Impressive. Only blew her recent lead by 10 points, by alienating half of the Democratic Party and many new Democratic Obama supporters with GOP Rovian slime. She must be so proud.
I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with shep on this one.
And yes, I am bitter. See, that's what it looks like to own one's shit.
The point is, she didn't win on the issues, she won by standing idly by and capitalizing on painting Obama as a radical, angry Black man to White, blue collar voters. Had the Rev. Wright issue never shown up at this critical moment, I doubt she would've won, especially by such a large margin.
I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with shep on this one.
And yes, I am bitter. See, that's what it looks like to own one's shit.
The point is, she didn't win on the issues, she won by standing idly by and capitalizing on painting Obama as a radical, angry Black man to White, blue collar voters. Had the Rev. Wright issue never shown up at this critical moment, I doubt she would've won, especially by such a large margin.
still..acuz of proportional allocation...she winds up with a net gain of 6 or 7 delegates.
she needs....wat?
160?
Obama will be our next prez.
he has resilience.
watch the blue line. i think about boxjenkins, forecasting, timeseries...
predicting trends.
watever they throw at him, he comes back.
the superdels have already made up their minds i think...they are politely waiting for the primaries to be over.
Obama scares the spit out of the repubs.
the superdels will support whoever is the scariest, hehe.
the age issue has more legs than a colorado centipede. HRC is only 10 yrs younger than mccain. she will look just as old as mccain on the debate stage.
not so Obama. mccain will look very old and very short. his voice will suffer mightily in comparison.... a sort of wheezy, high-pitched, querrelous voice....in contrast to O's commanding baritone.
mccain has had at least one episode of shortterm memory loss. his med reports are due may 15.
he is just much too old.
Other than Rosemary, all you folks are living in delusion city. Clinton did not need to win Pennsylvania 55-45. Or 54.3-45.7. Or even 50.1-49.9. All she had to do was to win Pennsylvania.
Clinton got it totally right when she taunted Obama with the basic question of this campaign:
"Why can't he close the deal?"
Clinton will be in this campaign all the way to the Democratic Party 2008 convention in August. She will not agree to run as Obama's vice presidential candidate for the same reasons he would not agree to play second fiddle to her. First, they both have mutual contempt and animosity toward each other that mirrors what most of their respective supporters feel. Second, they are both aware they can cancel each other out until the gavel comes down on the convention.
The plain facts are that Obama's support is mainly among blacks, the more leftist liberals, the fashionable, the educated young. That comprises a permenent minority in this country.
Meantime, Clinton attracts most of the women, working class whites and especially those affiliated with labor unions, small town/exurban people, Roman Catholics, Latinos, Jews. That's a quite straightforward description of the traditional Democratic Party alliance that brought to power most of that party's US presidents of the past 100 years.
All this is reinforced by the obvious fact that Obama has won none of the major states except his home state of Illinois. Moreover, his most impressive victories were not in elections at all, but in caucuses, which tend to represent only the most active of the party activists.
As this campaign grinds on, more than six weeks after McCain's primary coronation as the 2008 candidate of the Republican Party, the Obama balloon that reached the near stratosphere in February has been losing gas and altitude slowly but steadily.
Moreover, the longer Clinton stays in the ring, the greater the likelihood Obama's collection of delegates will begin opting out as they sift all the above information.
Because all these facts point to the near certainty that Obama -- regardless of his deep pocket campaign money, the backing of most of the news media, the Hollywood celebrities, and yes, all those collected delegates, lacks whatever it takes to win the presidency of the United States. I think that either in August or in November, his campaign is doomed.
Congratulations: she's the new president of Pennsylvania. And Ohio.
Now what?
Before the primary, she had to lock down 66% of all remaining delegates to overtake Obama. After last night, she now needs...
71%
That's right: after last night, she is falling further behind than ever.
Why can't she close the deal?
If she is so convinced that she can beat McCain, how is it that she can't even beat Obama?
The plain facts are that Obama's support is mainly among blacks, the more leftist liberals, the fashionable, the educated young. That comprises a permenent minority in this country.
Well, Arnold, you left yourself some wiggle room by including the word "mainly." Because, although no poll means anything this far from November, McCain is doing even worse.
That's right: McCain is coasting along with a free ride -- no opponent, no fight, no offense against his defense -- and all he can do is get into the low 40s.
What's he going to do when the battle is joined?
Be more practical, Arnold: no candidate runs in a vacuum. They have to defeat their opponent. And Obama v. McCain will be a much different battle than the Obama v. Clinton matchup you see today.
Meantime, Clinton attracts most of the women, working class whites and especially those affiliated with labor unions, small town/exurban people, Roman Catholics, Latinos, Jews.
I think once the dust settles, you'll see those same people vote for Obama. Because they know that McCain will appoint 2-3 SCOTUS judges just like Alito and Roberts.
Moreover, the longer Clinton stays in the ring, the greater the likelihood Obama's collection of delegates will begin opting out as they sift all the above information.
It might happen; after all, Clinton is doing everything she can to insure that if she can't get the nomination, Obama will not find it worth having either.
I think that either in August or in November, his campaign is doomed.
Feh. Way too early to make an informed judgement about this stuff.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Interestingly enough, Clinton's new spin is "why can't Barack put her away?" That's their pitch to the Supers and doners. I think that question can be turned around on her just as easily. "After throwing the kitchen sink at Barack, why is he still standing?"
Clinton takes a concern trollish stance that the GOP will be harder on Obama than she is, and she's right. But the GOP will be orders of magnitude harsher against Clinton than Obama has ever dreamed of being. If he went negative on her, I mean really nasty, he wouldn't do himself any favors but she wouldn't just lose, she could be drummed out of politics.
I mean come on. She enlisted Richard Mellon Scaife, he dark beating heart of that vast right wing conspiracy she talked about and turned it loose on Obama. It hurt him, but he didn't go after her baggage with nearly the same vengence.
I'm just not persuaded that this does anything to push the electability argument when he's keeping his powder dry for the general -- if (big if) he were to need those tactics against McSame.
I would love to see an attack machine geared up to crush the GOP, but for some reason I don't think she'd go there against McCain the same way she's gone nasty agianst Barack. Which also tells me this really isn't a good gage on what would happen in the fall if either one of them were the nominee.
I don't think Barack would change his strategy too much in the fall. Why mess with success? I'm not sure which way Hillary would pivot though. In fact I think she'd be turning from right to left so often she'd give new meaning to the word "spin."
