There has been quite a bit of noise surrounding the U.S. Marines urinating-on-Taliban-corpses story. Most of the noise has been of the polite disapproval type. You know, 'I support our soldiers killing the terrorists over there, but those brave boys shouldn't be making videos of themselves desecrating dead bodies….that's just not right.'

The typical "condemnations" were issued by all the proper government folks. Kings of Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton both condemned the urinary actions by our fighting-for-freedom Marines and did what these proper government folks always do….announced that there would be an investigation.

Defense Secretary, Kings of Leon Panetta didn't just condemn the urination patrol….

“I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.” Panetta has ordered an investigation into the matter.

"in the strongest possible terms." Well, that makes all the difference in the world then.

Nothing much will come of any "investigation" into this incident…..and that is the exact reason there will be an investigation….so that nothing much will be done about this embarrassing situation.

Or is it an embarrassing situation? At least one CNN contributor thought it was a situation to be very proud of….

Dana Loesch: OK, stop this right here. Stop this right here.

Can someone explain to me if there's supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who was — as part of an organization murdered over 3,000 Americans? I'd drop trou and do it, too. That's me, though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say?

Come on, people. This is a war.

The one thing which has changed about the American people since 9-11 is our willingness to embrace the inhumane treatment of those we call our enemies. Our first offshore gulag, Guantanamo, is still proudly open for business, indefinite detention of whomever the president claims is an enemy combatant is now the law in the free country of the U.S., government's warrantless eavesdropping on all U.S. citizens electronic communications continues every single day, the numerous incidents of U.S. military personnel conducting criminal acts of savagery, and the bipartisan enthusiasm for launching hellfire missiles from robotic drones down onto Muslim "militants", including infant, child and mother "militants" in 7 different countries.

Anyone embarrassed by any or all of those realities? Any celebrity Leaders rushing to microphones to declare any or all of those realities "inconsistent with our values?" Of course not. Why not? Because those realities accurately reflect our post 9-11 values. And that explains why Leaders like the conservative darling, Allen West (R-FL) can say to those who might question the urination circle jerk on Taliban corpses…."unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell"……he is only patriotically giving voice to the new American reality.

That new reality claims that America, alone, is entitled to do anything we want, to anyone we want, in any country we want to do it in. Anyone who complains about this new reality, whether it's complaining about U.S. soldiers executing, at pointblank range, an entire family including an infant, mother and grandmother, and then calling in an airstrike to cover their savagery….or it's complaining about U.S. soldiers stalking, and then raping an underage Muslim girl and then killing her and her family…or it's moaning and bitching over funtime videos of fellow U.S. freedom fighters urinating on the corpses of Taliban members…..anyone who complains about any of it is automatically acting unpatriotic just by complaining.

Other Leaders, say, like Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, do what they do best in a post 9-11 American values period…..feign outrage at U.S. Marines circle-urinating on Taliban corpses….by reminding us that such circle-urination, or at least taking videos of said fun, is very much "inconsistent with our values". Which "values" is Hillary referring to, ya' think?. Would urinating on Taliban corpses be inconsistent with our Guantanamo "values?" How about the hundreds and hundreds of Muslim women and children we have blown or burnt up since 9-11? How is urinating on dead Taliban bodies inconsistent with the "values" represented in slaughtering Muslim women and children in multiple countries?

You might think that Endless War in Muslim countries, where Muslim women and children are routinely killed by U.S. actions….you might think that offshore gulags where detainees have been rotting without due process for almost a decade….would prevent people like Hillary Clinton from bringing up anything about American "values"….if only for the sake of self-embarrassment at the obvious dissonance. But you would be mistaken. In post 9-11 America we are also post-hypocrisy, post-shame.

America is a lesser nation post 9-11. We have accepted new values. In this, Bin Laden, though dead, has won out. An insignificant Muslim man has been responsible for changing America for the worse, perhaps permanently. That's how weak America really is. It's a weakness of character, leadership and integrity. We've become a narcissistic nation in love with our own perceived-values reflection. We have become so un-self aware that we refuse to even consider the fact that the rest of the world sees post 9-11 America as an imperialistic, aggressor nation which has lost it's sense of decency and justice, yet continues to sermonize them on the so-called superiority of "American values".

