Once his "magic" wears off, the Dims are going to be asking themselves what were they thinking in nominating this empty suit for in the first place.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years… The global community — in the form of the United Nations — has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late… Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail."

I agree with those authors in at least one sense. Elections are decided by the political center, not the left or right fringes. Most of the ideas may come from the left and right, but most voters don't really dwell there. I think most voters dislike both parties, and in general, the party that wins is the one disliked the least. After 8 years of Bush, that favors the Dems now.

I'd have to see which principles were chosen from the left and right to makeup that radical center party before I signed on, but since I'm one of the fringe dwellers, I'd probably be left out in the cold, lol.

Jack Nicholson endorese Hillary

Also a FUBAR by Obama:

Misleading Attack: Sen. Obama Flubs in Ohio
Earlier today, Sen. Obama attacked Hillary on Iraq by invoking Sen. Rockefeller and incorrectly saying that the WVA Senator opposed the 2002 Iraq vote. The truth is that Sen. Rockefeller voted for the war resolution – not against it as Sen. Obama suggested to the people of Ohio. This seems to be an Obama campaign talking point since its top strategist also claimed that Sen. Rockefeller voted against the war resolution when he was on national television this morning.

"Sen. Obama is so desperate to divert attention from his limited national security experience that he's not just misleading voters about Sen. Clinton, he's also misleading voters about his own supporters. That is not change you can believe in." — Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer

To those who are dissatisfied with the state of today’s politics and call for a third party, does the following strike a cord?

“More Americans (42-percent) identify themselves as independents that either Democrats or Republicans. Astonishing as it may seem, a clear polarity of Americans have become hostile to the two parties that have defined our nation’s politics for the past century that they have preferred “neither of the above” even in the absence of a serious alternative. Political analysts like to talk about electoral “realignment” in favor of one party or another, but what is occurring here is something altogether different — we are experiencing a large-scale political dealignment.

“This striking dealignment suggests that our Democratic and Republican Parties have failed the two most important tests of American politics: the ability to unite a majority of citizens in a lasting coalition, and the ability to find workable solutions to the problems of our time. Having been captured by their own extremes, both parties are increasingly incapable of promoting majority views across a range of issues. Second, both remain so wedded to the ideas and institutions of the last century [the 20th Century] that neither has proven itself capable of rising to the challenges of the next. Our nation’s politics are dominated by two feuding dinosaurs that have outlived the world in which they evolved.”

This is from the opening page of the “Radical Center” (2002) by Ted Halstead and Michael Lind. This book makes an intriguing case for the creation of a radical center party that is a composite of Republican and Democratic principles. Such a party will have much that conservatives like and dislike as well as things that progressives like and dislike.

Halstead & Lind say that the conditions have been ripe for some time now for such a re-alignment to take place but that inertia and the status quo have frozen the political structure in place. Specifically, Halstead & Lind say that the Democratic Party is in the hands of the leftists & progressives while the GOP is held by the libertarians and the religious right.

They feel that it will take a major crisis of some sort to precipitate the actual re-alignment, as was the case in the past with, for example, the Civil War and the Great Depression.

These authors believe that already the coalitions that form the bases of the Democratic and Republican parties are beginning to fissure, perhaps irreparably. (This does seem to be the case today.)

But a third party is the unlikely to be the new centrist party. Historically, when third parties rose, if their ideas were attractive, they got co-opted by one of the major parties. This means either the Democrats or the Republican party is more likely to evolve into the a new centrist party than for a third party to assume that role.

This seems correct. Both parties have tremendous infrastructure & staffing that begins at the local level and reaches all the way up to the top nationally. This will not disappear.

To quote Halstead & Lind: “The future of American politics may well belong to the major party that is first to renounce its more extreme positions and embrace a new Radical Centrist agenda.“

Right now without a doubt that party appears to be the GOP. Why? Because, John McCain is the bane of conservatives precisely because he has taken centrist positions whereas B. Hussein Obama is a straight up-and-down liberal — a man in fact who has been the most liberal senator in Washington in the past year or so. McCain can [and has] work with Democrats; Obama has not [and probably can't] work with Republicans.

According to Halstead & Lind's thinking, if one of the major parties does evolve into a radical center party, those who are today's hard core progressives and conservatives, if they do not change with the times, will be left on the fringes of the political landscape. Some activists will move, others will not.

Agree or disagree with Halstead & Lind, the agruments and logic they present in "The Radical Center" cannot be dismissed.