As I analyze it, Obama's coalition comprises mostly blacks, liberal elitists, young college age people, the entertainment industry, and the news media talking heads. Obama himself represents the leftist wing of the Democratic Party. That in itself is a permanent minority.
The main thing Obama has going for himself is his obvious sense of style on a stage, plus the utter novelty of a Senator Barack Hussein Obama even existing and now seriously running for the presidency of the United States. Some people compare him to John Kennedy in 1960. But I think better comparisons would be Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 and Michael Dukakis in 1988. And probably Gary Hart of the "new ideas" in 1988.
But in the face of increasing opposition, all that is not enough to get Obama or anyone else electred president.
Nor can any of you ignore the glaring fact that he has not won a single major state other than his home state of Illinois. But those major states are the ones that will account for most of the electoral votes in November.
Clinton and McCain, on the other hand, are both centrists. After eight years of George W Bush, most Americans are uninterested in the extreme wings of either party. So we are moving back into the age of the victorious political center.
Obama himself represents the leftist wing of the Democratic Party. That in itself is a permanent minority.
Apparently not a minority in the Democratic party, or else he wouldn't be on the verge of winning the nomination.
Some people compare him to John Kennedy in 1960...and Adlai Stevenson...Mike Dukakis...Gary Hart...
I kid you not: some people also compare him to John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton...and Ronald Reagan.
What manner of man is this?? He's part man, part lion, part eagle!!
But in the face of increasing opposition, all that is not enough to get Obama or anyone else electred president.
But...but...he breathes fire and can fly!
Clinton and McCain, on the other hand, are both centrists.
Listen, my friend, when one side of the field is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there on the right, in batshit-crazy, torture-central-abolish-habeas-corpus-strike-the-Fourth Amendment-territory-and-more, the center don't mean much anymore.
I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about.
Bravo, Sen. McCain. You're fighting the good fight.
[In February, 2008] the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, which contained a provision ... establishing one interrogation standard across the government. The bill requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding.
"What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program," McCain said, in stating his opposition to the bill.
WTF?
McCain then: “...life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective...The Army Field Manual contains techniques [that] are working and working effectively...”
McCain now: “...[don't] tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual...”
McCain then: “All I can say is that [waterboarding] was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today...It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”
McCain now: “The [Army] field manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers...”
McCain: he was against torture before he was for it.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Centrist now means we either "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"; OR we "obliterate" them.
Jeebus Arnold, what the heck do you consider "right?" Engaging even our enemies in diplomatic discource, showing at least a willingness to negotiate our differences is an extreme left position?
What the hell is the extreme right wing to you, Defcon 2?
"Right wing" means to me the newly politicized religious who want to use government to use the public school systems of this country to replace teaching of biological evolution with creationism; to stamp out abortion rights and to eliminate stem cell research from medicine; to transfer American jobs to foreign countries through unwise trade policies and international agreements; to keep this country under bondage to middle eastern oil monarchies through lack of a broad, sweeping and even revolutionary national energy policy. I oppose the right on all these counts.
"Left wing" means to me people who want to terminate the military power of the United States and cause another defeat to our armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, to sell out the national rights and interests of the jewish nation in the Land of Israel; to terminate the rights of Americans to keep and use firearms for purposes of sport, self-protection or any other lawful use; to shrink the sovereignty of the United States of America and to enact strict controls over entry to the United States of any and all foreigners. I oppose the left on all these counts.
There is a lot more. But as far as I am concerned, that will do for starters. And my concerns are the ones I tend to relate to most closely.
You realize of course that "the right" has already done what you describe...
...whereas "the left" not only has not done what you describe, but I don't know of anyone in political life who even dreams of advocating it. In fact when it comes to immigration, you get it exactly bass-ackwards.
Big difference between the two, my friend. Surely you can see that?
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Wow, I had no idea how confused you were Arnold.
Question, no snark, just asking. Is promotion of the national rights and interests of the jewish nation in the Land of Israel; consistent with the national interests of the US in all regards, everytime? Is it in the national interest of the US -- which is an American, not right or left position -- to act as we did vis-a-vis Cuba in reverse, where an attack ON Israel (as opposed to FROM Cuba) is considered an attack ON the US (as opposed to FROM our designated enemy, formerly the USSR and now Iran).
If indeed it is in our interest to create a NATO-like umbrella for Israel, why isn't that treaty up for consideration by the Senate? Why hasn't even George Bush made that part of his International Relations Doctrine?
Either way, wouldn't you agree that such a position is more to the right than currently exists?
I was a Republican for most of my life. These days, I support centrists whenever I have a choice. And in any case, I try to settle on candidate for any office who best represents my particular mix of policies and personal indentifications.
I'm not confused at all, Mark. I strongly identify with Zionist nationalism, even though I have no interest whatever in Judaism. So I want them to wipe their asses with the Arabs, whom I don't like at all, whom I learned to like but to thoroughly distrust when I met so many of them during my years in Jerusalem.
And yes, I think jewish national interests in the Land of Israel are consistent with american national interests. Probably more so than in almost any other locale on this planet. And that's the way american national policy has been defined right through all the ages of our history, with the sole major exception of the presidency of that piece of excresence, James Earl Carter.
As for the arab and iranian oil, I sincerly hope the hell all their wells run dry tomorrow morning, at 8am central standard time. That way, all the american and canadian farmlands and their owners will be permanently enriched growing fuel crops, and much of the world's population levels will shrink back to what they were before easily accessible petroleum temporarily changed life on this planet, some 100 years ago. Because as you well know by now, I'm just not any kind of humanist and this world is getting too crowded with people for my tastes.
Moreover, I strongly applaud Israel's program of accumulating nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, because for Israel's survival and well-being, I trust in israeli national power and nothing else.
And in addition to that, I celebrate every time I hear about the growth of Israel's jewish population in Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and Golan by some 30,000 people per year. And I celebrate too when I hear that the Arab population is being driven off the land by a combination of poverty, powerlessness and hopelessness. Maybe for the same reasons that as a kid I celebrated running the indian tribes into reservations.
And yes, all of the above is precisely what I think and what I want. And no, and I don't feel conflicted at all.
Ara, I told you many, many years ago, back when you too were commenting on Dean's World, that I have no feelings whatsoever for victims of mass murder. Like Stalin once said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just another statistic".