Our nation's new values are the values of savages and tyrants. They are the values of the cowardly and the weak. They are the values of a nation which has fully endorsed the doctrine of "might means right."

What's worse, even though I'm typing this on Martin Luther King Jr Day, a day that celebrates hope, I don't see anything changing for the better anytime soon.

What's in a name, right?

Terrorists, insurgents, rabble-rousers, freedom fighters…..how about let's call them…rebels. Yeah, that's it. And so it was in the Village.

Americans have not one clue who these Libyan "rebels" are, what they stand for, what they will do if Qaddafi is overthrown, how they regard the U.S. and the West, how many of them exist…..we don't know anything at all. And yet, almost half of Americans approve of President Obama's hellbentness to defend them and assist them in their efforts.

But these Libyan fighters are not just "rebels" mind you….but "rag tag" "rebels"….which, I guess, is supposed to be a reminder to Americans of our own "rag tag" bunch of 1700's patriots who successfully overthrew those British colonialists. Which is a reminder to me to remind readers that Libya is the world's 9th largest oil producing nation. Draw whatever applicable inference you'd like.

What else do we know about these rag-tag Libyan rebels?

….the rebels now are starting to show their combat fatigue,……Outgunned and often outflanked in the field, they lack any sort of military strategy or leadership. They are eager to take ground, but are quick to flee when they face any real fighting. The reality is that a rebel military victory seems increasingly unlikely.

Sounds a bit like those fierce fighters we've been propping up in Afghanistan for….let me see…..2011 minus 2001 equals….10 years now. But hey, we're making progress because General David Petreaus would never, you know, betray us. So let's MoveOn.

From, Al-Qa'ida Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records…..we find that after Saudi Arabia (shocker), Libya was the next most common country of origin in producing anti-American jihadists to the Iraq conflict. 18.8% of foreign jihadists entering Iraq to fight against western forces were from Libya, a total of 112 fighters.

Benghazi, the northeastern Libyan equivalent of, I guess, Lexington and Concord….sent 21 jihadists into Iraq.

The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s Northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (53) and Benghazi 23.9% (21).

Moreover, these "rebels" have tried taking on Qaddafi before….

Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid‐1990s. The Libyan government blamed the uprising on “infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt” and one group—the Libyan Fighting Group (jamaʹah al‐libiyah al‐muqatilah)—claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent. Qadhafi used helicopter gunships in Benghazi, cut telephone, electricity, and water supplies to Darnah and famously claimed that the militants “deserve to die without trial, like dogs.”

As we already know, it is impossible for U.S. leaders to learn from history…..the proof being that we're not (by god) bogged down in a long, long quagmire in Aghanistan like the Soviets foolishly found themselves in before they gave up, went home, and ended their Union. No sir….not the United States of Jesus.

So, naturally, as President Obama secretly planned weeks ago to put CIA agents on the ground inside Libya to mark locations for our deficit-busting missles to hit….and as President Obama now secretly plots to arm these rag tag rebels with the proper firepower to overthrow Libya's "evil-doer"….we can rest assured that everything will work out just peachy.

Just in case you don't buy the river of deceptive bullsh*t flowing from our leadership, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made everything clear in a classified briefing on Wednesday…..

The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.

Clinton and Obama are, I think wrongfully, relying on a provision in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 granting the President a window of up to 90 days to wage war in the case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Of course, Libya has not created a national emergency for America, nor attacked our armed forces or any of our territories or states….but hell, why quibble over, as W. put it, "a goddamn piece of paper", right?

In summary: Perhaps everything will work out fine. Maybe Qaddafi will simply leave, or be killed. Maybe Libya will break out in democracy like daisies in the spring…..what the hell would I know?

But I'm extremely skeptical. And with good reason. Just yesterday I read of 58 people being blown up in Iraq…..our last "America is different" experiment in spreading freedom. Afghanistan is not simply a quagmire…..it's a hopeless and embarassing quagmire of mass American destruction.

Those who believe that the United States leadership is doing the right thing in Libya, like Obama-defender Ed Shultz in the video below, are simply basing their opinions on faith alone. And that's way too superstitious for me.

