Questions.

Does the United States have any "settlements" that are, like, ongoing? Do our citizens use the word "settlements" to describe standard condo building? When U.S. real estate companies advertise their listings, do they print stuff like, "3 bedroom, 2 bath settlement, cheap"? Ever seen something like that?

Washinton Post writer David Ignatius' column is reprinted in the Beacon today. Demonstrating that he has earned his rightful place in the Village, Ignatius uses the word "settlements" twelve times, and the word, "settlers", twice, in a very short piece pooh-poohing that silly Obama for thinking he can stop the ongoing Israeli theft of Palestinian lands.

Words mean something. When you want words, like, stealing, or theft, to not be applied to what you are doing…..and you are familiar with the arts of deception…..you simply make up a new word to describe what it is you are doing….and then repeat it a zillion times. In the case of radical Israeli's continuing to steal Arab and Palestinian land, the words 'theft', and 'stealing', have been replaced with the more acceptable-yet-meaningless words, "settlements" and "settlers".

You see, radical Jews who confiscate Palestinian land to then build houses for Jews to live in…..are "settlers" moving into their new "settlements." Sounds like "Little House on the Prairie" doesn't it? Visions of covered wagons moving west to stake their "settlement" come to mind. All Norman Rockwell-ish.

Smugly dissing President Obama, Villager Ignatius says…

"He has a rare gift for seeking the middle ground — on race, on national security, even on abortion. But it will be hard to stay in the middle on this one."

Those sentences highlight the way of the Village. First comes the assertion that Obama is a centrist middle-grounder. In just a tad over four months, Obama has declared an end to Gitmo, the Iraq occupation, torture,…..led the Congress to pass an $800 billion stimulus, a huge budget, the Lily Ledbetter Act…..blazed a middle eastern reconciliation trail…..but all of that to Village Dave is part of Obama's "rare gift for seeking the middle ground."

Ignatius is a living, writing example of what's wrong with our corporate media-led discourse. Consider the reasoning here….

Obama said this….

"He has demanded that Israel freeze these settlements, including a loophole for "natural growth," as it's called. "Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward," he said last month at a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Ignatius says this…..

"But it will be hard to stay in the middle on this one (settlements)."

Reread Obama's words. Do those words sound like Obama is holding the "middle" position on the illegal theft of Palestinian lands? Does, "have to be stopped" sound like some centrist, 'I don't care one way or the other' viewpoint on the topic?

When Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton, says this about Jews stealing Palestinian land…..

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that the Obama administration wants a complete halt in the growth of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, with no exceptions.

President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions," Clinton said.

….does Villager Dave Ignatius believe that Hillary is reflecting on a "stay in the middle" position concerning Jewish theft of land that doesn't belong to Jews?

No, Ignatius doesn't believe his own bullsh*t…..he just wants his readers to believe in it. Ignatius is representative of the blighted mindset of those in D.C. who have no idea how the world works. To Ignatius, no American president has been able to stop Israel from stealing Palestinian lands,…..Obama is a non-committal, lukewarm centrist without special distinction who can't take any firm positions….and therefore, no matter what he tells the extremist Jewish prime minister, Netanyahu…..Obama won't stop Israel's ongoing theft of Palestinian lands.

Thanks Dave….it's always fun to read about the incest-riddled thinking of the experts from Washington. The same thinking that led to unanimous Villager cheerleading for the historically-brilliant event of invading Iraq. Stay just as smart as you are….don't ever change.

In this morning's editorial the Brokeback Beacon tells Hillary…."I just can't quit you"…..

This newspaper still thinks Hillary Clinton would be the better president. Yes, she has pandered relentlessly calling for a summer of relief from the federal gas tax. Worth attention is the larger theme that she has struck, the undue burden carried by the middle class, especially in view of a tax code that has favored increasingly the wealthy. All of it has been part of her speaking more comprehensively about what would drive a Clinton presidency. She has become a stronger candidate and a more effective leader.