As for driving the Arabs out of and away from the Land of Israel, I think that's the only way the Jews of Israel will ever have any peace.
For the same reason that the wars of the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Jugoslavs, etc, against the Germans cane to a historic end when the Red Army ran all the Germans off all the lands in Europe east of the Oder-Neisse river that now forms the western border of modern Poland.
But no, I don't fantasize about much of anything. And certainly not about shooting somebody over his religion. Having read my stuff over so many years, you must have realized a long time ago that the only thing I have against Judaism or any other religion is that they are all based on belief.
Thanks for saving my comment. I may want to use part or all of it elsewhere.
That way, all the american and canadian farmlands and their owners will be permanently enriched growing fuel crops, and much of the world's population levels will shrink back to what they were before easily accessible petroleum temporarily changed life on this planet, some 100 years ago.
100% of arable farmland in North America converted to biofuel production would supply half of current requirements. The the population levels would certainly sink as North Americans starved to death.
Have you done the math, Arnold?
By the way, Canadians wouldn't need to grow biofuel crops in your fantasy. We would have the world's largest oil supply.
Because as you well know by now, I'm just not any kind of humanist and this world is getting too crowded with people for my tastes.
Okay, you're not confused. Your a sociopathic maniac. Thank whatever your kind is a dying breed, just not soon enough.
(Very good, Mark. I like the way real liberals argue. Disagree with them, they call you confused. Persist in your disagreement, they label you a sociopathic maniac. Attempt to explain that your values differ from their, they wish you dead.)
-----------------------
DPUG, all North America will not be using biofuels as we know them today. Ethanol and biodiesel are marginal substitutes for gasoline and petrodiesel. Their eventual replacement will be biomass-to-liquid (BTL) fuels, the molecular structures of which can be specifically engineered to run in gasoline powered ignition fired engines, diesel engines that are high-compression fired, jet engines designed for aviation kerosene, and so on.
But for right now, petroleum is going for $117/barrel, and supply of this in relation to continually growing world demand has already peaked and shortly shall begin annually diminishing. Meantime, biofuels are selling for about $43/barrel. Which means they have plenty of leverage for heavy price increases after world petroleum production is seen to have begun irreversible peaking. This means the owners of farmlands all across North America will see their opportunity and take it. So long, wheat; hello switchgrass, rapeseed and soy. Try doing the math yourself, DPUG.
I checked out your "world's largest oil supply". Assuming you are referring to Alberta oil sands. Actually they more or less resemble what we coat all our blacktop roads with and make our house shingles. Ever think of the costs of extracting gasoline from asphalt, and comparing it to likely output?
But perhaps you are referring to some source buried way north under the Canadian arctic. But one day too, the Quebecois and the Inuit will either or both be relieving you Anglophones of your arctic share of the White Man's burden as determined in Toronto. Then we will see who controls what and for the benefit of whom.
"Because as you well know by now, I'm just not any kind of humanist and this world is getting too crowded with people for my tastes.
Maybe you can do your part and get off it then."
A lot of people will be saying bye-bye as the world's extractable earth resources run out, one at a time. Starting with petroleum but certainly not ending there.
There were only some 1.5 billion people alive on this planet at the beginning of the age of easily extractable and refinable petroleum. It now only powered our vehicles and heated our homes, but has also played a role in nurturing all the world's industrial economies. Now there are some 6.5 billion.
Regardless of anything you can say or do, the industrial world and their farmers will be using their agricultural lands to provide the easiest immediate fix for the problem of replacing the disappearing petroleum. Food price increases, already skyrocketing, will not stop there. Soon the population increases must cease and be reversed either through societally mandated abortion, as in China, or revert to largescale selective sterilization. Otherwise there shall be mass starvation, with all the horrors that attend such calamities. But one way or another, DPUG, the world population either shrinks, or some of you lucky survivors will be turning to cannibalism on a large scale, as Mr Ted Turner has recently prophecized.
Welcom to the golden vistas of the 21st century, DPUG. And come to think of it, Canada has a rather small population to be in position to control all that land mass under these conditions. Wouldn't you agree?
But perhaps you are referring to some source buried way north under the Canadian arctic. But one day too, the Quebecois and the Inuit will either or both be relieving you Anglophones of your arctic share of the White Man's burden as determined in Toronto.
As near as I can tell, Arnold, you read little snippets of information somewhere and blow them up into these exaggerated piles of nonsense that you then spout with great pomposity.
Which Quebecois oil are you talking about? And the Inuit and Inuvialuit have already reached land claim agreements with the government of Canada.
Welcom to the golden vistas of the 21st century, DPUG. And come to think of it, Canada has a rather small population to be in position to control all that land mass under these conditions. Wouldn't you agree?
Ah, the vaguely threatening tone of a survivalist Mad-Maxesque fantasy. Hugely enjoyable, very seventies of you.
However, my point wasn't that we face crises, it was that you were arrogant enough to assume that you'd survive it.
Attempt to explain that your values differ from their, they wish you dead.
Oh come on, Arnie -- cut the horseshit, OK? You're the one who suggested that a Nazi should put a bullet in my head -- and it wasn't because you agreed with what I was saying. I'd include a link back to your original comment, but Rose would probably delete the link.
...and in an optimistic attempt to enlighten you slightly, the costs of producing oil from the tar sands is in the range of $9 - $14 per barrel. Quite affordable, given the current prices.
Ara, cut the bullshit youself. I never wrote that a Nazi should put a bullet in your head. What I did say was that the kind of stuff you write causes me to think of you as the kind of person -- typically liberal -- who has gotten victimized throughout the history of the past century. A century, by the way, that I always have regarded as weird but hardly atypical of the rest of human history.
I never even said I dislike you, Ara. Just that I think that like so many liberals I have come across over a lengthy lifetime, you write like someone who is walking around lightly chloroformed (an expression I picked up from Saul Bellow in a story he wrote some time ago about Jerusalem).
Anyway, chag sameach to you and yours, assuming Pesach is part of your bag.
Question: "What makes this day so different from other days."
Answer: "Arnold Harris is looking in through the patio door, like Eliyahu, but grinning ear to ear."
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
You are indeed confused about what I wrote, Arnold. I wasn't calling you names so much as attempting a diagnosis.
Someone who goes to such extraordinary lengths to shrug off great numbers of deaths and cataclysmic suffering as mere statistics is exhibiting a lack of empathy and remorse that does indeed rise to the level of being a sociopath of the first order. I don't think expressing a desire for fewer sociopaths on the planet as a bad thing. I just never appreciated the depths of your depravity.