Huh ? You proved my point here. Walmart buying from China has nothing to do with NAFTA, which applies only to Canada/USA/Mexico.

Here's the truth….

The New York Observer managed to track down Austan Goolsbee, the Obama adviser who, according to the latest report on Canada TV, was the one who may have told a Canadian official that Obama's anti-NAFTA stump speech is merely "campaign rhetoric."

And Goolsbee denies it:

“It is a totally inaccurate story,” he said. “I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.”
Meanwhile, Obama spokesperson Bill Burton also denies this latest round, via email:

This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.

You say that keeping Hilary in it is good for the R's. Which, as everyone who reads this blog knows, you think anything R is good for the country, since everyone else is a Socialist. Yet, at the same time, you say

"I myself don’t have the stomach to pull the lever for her, but more power to you if you can."

So, you imply that even though you know what is best for America, you aren't willing to do it. Interesting.

As much as I see an advantage for voting for Comrade Hillary, I still can do it. But I would like to see her win here next week.

++++

From: The American Thinker Online
Date: February 29, 2008
By: Rick Moran
Subject: Poll Shows Obama Pulling Away in Tx; gaining in OH

It appears that next Tuesday may very well prove to be Hillary Clinton's swan song. The latest Zogby/C-Span/Houston Chronicle Poll shows Senator Barack Obama pulling away in Texas while Ohio appears to be a dead heat:

Texas – Democrats

Clinton
42%

Obama
48%

Gravel
<1%

Someone else
3%

Not sure
7%

Ohio – Democrats

Clinton
44%

Obama
42%

Gravel
1%

Someone else
5%

Not sure
9%

It appears that Hillary just can't stop Obama's momentum no matter what she tries.

It should be said that Zogby has been on of the more unreliable barometers in this primary season. But the poll reflects similar gains by Obama in other polls.

Clinton is desperately trying to hold on to her white working class base in Ohio. If she wins there but loses in Texas does she stay in?

My guess is unless she loses both she will remain a candidate despite a chorus of entreaties from other Democrats pleading with her to get out of the race. She will probably make the argument that the Democrats don't have much of a chance in Texas during the November election anyway and that a victory in Ohio means her campaign is still viable.

If she loses both states and still insists on staying in, watch for a big name Democrat to sit down with her – sort of like an intervention for addiction – and tell her its over and she better get out.

http://www.syracuse.com/articles/news/index.ssf?/base/news-0/120427921794150.xml&coll=1

I myself don’t have the stomach to pull the lever for her, but more power to you if you can

This Dim primary is like the war between Iraq & Iran in the 1980's. It's almost irrelevant who wins. As long as both are weaken, America wins.

So yes, keep 'em fighting among themselves.

"…trying to educate people in established parties about the thoughts he generates from maybe the most fertile political brain around."

The Reverend says: You know, fertile ground usually is fertile because it has a lot of manure in it.

roy again…

"I could much easier succumb to the thinking of Newt Gingrich than become a blind follower of Obama."

To which The Reverend says: Succombing to the thinking of Gingrich would be like succombing to carbon monoxide. Asphyxiation from noxious fumes.

***Alexander, you said it all with that quote. That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our political system.***

da truth, I was impressed by anybody in present company agreeing with Alexander and how he thinks about politicisns. However, I can, and do, take exception with you and all others who talk that way when I believe that there is a politician who is trying very hard to keep us informed. The problem is that he hasn't been involved in the game called primary politics this year but has been trying to get a base for that third party going. I read him all the time and have very little problem with agreeing with nearly every thing I read.

Ok, King and Boortz could grow a viable third party that both of us could go along with. King's brain and Boortz's money might do it. However my man isn't trying to start a third party as much as trying to educate people in established parties about the thoughts he generates from maybe the most fertile political brain around. Alright, I will admit that I could much easier succumb to the thinking of Newt Gingrich than become a blind follower of Obama. Since there is so little difference in the socialistic beliefs of Obama and Clinton when I say anything negative about one you can assume that I am talking about both, just as King says.

Alexander, you said it all with that quote. That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our political system.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/republicans_vote_hillary/2008/02/28/76379.html?s=al&promo_code=4616-1

I'll easily pimp myself out for the primaries when it pertains to the balance of the supreme court.

Politicians will never take the initiative to better inform their constituent base. It would be suicide. Instead, they rely on the ignorance of the majority to succeed. This is the most depressing factor.