Notice the thought processes of the Brokeback Beacon editorial. Hillary is a panderer, basically a person who will say anything to voters in order to get their votes, Obama is not a panderer…..but the Brokeback Beacon simply can't quit the panderer, choosing instead to argue that the non-panderer wouldn't make as good a president as the panderer.

Pandering is lying. Pandering is saying whatever people want to hear whether the speaker has any intention of fulfilling any of the promises or not. Obama has refused to lie. Hillary has been called out numerous times for making stuff up.

Why does the Brokeback Beacon editorialist think that Hillary's lying shouldn't disqualify her? "..the larger theme she has struck, the undue burden carried by the middle class, especially…a tax code that has favored the wealthy…" The truth, of course, is something else entirely. Not only has Hillary DISAGREED with Obama's plan to raise capital gains taxes, lowered unjustly and unfairly by Bush Buffoons …..but she also disagrees with Obama over lifting the payroll tax cap on Social Security wages. Both of Hillary's positions here are no different from John McCain's. Perhaps THAT is what the Beacon writer meant by "the larger theme she has struck".

Then the Brokeback Beacon writer, still swooning for Hillary, writes this….

The talking heads of the media often have swooned for Obama.

I have been paying attention to this primary. The media hasn't "swooned" over Obama for months. The reason is simple and straightforward. Hillary was the frontrunner even before the election cycle began. Main media always attacks the leading Democratic frontrunner, never a Republican frontrunner as we see with McCain…..but always the Democratic frontrunner. They attacked Hillary early because they thought she would be the Democratic nominee. Then after Obama's 11 victories in a row, the main media began savaging Obama. Not "swooning"….savaging. The savaging still goes on. If anything is true…..the last month has seen the main media superassholes shilling for Hillary.

And finally, from today's Brokeback Beacon script, we find the wingnut theme of, "What about Florida and Michigan?"…..

The national party bungled the issue. Obama ducked new primaries. Link

Assertions like that shouldn't be in an editorial in a city's only newspaper. Somehow, Brokeback Beacon writers have bought into the wingnut controversy over two states which defied Democratic National Committee rules. According to the Beacon, the Democrats "bungled the issue". How so? No explanation…..only an assertion. They just did. Both candidates, Obama and Clinton, agreed months ago that Florida and Michigan primaries would not count. Even if Hillary were able to count those two states, she STILL can't win the nomination fair and square. Brokeback Beacon is simply buying into the wingnut bullsh*t.

Sore losers can really be sore…..and that's what the Brokeback Beacon is after Tuesday's primaries. Obama hasn't "ducked" anything. Barack Obama has stated repeatedly he will abide by the rules. Abiding by the rules is, to Brokeback Beacon writers, "ducking new primaries". Hillary (and George W. Bush), on the other hand, never met a rule that couldn't be overruled for their own benefit or ideology. Sticking to a framework of previously agreed upon rules, laws, conditions……is a bad thing according to the Beacon writer….that's "ducking" something.

When all is said and done this election cycle, the Beacon editorialists will be endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama for president. There won't be any good reasons then either, just as there are no good reasons to still be shilling for a pandering, do-and-say-anything-to-get-elected, Hillary Clinton now.

Apparently the Beacon just can't quit their allegiance to the establishment status quo.

The fact that Hillary Clinton canceled all her public appearances today speaks volumes. As I watched and listened to her speech late last night, she appeared sedated. Her words, though not slurred, were spoken oddly. She knows it's over.

Barack Obama, much to the Knee Padders' and the Akron Beacon Journal editorial staff's chagrin, blew out North Carolina……AND kept it very close, too close to call for much of the evening,….in Indiana.