"Attempt to explain that your values differ from their, they wish you dead."
Mark's right. Indifference to the deaths of millions of people isn't a "value", it's a psychopathology. Really, if you just don't give a shit you should STFU and go back to stocking up on canned goods and ammunition and leave the politics to everyone else.
Now I'm beginning to see how you both got banned from Dean's World commenting privileges.
No, Mark; I am not confused by your tactics whatsoever. To the best of my knowledge, you are an attorney at law licensed to practice in the state of Ohio; and I assume that you are neither a clinical psychologist nor any kind of licensed medical practitioner.
Therefore, inasmuch as you are not qualified to make diagnoses about psychopathology, I assume you are attempting to maneuver some sly form of slander to silence someone whose political and social views diverge strongly from your own.
If so, then that, in my value system, is as contemptible as whatever you are accusing me of. And if that is the case, I judge that you have no more sense of shame than I do. Except that I am not at all an altruist, and I think you are. Which means that the word tricks you are trying to play here at my expense indicate to me that you are betraying your own standards of conduct.
So if it is shame on me for disputing your value system, then shame on you for contradicting it that same value system.
---------------------------
Shep, I am not a survivalist. My guns are used mainly for sports marksmanship contests. And Wisconsin is one of two states that has no concealed carry law. Which means that my firearms never leave my house except for use on legally authorized gunranges. Therefore, your inferences lack meaning as well as merit.
Your use of language is cruder than Mark's and I cannot imagine that you possess have any more credentials for questioning someone else's psychological characteristics than he does.
I suppose I could tell you that if you don't like what I have to say, don't bother reading it.
Or I could crawl down to the level of your last comment, and in plain English, invite you to stuff it far up your ass. But since I never have seen so much as a photograph of you, I cannot determine if you would have space enough there to park all your verbal baloney. Therefore, I refrain from responding to you in kind with such an insult.
Aside fron the general indifference you would expect from me, I mean neither of you any particular ill will. But you can hardly expect anybody to hold polite discourse with people who use slander and invective as tools of argument in political commentaries.
Actually, I ditched Dean's World, not the other way around. And it isn't language that matters but what you communicate with it and nothing is cruder than the ideas you communicate.
I am anything but anti-semitic. I live in a predominantly Jewish community, and most of my friends are Jewish.
Your continued fervent rants on the US support of Israel are surprising to me. During the cold war, Israel was the third largest military power. Since then, I would surmise they are second, behind us.
Although we share a common interest in the Middle East, we have been less than true "allies." Israeli operatives have been caught in espionage against this country (ours!). Our interest is in stability in the M.E., and we are forced to invade Iraq to further that aim?
Israel can take care of itself, as it's proven time and again from its inception.
Start thinking of what's best for the country YOU live in... Peace for the M.E., and what a leader Israel can take in that role. Or move to the country with which you feel stronger allegiance to.
Israel is like a baseball or football team that I might root for. Which does not imply that that I should want to be one of the players on my favorite team's infield, outfield or backfield. Nor does it mean I should even have any desire to visit their locker room.
In any case, I never said I feel any allegiance to Israel. And it is the armed forces of the United States in which I served honorably (during the Korean War), and this is the land of my birth. Nevertheless, I am an American and I am a Zionist.
And I never have said that I have any interest in peace in the Middle East. Because to be utterly candid with you, I am not interest in peace. What I contemplate and what I want for them one day is a complete Land of Israel, a Zion extending its boundaries from the Litani River in present day Lebanon in the north, and including recovery of King David's territories east of the Jordan River, south to the southern end of the Sinai peninsula, and west to the gulf of Suez; the whole armed and guarded by an Israeli population of about a score of millions and with armed forces that will be able to fend off any military challenge from the Atlantic Ocean to the borderlands of India.
Then, indeed there shall be stability in the Middle East. Except that it shall be enforced by Israel as the strongest state in the Middle East.
We here live about a third of the way around the circumference of this planet from the Middle East. In the coming age beyond the end of the world's fossil fuel supplies, military forces sent around the world to enforce peace in such distant places will be only a distant memory. And nor will the Middle East of the future have much in the way of resources anyone would want either to control or protect.
But it will be a place in which the nation of the Jews will become something greater than anything seen in their miserable history for the past three thousand years. Then, the State of Israel will be the only worthwhile ally of any foreign power that wants influence in that region of the world.
And for that, I hope the even more miserable Arabs give them no peace. Because true peace is one that must be conquered. And I want the Jews to have to fight for it. Exactly as our forefathers did when we took this entire continent. Which is exactly what they will be compelled to do in any case. You could say that I want them to transform themselves from Jews to Israelis; and the wars without end will accomplish precisely that.
Come to think of it, Rosemary's orginal post was about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's fine Tuesday night 55-45 victory over Senator Barack Hussein Obama, which I am still savoring like a cup of fine coffee.
So why exactly has this thread been diverted to argue about Arnold Harris's possible weird notions for re-ordering the Middle East; or Mark Adams' ideas on how a lawyer should operate a psychotherapy clinic; or passing FormerRepub's citizen loyalty tests; or pissing contests with Shep; or explaining to to Ara Rubyan why nobody in particular wants to shoot him; etc; etc?
American politics, at least, are more humerous than any discussions about the Middle East. They might even be funnier if we were not really electing these folks to run our country.
Your vision of a future Middle East would be interesting if it weren't completely covered in crap.
Fact is, you don't give two shits about the Israelis: you simply love getting your rocks off by imagining how sweet it would be to kill you some Arabs.
You simply cannot get it up unless you imagine yourself a Nazi putting a bullet into the head of a Jew.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
FYI, "depraved indifference" is a legal term of art, and something that borders but does not quite cross the legal definition of insane. Most often it is something exhibited by mass murderers who have been clinically diagnosed as sociopaths and that diagnosis offered as evidence in courts of law in an effort to avoid death penalty.
If you add that sociopathology to a condition where the defendant did not appreciate the wrongness of his acts, then you fit within that small group of wretched individuals who are unfit to interact freely in society yet are too deluded to punish and are instead sent away to be treated until they are cured of their depravity.
As for you supposition about my intent, Arnold, next time you try to divine my motives try avoiding so many phrases that begin with the words, "if" and "I assume" and you won't come across as so pompously wrong.