Remember how invading the sovereign nation of Iraq in 2003 had nothing to do with Iraq's huge oil reserves? Nothing whatsoever.

Once the WMD-in-Iraq bullsh*t meter pegged out….the reason for attacking a nation which posed no threat to the United States became clearer. You see, what Iraq was always about was the Iraqi people. Freeing those poor Iraqi people for…well…freedom.

So when our sophisticated Joint Commanders ordered more bombs dropped on Iraq than were dropped during the entire WW2 campaign, killing over 100,000 Iraqis and driving millions more out of their country in the process….it was really, honestly, truly because….we were bringing freedom, liberty, democracy and the kingdom of heaven to those Iraqi civilians.

Freedom bombs…..they're called. We drop 'em…..freedom spreads like wildfire.

But by god…..when our freedom bombs were blowing Iraq into smithereens, spreading a form of freedom that looked like total destruction, but, of course, couldn't possibly be because our patriotic god-like leaders told us so…..the one reason for spreading all that freedom that never crossed the minds of those divine U.S. leaders….was all the oil reserves that Saddam had not exploited yet. Nosirree….nothing to do with oil. Shame on anyone who thought that way.

The fact that Iraq's proven oil reserves are the world's second largest, behind Saudi Arabia….had zip, zero, zilch to do with why America attacked a nation which had not threatened us in any way.

And if some one explains to you now, after America has finished spreading it's freedom all over Iraq, that….

Iraq has raised the level of the oil reserves it claims to own by 24% in its first revision since Saddam Hussein fell from power.

… the revision means that Iraq now has bigger oil reserves than its neighbour Iran.

…that still doesn't mean that the oil had anything to do with the U.S. decision to drop freedom bombs all over Iraqis. Anyone who says that oil had something to do with freedom spreading in Iraq either needs drug-tested or wants the Pentagon closed. That's all.

And so, as western powers voted yesterday to spread more freedom, this time with freedom bombs designated for Libyan civilians bad guys….you can rest assured that oil, once again, is the furthest thing from these freedom spreaders minds.

Today's NY Times….

But diplomats said the moral imperative of protecting civilians from Colonel Qaddafi and the political imperative of United States not watching from the sidelines while a notorious dictator violently crushed a democratic rebellion had helped wipe away lingering doubts.

Prime Minister of England, David Cameron……

“This is about protecting the Libyan people and saving lives,” Mr. Cameron said.

“Any decision to put the men and women of our armed forces into harm’s way should only be taken when absolutely necessary,” he said. “But I believe that we cannot stand back and let a dictator whose people have rejected him kill his people indiscriminately. To do so would send a chilling signal to others.”

Are you getting dizzy yet from the deja-voodoo? Rest easy…..knowing that we are the Good Guys in this freedom-spreading endeavor….which has nothing whatsoever to do with oil…..

Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels as of 2007. Oil production was 1.8 million barrels per day as of 2006, giving Libya 63 years of reserves at current production rates if no new reserves were to be found. Libya is considered a highly attractive oil area due to its low cost of oil production (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields), and proximity to European markets. Libya would like to increase production from 1.8 Mbbl/d in 2006 to 3 Mbbl/d by 2010–13 but with existing oil fields undergoing a 7–8% decline rate, Libya's challenge is maintaining production at mature fields, while finding and developing new oil fields. Most of Libya remains unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies.

If you need further proof that the still-to-come dropping of freedom bombs on Libya has nothing to do with oil…..just as the freedom bombing of Iraq had nothing to do with oil….just peruse the 12,900,000 website locations Google produces for the search command, "oil spikes on fears of Libya." That should settle it once and for all…..when those freedom bombs start falling on the heads of Libyans…..it's not because of their oil, it's because we care so deeply for them, you know, as fellow human beings.

What is even more reassuring should be knowing that Very Serious People, like John Kerry, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and, naturally all the Bill Kristol neo-conservative freedom spreading crowd….just as they reassured us before freedom bombs fell on Iraq….are once again reassuring us that freedom bombs designated for Libya are actually altruistic freedom bombs unblemished by thoughts of oil reserves.

Hope everyone feels much better now. Libya will simply be an exercise in spreading freedom to now-threatened civilians……civilians whom we never gave one sh*t about up until now.

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.