After last night's count is added to the cumulative running total….there's now no possible way for Hillary to win, outright, the Democratic nomination. It's impossible, not virtually impossible, but completely impossible for Hillary to catch up in either pledged delegate or popular vote counts….and that includes a potential Michigan and Florida seating of delegates. It's over. Mrs. Clinton said last night would be a "gamechanger". The only game it changed was hers. She's now lost her valiant, though hopelessly flawed, bid to become president.

Though she claimed victory in her speech from Indiana last night, the other parts of her talk were muddled and confused,…..saying she will be fighting all the way to the Convention…..at other moments saying she would help bring the Democratic Party together to defeat John McShame in November.

I feel just a bit downhearted for Hillary Clinton. She definitely is a fighter. However, it is also true that she and her husband cut their teeth on Lee Atwater-Karl Rove politicking and never looked back….and now it's all the Clinton's know. America, because of George W. Bush's utter failure and criminality, have moved to a post Karl Rove position. America is not buying the bull crap anymore.

I've mentioned several times that all the bull crap wasn't going to work this time. It didn't work last night in Indiana or North Carolina. Americans are rising to the occasion, dismissing the nonsensical misdirections over trivialities and smear by association tactics.

Despite the solemn tone, almost death-like from the Knee Padders last night, there's much to be excited and hopeful about with the prospect of an Obama presidency. Even though the David Gregorys and the Brian Williams and the Brit Humes will continue to service John McCain and the GOP base against Obama…..last night, at least, the smart-ass grins and smart-ass comments favoring establishment powers weren't as prevalent.

There will be no Obama-Clinton ticket, either. At one juncture awhile back I joked that the Republicans better hope the Democrats don't run an Obama-Clinton ticket……the GOP defeat would be…ummm….extremely humiliating…..but that isn't going to happen.

The Democrats now have a clear winner and the only remaining questions left for Barack Obama are, who will his VP be, and how badly he will trounce McShame this fall.

So please conservatives, Knee Padders, The Beacon…..spin away. Talk race and Wright and Ayers and Muslim names and flag pins and all the rest…..knock yourselves out…….stay planted in the old 20th century juvenile politicking garden. The only embarassment will be brought on yourselves.

In this episode of "Meet the Stupids"….we join Hillary Clinton and John McCain as they desperately flop around grasping for anything that will bolster their hollow and sagging campaigns. Both establishment figures have suggested that over the summer Americans should have 18 1/2 cents of federal taxes on a gallon of gasoline lifted to give all the little people, you know, a break.

The Gas Tax Holiday.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain are both pushing a "gas-tax holiday" to give consumers an 18.4- cent-a-gallon price break. Link

Hillary, upping the populist pandering ante, took it further the other day….

Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson, on a conference call with reporters moments ago, confirmed that she'd be going forward with her plan to introduce the gas tax holiday legislation. Link

Hillary believes this episode of the Stupids can draw a clear distinction with her not-willing-to-pander-that-much opponent, Barack Obama, who does not favor the Stupids "Gas Tax Holiday".

I've just obtained a copy of another ad hitting Obama on the gas tax that Hillary just started airing in Indiana.

The last-minute ad, which went up late on the Friday before election day, says Hillary's gas tax holiday would "save families $8 billion," and adds: "Barack Obama says that's just pennies."

"He'd make you keep paying that tax, instead of big oil," the ad continues. Link

McCain…sounding like the authoritarian father-figure he desires to be for America….intensifies the Stupids "Gas Tax Holiday"…umm….stupidity….by asking, "why not?"

“Why don’t we give American working men and women a little break this summer,” he said. “It’s not the end of western civilization as we know it.” Link

What about the Non-Stupids? What do they say about all this…..

Economists say that while the populist proposals appeal to consumers struggling to make ends meet, the voters will be disappointed when the moves don't work.

They say the oil companies may end up the biggest beneficiaries, while the aid to families wouldn't be enough to buy a $35 backpack. Link

Summarizing this episode of "Meet the Stupids: Gas Tax Holiday"….