Oh, and about Hillary? To paraphrase Charlie Cook, Hillary cannot win, she can only inflict damage on Obama, "End of discussion."
We have a response, Jerry. The response is that this contest is over. Next subject.
Jerry, remind the attorney and amateur psychoanalyst from Ohio that the discussion is not over until Senator Clinton says "I surrender". Which is something that particular lady probably never has said in her entire life. For which I respect her all the more.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Hillary hit her stride at the wrong time, "her" states came too late in the process. She let 11 of 12 states get away from her before winning Ohio and the draw in Texas. She needs an overwhelming number of publicly uncommitted supers to go her way and against the majority of pledged delegates.
Ain't gonna happen, even if she makes Denver interesting, which in a way has a merit and intrigue all it's own.
Bottom line, too little, too late. The only reason a conservative thinks this is delightful is because it distracts America from the catastrophuque they made both of the nation and their own cause.
"Thats what liberals are good at, changing the subject."
We just have to. Republican feces can only hold one's attention for so long. Unless you're a Republican, of course. Or a highly paid member of the press.
You are correct. The only way Obama does not win the Democratic nomination is that he is a proven child molester. Clinton won a few delegates in PA, but nothing near what she needed to try and close the lead Obama has.
I understand the right of her supporters to continue their support for her campaign, but it REALLY IS over. I am ambivalent about her persistence in the face of utter defeat. But I think a reasonable candidate would hear the FAT LADY sing....
And Arnold, You and I will have to just agree to disagree...
And yes, I am bitter. See, that's what it looks like to own one's shit.
The point is, she didn't win on the issues, she won by standing idly by and capitalizing on painting Obama as a radical, angry Black man to White, blue collar voters. Had the Rev. Wright issue never shown up at this critical moment, I doubt she would've won, especially by such a large margin.
And yes, I am bitter. See, that's what it looks like to own one's shit.
The point is, she didn't win on the issues, she won by standing idly by and capitalizing on painting Obama as a radical, angry Black man to White, blue collar voters. Had the Rev. Wright issue never shown up at this critical moment, I doubt she would've won, especially by such a large margin.
she needs....wat?
160?
Obama will be our next prez.
he has resilience.
watch the blue line.
i think about boxjenkins, forecasting, timeseries...
predicting trends.
watever they throw at him, he comes back.
the superdels have already made up their minds i think...they are politely waiting for the primaries to be over.
Obama scares the spit out of the repubs.
the superdels will support whoever is the scariest, hehe.
the age issue has more legs than a colorado centipede. HRC is only 10 yrs younger than mccain. she will look just as old as mccain on the debate stage.
not so Obama. mccain will look very old and very short. his voice will suffer mightily in comparison.... a sort of wheezy, high-pitched, querrelous voice....in contrast to O's commanding baritone.
mccain has had at least one episode of shortterm memory loss. his med reports are due may 15.
he is just much too old.
no double digit for you!
Clinton got it totally right when she taunted Obama with the basic question of this campaign:
"Why can't he close the deal?"
Clinton will be in this campaign all the way to the Democratic Party 2008 convention in August. She will not agree to run as Obama's vice presidential candidate for the same reasons he would not agree to play second fiddle to her. First, they both have mutual contempt and animosity toward each other that mirrors what most of their respective supporters feel. Second, they are both aware they can cancel each other out until the gavel comes down on the convention.
The plain facts are that Obama's support is mainly among blacks, the more leftist liberals, the fashionable, the educated young. That comprises a permenent minority in this country.
Meantime, Clinton attracts most of the women, working class whites and especially those affiliated with labor unions, small town/exurban people, Roman Catholics, Latinos, Jews. That's a quite straightforward description of the traditional Democratic Party alliance that brought to power most of that party's US presidents of the past 100 years.
All this is reinforced by the obvious fact that Obama has won none of the major states except his home state of Illinois. Moreover, his most impressive victories were not in elections at all, but in caucuses, which tend to represent only the most active of the party activists.
As this campaign grinds on, more than six weeks after McCain's primary coronation as the 2008 candidate of the Republican Party, the Obama balloon that reached the near stratosphere in February has been losing gas and altitude slowly but steadily.
Moreover, the longer Clinton stays in the ring, the greater the likelihood Obama's collection of delegates will begin opting out as they sift all the above information.
Because all these facts point to the near certainty that Obama -- regardless of his deep pocket campaign money, the backing of most of the news media, the Hollywood celebrities, and yes, all those collected delegates, lacks whatever it takes to win the presidency of the United States. I think that either in August or in November, his campaign is doomed.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Congratulations: she's the new president of Pennsylvania. And Ohio.
Now what?
Before the primary, she had to lock down 66% of all remaining delegates to overtake Obama. After last night, she now needs...
71%
That's right: after last night, she is falling further behind than ever.
Why can't she close the deal?
If she is so convinced that she can beat McCain, how is it that she can't even beat Obama?
The plain facts are that Obama's support is mainly among blacks, the more leftist liberals, the fashionable, the educated young. That comprises a permenent minority in this country.
Well, Arnold, you left yourself some wiggle room by including the word "mainly." Because, although no poll means anything this far from November, McCain is doing even worse.
That's right: McCain is coasting along with a free ride -- no opponent, no fight, no offense against his defense -- and all he can do is get into the low 40s.
What's he going to do when the battle is joined?
Be more practical, Arnold: no candidate runs in a vacuum. They have to defeat their opponent. And Obama v. McCain will be a much different battle than the Obama v. Clinton matchup you see today.
Meantime, Clinton attracts most of the women, working class whites and especially those affiliated with labor unions, small town/exurban people, Roman Catholics, Latinos, Jews.
I think once the dust settles, you'll see those same people vote for Obama. Because they know that McCain will appoint 2-3 SCOTUS judges just like Alito and Roberts.
Moreover, the longer Clinton stays in the ring, the greater the likelihood Obama's collection of delegates will begin opting out as they sift all the above information.
It might happen; after all, Clinton is doing everything she can to insure that if she can't get the nomination, Obama will not find it worth having either.
I think that either in August or in November, his campaign is doomed.
Feh. Way too early to make an informed judgement about this stuff.
Your crystal balls are cracked, my friend.
Clinton takes a concern trollish stance that the GOP will be harder on Obama than she is, and she's right. But the GOP will be orders of magnitude harsher against Clinton than Obama has ever dreamed of being. If he went negative on her, I mean really nasty, he wouldn't do himself any favors but she wouldn't just lose, she could be drummed out of politics.
