandparents did and they painted a pretty grim picture.

    It would be hard for most Americans to understand the scale of the sacrifice and the human devastation WWI wrought on Britain and the empire/dominions, especially when you consider the much lower total population of those countries compared to that of the United States.

    The closest Americans have come to it was in WWII, and even in that conflict US casualties were half those of Britain’s alone – a big thing when you consider the difference in the size of the two countries.

    In WWI, my country (Australia) had the second highest rate of casualties per number of troops mobilised among the western allied combatants, just behind our neighbour New Zealand – 211,000 out of a total of 330,000 mobilised for combat duty (64%, and New Zealand’s was 66%). That was hugely significant in a country that had a population at that time of under 5 million. All were volunteers.

    Total British/empire losses in WWI were a million dead, more than two million maimed and wounded (including gassed) and missing, and many millions more psychologically scarred for life.

    The scale of this is almost beyond comprehension (although Ruvy will understand it, and then some), and when Britons say that the flower of their youth was chopped down on the western front between 1914 and 1918, they are being literal.

    Ultimately, and it has been acknowledged by the majority of historians, it was the British Army’s staying power (and that of the dominion forces) and their ability to slug it out with the Germans over that 4-year period without budging that ground down the German Army on the western front that led to the Allied victory. Had they not, the war would might have been over much earlier than 1918.

    I’m a believer in that not being a wasted effort, despite the cost: Prussian militarism was almost as nasty as Nazism. That the victory led to the rise of Nazism was a mistake of the peace, and hopefully one well-learned. There’s no point in humiliating people. In that sense, all those millions of deadw ere let down. People really thought there would be no more war.

    I remember that my fraternal grandmother kept half a dozen cameo pictures of the boys in her family who were killed in the Dardanelles and on the western front in WWI.

    She said there was hardly a family that hadn’t lost one of more of its sons or had them come home blind, maimed, limbless or mad.

    So it’s against that backdrop that history should view Britain’s reluctance to become involved in another Great War. To most, it was unthinkable that it was happening again barely 20 years later.

    (Think about what you were doing in 1988 – it’s not that long ago. To me, it just seems like yesterday.)

    And of course, they were right … another 600,000 Britons died in WWII.

    I don’t blame them for wanting to keep talking. I can see why they’d try.

    It’s always worth it, so long as you’re not caving in to murderers and bullies – which I guess is the difference in all these things.

  • Dan Miller

    STM,

    Thanks for your analysis, with which I quite agree.

    Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August provides an excellent account of the events leading up to WWI. It was an horrific war, and one which could have been avoided. Sir Winston Churchill’s The Gathering Storm provides an excellent account of the events leading up to WWII, which was also an horrific war and one which could have been avoided. While it has been said of Churchill that he wrote autobiography and pretended that it was history, that is rather unfair and the events leading up to WWII actually were, in his case, somewhat autobiographical.

    Following WWI we, along with England, caved in to the French and agreed to the Treaty of Versailles which was largely responsible for WWII. During the period leading up to WWII, England, France, the U.S. and others were so invested in the hope for peace that they were all too ready to cave “in to murderers and bullies.”

    The problem, of course, is how to know beforehand which folks it is OK to cave in to and which have to be dealt with otherwise. That is very difficult, and I seriously doubt that any of our current and prospective crop of world leaders have the foresight to do so.

    War is and should be the very last resort, after all rational hopes for peace have faded. Perhaps sitting down without preconditions to talk with Chavez, CastroII and others would do no more harm than giving them a bit of time on the world stage, possibly to aggrandize themselves and possibly to demonstrate again (in the case of Chavez; CastroII hasn’t yet had much chance to do so) what clowns they are. There would probably be no significant down-side. Besides, there is little if any likelihood of war in those cases. Sitting down with North Korea’s Kim might not do too much harm either, although there is always a chance of war re-igniting there. Kim may well shoot himself in the foot all by himself, and there is also the problem of what happens when he dies. Bremmer(sp?)’s J Curve provides some excellent insights into that sort of thing.