The two establishment candidates, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, admiringly tagged The Stupids for this episode, want to reduce gas taxes for three months. That would save the average American a whopping $35, while at the same time it would reduce revenues for highway maintenance while adding $8 billion to the deficit(McCain's version)….and keep gas prices at their currently high rates. See why they're called the Stupids?

In addition, after the summer "Holiday", the Democrats could be blamed for "raising taxes" when the gas taxes were reactivated. All so Americans, apparently distracted easily by shiny objects and trinkets, can save approximately $35!

Barack Obama doesn't appear in this current Stupids episode. He isn't pandering overtly like the two stars of "Meet the Stupids: Gas Tax Holiday"….

The Illinois Democrat has proposed a windfall-profits tax that could cost oil companies $15 billion a year at current profit levels, according to Jason Grumet, a campaign adviser. The plan, which would impose a tax on each barrel of oil over $80, could cost oil producers three times the $50 billion, 10-year windfall-profits tax Clinton has proposed.

Obama would use the money to help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, expand the earned-income tax credit and aid people in paying their energy bills.

Still, it's the gas-tax holiday that's getting the most attention on the campaign trail. Link

Gotta love that last line….."Meet the Stupids: Gas Tax Holiday" is getting all the attention by guess who? Yep, Knee Pad Media. See….if working families actually heard about Obama's $1000 tax cut proposal….well….they might see how vacuous AND Stupid the Hillary and McCain proposal really is. That would be why "Gas Tax Holiday" is "getting the most attention on the campaign trail."

Establishment candidates.

Establishment Knee Padders.

Establishment Stupids.

Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary yesterday by 10%. Twice what I predicted. I must not have prayed fervently enough. Anyway, I was mistaken. I don't follow Bush, The Younger's template…..I admit error and move forward.

The primaries continue on to the remaining states with virtually no hope for Clinton to emerge as the nominee, barring the fracture of the Democratic Party, and really, what good would that accomplish?

However….and there's always a however,…..there has come to my recent attention a sort of bizarre line of "reasoning" coming from alleged Democratic voters.

Exit polling from last night's Pa. primary….

"In a startling finding, only 53% of Clinton supporters say they'd vote for Obama against McCain, while 69% of Obama backers would vote for her as the nominee." Link

From today's Akron Beacon Journal writer, Stephanie Warsmith…..

"Nicole Hinchcliffe…plans to vote for McCain if Clinton doesn't win the nomination. She'd prefer having McCain as president rather than Obama….'I would rather have eight more years of the same than eight years of what he would bring,' Hinchcliffe said."

This line of thinking, I would suggest, is not rational thinking at all. Whatever motivates an alleged Democratic voter to think like this cannot be anchored in objective reality or fact. Of course, every American has the right to not think objectively when picking a candidate…..but I find this very odd….bordering on the bizarre.

Let's review.

Knee Pad Media have excused their smear by association questionings and their overall majoring on trivial minors in their "reporting" on the Democratic primary by saying that the differences between Hillary and Obama's policies are miniscule.

Both candidates are pro-choice, pro-working families, pro-ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, pro health care for all, pro-ending our occupation of Iraq, pro-nomination of progressive Supreme Justices. All basic Democratic Party bolierplate. Basing choices on policy positions alone would seemingly lead a Democratic voter to find satisfaction in either Democratic candidate.

John McCain is anti-choice, anti-working families, anti-eliminating those big tax cuts for the wealthy, pro-lobbyist, anti-health care for all while pro-health savings accounts tax schemes, pro-staying in Iraq, pro-Bush Doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive wars of choice, pro-nominating Roberts and Alito-like 19th century throwbacks to the Court. McCain would stay the course of the 69% disapproved of worst president in American history. The furthest distance from change one could imagine.

So…policy wise….a Democratic voter wold still have a clear, distinctive choice if Obama is the nominee. I don't think this is even arguable.