I mean come on. She enlisted Richard Mellon Scaife, he dark beating heart of that vast right wing conspiracy she talked about and turned it loose on Obama. It hurt him, but he didn't go after her baggage with nearly the same vengence.
I'm just not persuaded that this does anything to push the electability argument when he's keeping his powder dry for the general -- if (big if) he were to need those tactics against McSame.
I would love to see an attack machine geared up to crush the GOP, but for some reason I don't think she'd go there against McCain the same way she's gone nasty agianst Barack. Which also tells me this really isn't a good gage on what would happen in the fall if either one of them were the nominee.
I don't think Barack would change his strategy too much in the fall. Why mess with success? I'm not sure which way Hillary would pivot though. In fact I think she'd be turning from right to left so often she'd give new meaning to the word "spin."
The main thing Obama has going for himself is his obvious sense of style on a stage, plus the utter novelty of a Senator Barack Hussein Obama even existing and now seriously running for the presidency of the United States. Some people compare him to John Kennedy in 1960. But I think better comparisons would be Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 and Michael Dukakis in 1988. And probably Gary Hart of the "new ideas" in 1988.
But in the face of increasing opposition, all that is not enough to get Obama or anyone else electred president.
Nor can any of you ignore the glaring fact that he has not won a single major state other than his home state of Illinois. But those major states are the ones that will account for most of the electoral votes in November.
Clinton and McCain, on the other hand, are both centrists. After eight years of George W Bush, most Americans are uninterested in the extreme wings of either party. So we are moving back into the age of the victorious political center.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Apparently not a minority in the Democratic party, or else he wouldn't be on the verge of winning the nomination.
Some people compare him to John Kennedy in 1960...and Adlai Stevenson...Mike Dukakis...Gary Hart...
I kid you not: some people also compare him to John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton...and Ronald Reagan.
What manner of man is this?? He's part man, part lion, part eagle!!
But in the face of increasing opposition, all that is not enough to get Obama or anyone else electred president.
But...but...he breathes fire and can fly!
Clinton and McCain, on the other hand, are both centrists.
Listen, my friend, when one side of the field is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there on the right, in batshit-crazy, torture-central-abolish-habeas-corpus-strike-the-Fourth Amendment-territory-and-more, the center don't mean much anymore.
Flash forward:McCain's principled response? He voted against the bill.
McCain elaborated on his vote:WTF?
McCain then: “...life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective...The Army Field Manual contains techniques [that] are working and working effectively...”
McCain now: “...[don't] tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual...”
McCain then: “All I can say is that [waterboarding] was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today...It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”
McCain now: “The [Army] field manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers...”
McCain: he was against torture before he was for it.
Jeebus Arnold, what the heck do you consider "right?" Engaging even our enemies in diplomatic discource, showing at least a willingness to negotiate our differences is an extreme left position?
What the hell is the extreme right wing to you, Defcon 2?
"Left wing" means to me people who want to terminate the military power of the United States and cause another defeat to our armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, to sell out the national rights and interests of the jewish nation in the Land of Israel; to terminate the rights of Americans to keep and use firearms for purposes of sport, self-protection or any other lawful use; to shrink the sovereignty of the United States of America and to enact strict controls over entry to the United States of any and all foreigners. I oppose the left on all these counts.
There is a lot more. But as far as I am concerned, that will do for starters. And my concerns are the ones I tend to relate to most closely.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
You realize of course that "the right" has already done what you describe...
...whereas "the left" not only has not done what you describe, but I don't know of anyone in political life who even dreams of advocating it. In fact when it comes to immigration, you get it exactly bass-ackwards.
Big difference between the two, my friend. Surely you can see that?
Well, when you lay it out like that, you are in quite a pickle, aren't you?
Question, no snark, just asking. Is promotion of the national rights and interests of the jewish nation in the Land of Israel; consistent with the national interests of the US in all regards, everytime? Is it in the national interest of the US -- which is an American, not right or left position -- to act as we did vis-a-vis Cuba in reverse, where an attack ON Israel (as opposed to FROM Cuba) is considered an attack ON the US (as opposed to FROM our designated enemy, formerly the USSR and now Iran).
If indeed it is in our interest to create a NATO-like umbrella for Israel, why isn't that treaty up for consideration by the Senate? Why hasn't even George Bush made that part of his International Relations Doctrine?
Either way, wouldn't you agree that such a position is more to the right than currently exists?
I was a Republican for most of my life. These days, I support centrists whenever I have a choice. And in any case, I try to settle on candidate for any office who best represents my particular mix of policies and personal indentifications.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Utterly brainwashed is more like it. Jesus, what a paranoid loon.
my particular mix of ... personal indentifications.
Does that include fantasizing about putting a bullet through the head a Jew?
[shudder]
Jaysus, Arnold -- you used to be a decent guy. What the hell happened?
P.S. Just in case Rose "disappears" the link to Arnold's comment, it is the third comment under the now-ironically-entitled post, "Advice for Obama."
http://www.qoae.net/posts/1208963114.shtml#28005
And yes, I think jewish national interests in the Land of Israel are consistent with american national interests. Probably more so than in almost any other locale on this planet. And that's the way american national policy has been defined right through all the ages of our history, with the sole major exception of the presidency of that piece of excresence, James Earl Carter.
As for the arab and iranian oil, I sincerly hope the hell all their wells run dry tomorrow morning, at 8am central standard time. That way, all the american and canadian farmlands and their owners will be permanently enriched growing fuel crops, and much of the world's population levels will shrink back to what they were before easily accessible petroleum temporarily changed life on this planet, some 100 years ago. Because as you well know by now, I'm just not any kind of humanist and this world is getting too crowded with people for my tastes.
Moreover, I strongly applaud Israel's program of accumulating nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, because for Israel's survival and well-being, I trust in israeli national power and nothing else.
And in addition to that, I celebrate every time I hear about the growth of Israel's jewish population in Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and Golan by some 30,000 people per year. And I celebrate too when I hear that the Arab population is being driven off the land by a combination of poverty, powerlessness and hopelessness. Maybe for the same reasons that as a kid I celebrated running the indian tribes into reservations.
And yes, all of the above is precisely what I think and what I want. And no, and I don't feel conflicted at all.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
As for driving the Arabs out of and away from the Land of Israel, I think that's the only way the Jews of Israel will ever have any peace.