    I think that the situation with Israel’s opponents is different, and that pressuring Israel to make nice and to make continuing concessions is a bad idea.

    Different situations are different, and deciding which is which and what is what is the hard part.

    Dan Miller

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Dan,

    Both of our countries need men or women who are willing to lead. Leading means being willing to state uncomfortable truths and stick with them, convincing the common man of whatever path needs to be taken.

    1. None of the people running for president have the capability to state uncomfortable truths – like America has been led to the edge of bankruptcy by its involvement in Iraq, and that the tie between the current situation in your economy and the expenditure of blood and treasure in Iraq is the main political problem facing the country.

    2. None of the people running for president have the capability to take the unacceptable situation at present and change it with bold and decisive action that will benefit most Americans, and not merely the richest 1%.

    That is why they are non-entities, and why none of them are worth your vote.

    I want to emphasize here, that I’m not talking about what I think is good or bad for Israel. Israel and its welfare is not an issue that any of the candidates running are concerned about, no matter how they dance or sing to the contrary. But more top the point, I’ve stated elsewhere that I believe that since your country is going down for the count, it is irrelevant whom you elect so far as we’re concerned. I stand by this.

    This is not an expression of hatred or dislike; it is my reading of how history is flowing.

    With respect to Israel, the same two principles I outlined above hold true.

    1. There is nobody willing to state hard truths – like how Oslo and the Road Map are not only utter failures, but have been detrimental to the nation. The level of denial of reality at the top echelons here is stunning to me.

    2. There is nobody willing to take the needed actions to bring the Arab rebels in our country to heel and bring the Arab rebellion to an end; and nobody willing to do what it takes to end foreign intervention in our internal affairs, and to secure the safety of the country. This will have bloody consequences for us – soon.

  • bliffle

    Indeed, deciding when to jaw jaw and when to war war Is the hard part. Not to be undertaken frivolously. The best thinking of the best and most experienced people must be regarded. Not to be conducted by bludgeoning opponents, firing functionaries willy-nilly, defaming contrarians.

    The Bush administration ignored all those cautions. They must be saddled with the blame for the resulting fiasco. Along with their diehard and deadend supporters, whom we can all name.

  • Zedd

    It seems to me that we’ve gotten used to a poor quality in candidates. We are used to the political machine, quickly selected “monarchs” crowned by the pundits (professional gossips), party players(control freaks) and in Texas, law firms.

    We finally have real choices. In the Democratic party, we have a choice between two smart people. Thinking individuals who are not ideologues but solutions oriented, practical thinkers (a little less in that area for Hillary, we’d call her a survivalist).

    However, I would ask, why it is that we lament the situation that we find ourselves in. For Democrats, a good candidate who truly fought for his/her position will prevail. They will have earned the nomination. That is a good thing. Why the whining and complaining?

    As they spar with one another, they refine their positions and ability to defend themselves better; they remain in the spotlight while McCain fades.

    We are witnessing the democratic process. We the people have created this situation. Let’s enjoy it.

  • Dan Miller

    Zedd,

    you suggest,We are witnessing the democratic process. We the people have created this situation. Let’s enjoy it.

    When I was very, very young, I enjoyed watching professional wrestling on what was then the novelty of television. It was quite a spectacle, and since I had never experienced anything like it, it was rather neat and enjoyable. It was also harmless.

    Although television is no long new, the current spectacle is somewhat enjoyable in that I have never previously seen candidates for President shoot themselves in the foot and in other places so often and with such accuracy. Neither has to take aim at the other; each (particularly the Senator from New York) has become a master of self immolation.

    Yeah, we the people created this mess, this Augean stable. Perhaps a bit of mucking out is appropriate?

    Dan Miller

  • SanFranciscoJim

    Circular firing squad indeed!