The exit polling numbers from Pennsylvania and comments like Nicole Hinchcliffe's suggest that if Hillary voters don't get their way, they would rather choose 8 more years of George Walker Bush. Is this simply sour grapes or is there more to it than that?

How, with the obvious distinctions between both Democrats on one side and McCain on the other, could a Democratic Hillary supporter say they wouldn't vote for Obama, but instead McCain….if Hillary isn't the nominee? It makes no sense….unless policy is not the basis on which these "Democratic" voters decide.

I fully support each voter's free choice to vote anyway they desire, I do. Given the clear and vital differences found in both Democratic candidates weighed against John McCain's positions….I'm tempted to suggest that there's a whiff of racial undertone in any suggestion that Hillary and McCain are acceptable, but Obama is not.

To those who would suggest I'm only being predictable…..I would ask….how can you explain this? What sense could it possibly make to vote for 4 or 8 more years of historic failure when both Democratic candidates basically agree on the new direction our country needs to follow?

It's time to summarize where we are in the Democratic primary and make predictions about what will happen next. We're still a few weeks away from the Pennsylvania primary and if the Knee Padders' nightly sputterings are any indication, nothing, and I mean nothing, of substance will be shared with American teevee viewers during those few weeks. The Pad Media is, predictably, microscoping every vowel and consonant from Clinton and Obama while simultaneously conducting solemn and oh-so-serious hero-worship services for the POW presidential wannabe, John S. McCain.

What will we witness as we go forward in this historic election cycle?

Obama will win the pledged delegate count, the popular vote count, and eventually, the super-duper delegate count…..and that will lead, sadly for Hillary….to the end of here aspirational road. It may be ugly, there may be some hard feelings, but that's how it's going to end.

The fraying thread Hillary is trying to hang on to is the far-flung idea, I think, that Obama still has hidden crimes or conspiracies yet to be uncovered that may disqualify him somehow. Her surrogates' argument that the Wright issue makes Obama unelectable, I think, holds no water. The polling after the Wright topic exploded shows little movement. Obama's leadership and trust numbers demonstrate that Obama is the best candidate. I realize polls are not flawless predictors but it's the TREND that tells the story.

Hillary has a 700,000 popular vote deficit to make up…..virtually a mathematical impossiblity. The pledged delegate category simply can't be won by Mrs. Clinton. Impossible. That only leaves the super-dupers. Obama has already slashed Hillary's advantage down to 40-50 from a previous 200+ difference and every sign points to this continuing.

That only leaves the fiction of Obama's unelectability because of Jeremiah Wright ….or….some new bombshell information. Without doubt the Republicans with their 527 hounds will go all in on the Wright topic. However, as far as Democrats are concerned today, the Wright controversy doesn't disqualify Obama.

Then what?

The contestants, McCain and Obama, will begin their general election campaigning.

Here are two of my predictions of what will happen then…..

First prediction: Democrats, record primary turnout Democrats, will rally wildly for Obama. Far and away the majority of current Hillary supporters will stand with the Illinois Senator. The crescendo of support will build to a frenzy by fall…..huge, record breaking crowds will gather all over this country to hear Obama and his audacity of hope for change message. With his huge small donor supporters list, Obama will raise money at will. His national teevee ads will flood the airwaves. Barack Obama will pick a helpful vice presidential candidate and the August convention will inspire even more Americans with the belief that, yes, we can change America for the better and Obama's the right person to start the long process of repairing the damage from the last 8 years. The polling will show McCain losing by at least 10% going into the November vote, maybe more.

Second prediction (some hyperbole): Many Republican brand names will sit on the sidelines and allow the 527 homicide bombers to strap on their belts of lying propaganda and then explode them all over Knee Pad Medialand. I can't state the importance of this enough. In spite of these domestic political insurgent actions….Obama's polling numbers will stay solid, just as they have against Hillary after she, her husband and her surrogates tried, albeit mildly, to hurt Obama's chances by detonating racial smear-by-association bombs.