For the same reason that the wars of the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Jugoslavs, etc, against the Germans cane to a historic end when the Red Army ran all the Germans off all the lands in Europe east of the Oder-Neisse river that now forms the western border of modern Poland.
But no, I don't fantasize about much of anything. And certainly not about shooting somebody over his religion. Having read my stuff over so many years, you must have realized a long time ago that the only thing I have against Judaism or any other religion is that they are all based on belief.
Thanks for saving my comment. I may want to use part or all of it elsewhere.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
100% of arable farmland in North America converted to biofuel production would supply half of current requirements. The the population levels would certainly sink as North Americans starved to death.
Have you done the math, Arnold?
By the way, Canadians wouldn't need to grow biofuel crops in your fantasy. We would have the world's largest oil supply.
Because as you well know by now, I'm just not any kind of humanist and this world is getting too crowded with people for my tastes.
Maybe you can do your part and get off it then.
(Very good, Mark. I like the way real liberals argue. Disagree with them, they call you confused. Persist in your disagreement, they label you a sociopathic maniac. Attempt to explain that your values differ from their, they wish you dead.)
-----------------------
DPUG, all North America will not be using biofuels as we know them today. Ethanol and biodiesel are marginal substitutes for gasoline and petrodiesel. Their eventual replacement will be biomass-to-liquid (BTL) fuels, the molecular structures of which can be specifically engineered to run in gasoline powered ignition fired engines, diesel engines that are high-compression fired, jet engines designed for aviation kerosene, and so on.
But for right now, petroleum is going for $117/barrel, and supply of this in relation to continually growing world demand has already peaked and shortly shall begin annually diminishing. Meantime, biofuels are selling for about $43/barrel. Which means they have plenty of leverage for heavy price increases after world petroleum production is seen to have begun irreversible peaking. This means the owners of farmlands all across North America will see their opportunity and take it. So long, wheat; hello switchgrass, rapeseed and soy. Try doing the math yourself, DPUG.
I checked out your "world's largest oil supply". Assuming you are referring to Alberta oil sands. Actually they more or less resemble what we coat all our blacktop roads with and make our house shingles. Ever think of the costs of extracting gasoline from asphalt, and comparing it to likely output?
But perhaps you are referring to some source buried way north under the Canadian arctic. But one day too, the Quebecois and the Inuit will either or both be relieving you Anglophones of your arctic share of the White Man's burden as determined in Toronto. Then we will see who controls what and for the benefit of whom.
"Because as you well know by now, I'm just not any kind of humanist and this world is getting too crowded with people for my tastes.
Maybe you can do your part and get off it then."
A lot of people will be saying bye-bye as the world's extractable earth resources run out, one at a time. Starting with petroleum but certainly not ending there.
There were only some 1.5 billion people alive on this planet at the beginning of the age of easily extractable and refinable petroleum. It now only powered our vehicles and heated our homes, but has also played a role in nurturing all the world's industrial economies. Now there are some 6.5 billion.
Regardless of anything you can say or do, the industrial world and their farmers will be using their agricultural lands to provide the easiest immediate fix for the problem of replacing the disappearing petroleum. Food price increases, already skyrocketing, will not stop there. Soon the population increases must cease and be reversed either through societally mandated abortion, as in China, or revert to largescale selective sterilization. Otherwise there shall be mass starvation, with all the horrors that attend such calamities. But one way or another, DPUG, the world population either shrinks, or some of you lucky survivors will be turning to cannibalism on a large scale, as Mr Ted Turner has recently prophecized.
Welcom to the golden vistas of the 21st century, DPUG. And come to think of it, Canada has a rather small population to be in position to control all that land mass under these conditions. Wouldn't you agree?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I guess that's why no one is currently extracting that oil. Well, aside from all those who are extracting well over a million barrels a day right now.
But perhaps you are referring to some source buried way north under the Canadian arctic. But one day too, the Quebecois and the Inuit will either or both be relieving you Anglophones of your arctic share of the White Man's burden as determined in Toronto.
As near as I can tell, Arnold, you read little snippets of information somewhere and blow them up into these exaggerated piles of nonsense that you then spout with great pomposity.
Which Quebecois oil are you talking about? And the Inuit and Inuvialuit have already reached land claim agreements with the government of Canada.
Welcom to the golden vistas of the 21st century, DPUG. And come to think of it, Canada has a rather small population to be in position to control all that land mass under these conditions. Wouldn't you agree?
Ah, the vaguely threatening tone of a survivalist Mad-Maxesque fantasy. Hugely enjoyable, very seventies of you.
However, my point wasn't that we face crises, it was that you were arrogant enough to assume that you'd survive it.
Oh come on, Arnie -- cut the horseshit, OK? You're the one who suggested that a Nazi should put a bullet in my head -- and it wasn't because you agreed with what I was saying. I'd include a link back to your original comment, but Rose would probably delete the link.
I never even said I dislike you, Ara. Just that I think that like so many liberals I have come across over a lengthy lifetime, you write like someone who is walking around lightly chloroformed (an expression I picked up from Saul Bellow in a story he wrote some time ago about Jerusalem).
Anyway, chag sameach to you and yours, assuming Pesach is part of your bag.
Question: "What makes this day so different from other days."
Answer: "Arnold Harris is looking in through the patio door, like Eliyahu, but grinning ear to ear."
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Someone who goes to such extraordinary lengths to shrug off great numbers of deaths and cataclysmic suffering as mere statistics is exhibiting a lack of empathy and remorse that does indeed rise to the level of being a sociopath of the first order. I don't think expressing a desire for fewer sociopaths on the planet as a bad thing. I just never appreciated the depths of your depravity.
Mark's right. Indifference to the deaths of millions of people isn't a "value", it's a psychopathology. Really, if you just don't give a shit you should STFU and go back to stocking up on canned goods and ammunition and leave the politics to everyone else.
No, Mark; I am not confused by your tactics whatsoever. To the best of my knowledge, you are an attorney at law licensed to practice in the state of Ohio; and I assume that you are neither a clinical psychologist nor any kind of licensed medical practitioner.
Therefore, inasmuch as you are not qualified to make diagnoses about psychopathology, I assume you are attempting to maneuver some sly form of slander to silence someone whose political and social views diverge strongly from your own.
If so, then that, in my value system, is as contemptible as whatever you are accusing me of. And if that is the case, I judge that you have no more sense of shame than I do. Except that I am not at all an altruist, and I think you are. Which means that the word tricks you are trying to play here at my expense indicate to me that you are betraying your own standards of conduct.