In part 2 I will go into the weeds of triangulation and swiftboating to show not only what the Clinton's have done in the primary race but also to predict what those conservative 527 groups, harnessed to Knee Pad Medialand, will do as we get into the general election campaign.

Via Booman Tribune….

Two attendees of that closed-door briefing, neither of whom are affiliated with any campaign, describe that event for ABC News. It was a room full of women involved in international trade. David Gergen served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA, which had yet to pass Congress.
“It wasn’t a drop-by it was organized around [Hillary's] participation,” said one attendee. “Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Link

And as the AP reports today, the recently released 11,000-plus pages of her First Lady "schedules show her holding at least five meetings in 1993 aimed at helping to win congressional approval of the deal." Link

Brand name media people are serious and truthful patriots. They are only interested in what benefits America.

Author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book "A Problem fron Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" and a Professor of Human Rights policy at Harvard's JFK School of Government.

You've probably already heard about this…..

Hillary advisers and surrogates called on Obama to fire senior foreign policy adviser Samantha Power for calling Hillary a "monster."

"Personal attacks are not the way to convince voters that you're capable of being president of the United States," New York Rep. Nita Lowey, a key Hillary surrogate, said. "We're calling on Senator Obama to make it very clear that Samantha Power should not be part of this campaign." Source

Ms. Power did resign.

The sentence I emboldened, however, is a piece of work. Hillary Clinton, through the use of non-stop meritless and trivial attacks delivered repeatedly by craven media personnel, is in the midst of convincing headline-hearing voters, that she's capable of being president. So, "personal attacks" ARE the way to go. This is a transparent example of how the Rovian, "we create reality", model of politics expresses itself. It's the same dishonesty and duplicity that Americans have come to loathe politicians over. Accusing your opponent of doing what you are doing.

Watch the same media Padders that chuckled along with the "how can we beat the bitch?" question addressed to Mr. McCain. Watch these same chuckleheads put on their stern and serious faces about a candidate who would have a person on his team who actually would call Hillary a "monster".

No matter how Obama responds, he loses.

The media loves the "old politics" they have nurtured into existence all these years since Ronald McDonald's tenure. They love this type of politics. This type of politics offers absolutely no value to the American public. If there's one thing the media is good at, it's producing valueless content. Only the media and those politicians who are in incestuous, yet professional, relationships with the media, benefit from the "politics of personal destruction". What Hillary's campaign, in co-ordination with the Wurlitzer media scum, is in the midst of doing is making the point(?) that if Obama won't play dirty politics, like Hillary does, he's not qualified to be president.

The seemingly only qualification needed for any public office anymore, let alone the presidency, is the ability to embarass yourself and the nation by inflating shallow pettiness to the point where there's no reasonable oxygen left in the political discussion. That's where we're at right now.

What Hillary has successfully done, recently, is prove that totally substance free appeals to nonsensical and trivial stupidity combined with the use of fear tactics like the neo-conservative's have thrived upon, works. It works because establishment Padder People produce content daily that's usually substance free, nonsensical, trivial but professionally mixed with appeals to their viewers enabling them to stay scared. Viewers have been trained to follow along with the soap opera silliness driven by all that corporate sponsor loot.

This junior high style of running for president of the only superpower matches perfectly with the junior high style used by most Knee Pad members in reporting on presidential campaigns. It's not so much that it's dangerous or evil any more than any other piece of evidence offered up in support of the premise that America is in decline.

It's just that it's so embarrassing.

Hillary Clinton enjoyed a good night last night. She won Ohio by 10% and Texas by 4%, even though the delegate differential, currently favoring Obama, didn't change much at all.

The sad part of last night is the implication, quickly to be fleshed out by the usual Knee Pad suspects, that going negative, getting down and dirty, was the reason Clinton won these two large state primaries.