So if it is shame on me for disputing your value system, then shame on you for contradicting it that same value system.
---------------------------
Shep, I am not a survivalist. My guns are used mainly for sports marksmanship contests. And Wisconsin is one of two states that has no concealed carry law. Which means that my firearms never leave my house except for use on legally authorized gunranges. Therefore, your inferences lack meaning as well as merit.
Your use of language is cruder than Mark's and I cannot imagine that you possess have any more credentials for questioning someone else's psychological characteristics than he does.
I suppose I could tell you that if you don't like what I have to say, don't bother reading it.
Or I could crawl down to the level of your last comment, and in plain English, invite you to stuff it far up your ass. But since I never have seen so much as a photograph of you, I cannot determine if you would have space enough there to park all your verbal baloney. Therefore, I refrain from responding to you in kind with such an insult.
Aside fron the general indifference you would expect from me, I mean neither of you any particular ill will. But you can hardly expect anybody to hold polite discourse with people who use slander and invective as tools of argument in political commentaries.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I am anything but anti-semitic. I live in a predominantly Jewish community, and most of my friends are Jewish.
Your continued fervent rants on the US support of Israel are surprising to me. During the cold war, Israel was the third largest military power. Since then, I would surmise they are second, behind us.
Although we share a common interest in the Middle East, we have been less than true "allies." Israeli operatives have been caught in espionage against this country (ours!). Our interest is in stability in the M.E., and we are forced to invade Iraq to further that aim?
Israel can take care of itself, as it's proven time and again from its inception.
Start thinking of what's best for the country YOU live in... Peace for the M.E., and what a leader Israel can take in that role. Or move to the country with which you feel stronger allegiance to.
FormerRepub
Israel is like a baseball or football team that I might root for. Which does not imply that that I should want to be one of the players on my favorite team's infield, outfield or backfield. Nor does it mean I should even have any desire to visit their locker room.
In any case, I never said I feel any allegiance to Israel. And it is the armed forces of the United States in which I served honorably (during the Korean War), and this is the land of my birth. Nevertheless, I am an American and I am a Zionist.
And I never have said that I have any interest in peace in the Middle East. Because to be utterly candid with you, I am not interest in peace. What I contemplate and what I want for them one day is a complete Land of Israel, a Zion extending its boundaries from the Litani River in present day Lebanon in the north, and including recovery of King David's territories east of the Jordan River, south to the southern end of the Sinai peninsula, and west to the gulf of Suez; the whole armed and guarded by an Israeli population of about a score of millions and with armed forces that will be able to fend off any military challenge from the Atlantic Ocean to the borderlands of India.
Then, indeed there shall be stability in the Middle East. Except that it shall be enforced by Israel as the strongest state in the Middle East.
We here live about a third of the way around the circumference of this planet from the Middle East. In the coming age beyond the end of the world's fossil fuel supplies, military forces sent around the world to enforce peace in such distant places will be only a distant memory. And nor will the Middle East of the future have much in the way of resources anyone would want either to control or protect.
But it will be a place in which the nation of the Jews will become something greater than anything seen in their miserable history for the past three thousand years. Then, the State of Israel will be the only worthwhile ally of any foreign power that wants influence in that region of the world.
And for that, I hope the even more miserable Arabs give them no peace. Because true peace is one that must be conquered. And I want the Jews to have to fight for it. Exactly as our forefathers did when we took this entire continent. Which is exactly what they will be compelled to do in any case. You could say that I want them to transform themselves from Jews to Israelis; and the wars without end will accomplish precisely that.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
So why exactly has this thread been diverted to argue about Arnold Harris's possible weird notions for re-ordering the Middle East; or Mark Adams' ideas on how a lawyer should operate a psychotherapy clinic; or passing FormerRepub's citizen loyalty tests; or pissing contests with Shep; or explaining to to Ara Rubyan why nobody in particular wants to shoot him; etc; etc?
American politics, at least, are more humerous than any discussions about the Middle East. They might even be funnier if we were not really electing these folks to run our country.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The thread diverted because they have no defense for Obama's poor showing. Thats what liberals are good at, changing the subject.
Jerry
Obama's ahead. Hillary is the one doing poorly -- and falling further behind.
Your vision of a future Middle East would be interesting if it weren't completely covered in crap.
Fact is, you don't give two shits about the Israelis: you simply love getting your rocks off by imagining how sweet it would be to kill you some Arabs.
You simply cannot get it up unless you imagine yourself a Nazi putting a bullet into the head of a Jew.
If you add that sociopathology to a condition where the defendant did not appreciate the wrongness of his acts, then you fit within that small group of wretched individuals who are unfit to interact freely in society yet are too deluded to punish and are instead sent away to be treated until they are cured of their depravity.
As for you supposition about my intent, Arnold, next time you try to divine my motives try avoiding so many phrases that begin with the words, "if" and "I assume" and you won't come across as so pompously wrong.
Oh, and about Hillary? To paraphrase Charlie Cook, Hillary cannot win, she can only inflict damage on Obama, "End of discussion."
We have a response, Jerry. The response is that this contest is over. Next subject.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
watch this and this.
the superdels will go with whoever can eat mccains lunch.
looks like O to me.
'Sides, the rightsiders are allus tryin to push HRC on us.
therefore O must be the one. ;)
Obama is teh kryptonite for the GOP.
Ain't gonna happen, even if she makes Denver interesting, which in a way has a merit and intrigue all it's own.
Bottom line, too little, too late. The only reason a conservative thinks this is delightful is because it distracts America from the catastrophuque they made both of the nation and their own cause.
Oh. I see. I thought you meant clusterfaaq.
[Yes, the winkie is back!]
We just have to. Republican feces can only hold one's attention for so long. Unless you're a Republican, of course. Or a highly paid member of the press.
You are correct. The only way Obama does not win the Democratic nomination is that he is a proven child molester. Clinton won a few delegates in PA, but nothing near what she needed to try and close the lead Obama has.
I understand the right of her supporters to continue their support for her campaign, but it REALLY IS over. I am ambivalent about her persistence in the face of utter defeat. But I think a reasonable candidate would hear the FAT LADY sing....
And Arnold, You and I will have to just agree to disagree...
At this point, it depends on the gender of the child.
Okay, I'm going to hell for that one. Sorry.