Barack Obama, though virtually having a lock on delegates, having not gone negative while accumulating that lock, will now have to endure an intense sh*t storm of irrelevance, filled with gossip, half-truths and disinformation. The Clinton campaign will not be able to convince themselves of any other reason for Hillary's wins last night.

As they say, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
_________________________

From Hillary while in Toledo, Ohio the other day…..

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." Source

Joe Lieberman, once the Democratic VP in 2000, now an Independent having been booted by his party in 2006, started his descent down into the neo-conservative Republican pit with comments similar to Hillary's.

The Reverend takes Hillary's words seriously, and therefore, will seek to deconstruct their wisdom.

From her comment, it's clear that Senator Clinton believes that she and John McCain have a "lifetime of experience". By stating it the way she did, it is also clear that Hillary believes the "lifetime of experience" that her and McCain have, automatically, qualifies either her or the Arizona Republican, to be president. At the same time that all that experience qualifies these two lifers to be president, Barack Obama can only make speeches. He has no experience according to Hillary, other than speechmaking. He doesn't have that "lifetime" of vast and extensive experience like she and John have.

John McCain, according to Hillary, is qualified to become president. She is qualified as well. Obama is not, he's only qualified to give speeches.

Hillary Clinton believes and states for the record that experience, like she and McCain have, qualifies them to be prepared to lead on DAY ONE. Obama, on the other hand, with only his speechmaking credentials, is not and will not be prepared to lead on DAY ONE. Unless America only wants speeches.

This veritable goldmine of experience that Hillary and McCain have accumulated, I presume, was the same goldmine of vast and extensive experience drawn upon as they both voted to send American troops into an imperialistic Bush war of choice. I also would presume that the Iraqi Intelligence Estimate wasn't read by these experienced Senators before they voted for quagmire because, after all, these two had a "lifetime" of experience from which they could draw the tremendous wisdom needed to decide such a crucial vote.

That "lifetime" of experience, found under the belts of John McCain and Hillary Clinton, but NOT Barack Obama, must have really come in handy before that crucial Iraq vote was taken. Experience like that, experience built over a "lifetime", is virtually uncanny in it's comprehension of world events. Experience like that is able to ignore the daily political noise swirling around any critical issue, like the Iraq war issue. Wisdom based only on a lifetime of experience in making tough choices is the only wisdom prepared for DAY ONE. DAY ONE won't know what hit it, when confronted with the wells of deep experience, the likes of which only John McCain and Hillary Clinton possess.

How has DAY ONE READY experience, like McCain and Clinton possess, but not Obama, paid off so far?

First of all, those lifetimes of solid, mature and broad experience resulted in giving the worst president in American history a blank check to pre-emptively attack a previously sovereign country which posed no threat to America. Without question, Obama doesn't have enough experience to make sound and righteous DAY ONE decisions like that. Only Hillary and John possess that type of experience.

This Oracle-like wisdom, only possible to accumulate over the course of a lifetime of experience inside Washington's Beltway, produced the positive results of 4000 dead American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the distrust of the world's other countries, and Israeli-like occupations of despair. Only a lifetime of experience, the kind of experience Obama is lacking, can produce glorious, America-strengthening results like that.

The inexperienced Barack Obama, while more experienced leaders plumbed their vast wisdom en route to voting for quagmire, could only give a speech. That speech, during a time when only the experienced could discern the wisdom of bogging America down in the middle east, rightly explained why the Iraqi invasion would be disastrous on many specific levels. But alas, Obama simply couldn't draw on his "lifetime" of inside D.C. experience to be equipped enough to see the wisdom in repeating yet another Vietnam mistake. He was too much of a rookie, a speech giving rookie, to rise up and embrace such serious and well thought out empire policy positions as the Wise Warriors of Experience, Hillary and McCain, were able to do.

The Maverick and Bill Clinton's wife brought the wealth of their experience to bear on their war vote. Even though it was very popular to be for more war in 2002, war against any Muslim looking nation, that political reality had nothing to do with these two lifetime-of-experience leaders votes. The fact that Obama gave his speech, all that he could do because he had no experience, during a time when being against the potential quagmire was extremely unpopular says nothing about Obama's sound judgment or decision making abilities. It was only a speech.

The question I'm left with, now that I've been reminded of John McCain's and Hillary Clinton's uniquely qualifying attribute of "a lifetime of experience", is, can this once proud nation of ours really afford more leaders with that much experience?

Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, is not one of my favorite people. To say the least, he is offensive in his style of communication. The Reverend, as I'm sure you realize by now, never condones offensive styles of communication.

Donohue's job, a tough one I admit, is to defend the Catholic Church from all attacks. Especially tough when you take into consideration the indefensible nature of, you know, molesting young boys and then covering it up.

However, here's a question from old wild-eyed Bill that registers 9.9 on the Richter scale of rectitude…..

“If Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama were fighting over the support of Louis Farrakhan, we’d say they’re nuts. So what are we to conclude about McCain’s embrace of Hagee, and Huckabee’s lament for not getting the bigot’s endorsement?
Link

Let's say that when Barack Obama was being thoroughly "vetted" by Pumpkin Head Timmy Russert the other night in Cleveland, that Obama had responded to Russert's Farrakhan baited question by saying he was "pleased" to have received Louis Farrakhan's endorsement. "Pleased."

Let's say Obama had answered in the identical way that John McCain answered a similar question about John Hagee's endorsement of him. Obama would have said, "All I can tell you, Tim, is I'm proud to have Louis Farrakhan's support." Link

And then suppose Hillary would have responded to Obama and Russert by saying, "Tim, all I can tell you is I'm surprised and disappointed to have not received Pastor Farrakhan's support." Link

There would, literally, be no end to the scorn heaped on not only the two candidates, but the entire Democratic Party.

The media, and here's where I disagree with Donohue's words, would not have said Hillary and Obama were "nuts". The media would have said the two Democratic candidates, based on their being pleased and disappointed respectively, were anti-American extremists who would destroy Israel and all the Jews, if elected. The media would have said that the Democratic candidates were, in fact, supporters and defenders of the Islamic terrorists, and their being "pleased" and "disappointed" respectively about Farrakhan's endorsement, would be their proof. The teevee media would have run "breaking news" segments endlessly on Farrakhan, the Holocaust, Islamic extremists, etc., interspersed with a looped audio piece of Hillary and Obama's words.

Given such a hypothetical, there would be a movement, led by the media and the criminal Bush White House, to disqualify both Democratic candidates as unfit to lead the nation. Emergency national polls would be taken. Hands would be wrung by all the usual Knee Padders. Spineless corporate Democrats would join with the entire amoral Republican contingent in Congress to pass a resolution denouncing and rejecting not only Louis Farrakhan, but anyone who was "pleased" to receive Farrakhan's endorsement or "disappointed" to have not received it.

Two months, at least, of in-depth blanket coverage of this national crisis would be the result.

That's what would happen if Democratic presidential candidates would have accepted and been "pleased" about receiving a name-brand bigot's endorsement, or "disappointed" they had not received it.

I searched ABC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and FOX News sites. CBS and FOX are the only ones even dealing with the McCain/Hagee story, other than in a cursory way.

Most of the mainsteam media is silent on the McCain/Huckabee/Hagee endorsement stuff, however CBS parses like Bill Clinton caught in a room full of hookers…..

"The question is whether Pastor Hagee's view on the Catholic Church constitutes "a position" or a view that the presumptive Republican nominee has to address head on." Link

Think about that sentence. Then imagine this…"The question is whether Louis Farrakhan's view of Israel constitutes 'a position' or a view that the presumptive Democratic nominee has to address head on."

Not one "journalist" anywhere would write such a thing should the tables be reversed.

The question is….why not?