Hope this wasn't posted earlier.  

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/05/clinton-to-obama-ill-see-your.html

 It has gone by many names and many sponsors and it has died many deaths.  You can google the history of all its incarnations.  But here's just one from 1996:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E5D81139F934A15756C0A960958260

Threatening total obliteration of a country may not be the most productive way to open a dialogue.   It's like thinking waterboarding is a good conversation starter.   
The Bush administration has spent eight years proving the flaw in that mentality.  
But that flaw seems lost on the Senator from New York.  
Will she pick up where that cowboy from Texas left off?
Here's a link to an article that might help us answer that:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811

The Senate is debating a proposal to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. Again. George Bush and other drilling advocates argue that the country needs the estimated 10.5 billion barrels of oil that are believed to lie beneath the refuges coastal tundra in northeastern Alaska to slow the growing dependence on oil imports. The United States now uses about 7.3 billion barrels of oil a year.  
If this proposal is passed, the oil from ANWAR would start flowing in ten or twenty years. How long will the oil from ANWAR last?
There's enough to sustain us for 18 months.  
Well, not us, really. The Department of Defense.  
Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the DoD the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S. And according to the Defence Logistic Agency, as of November 2005 more than 2.1 billion gallons of fuel have been used in support of our invasion of Iraq. Now keep in mind two things. First, that doesn't include the last three years. And second, it's a government figure. The real numbers are probably significantly higher.  
Now there appears to be some ambiguity about why oil is now $120 a barrel, and gas at the pump is reaching $4 a gallon. 
But the answer is pretty apparent.
The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world. (There mus be a volume discount. The next time Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has a press conference, a good question might be whether or not he gets a better price on gas than you do. ) Let there be no mistake. There's a direct correlation between the administration's oil addiction and the administration's war addiction.  The fallacy about ANWAR is that it will decrease our reliance on foreign oil. But evidence suggests that we American consumers aren't the intended beneficiaries of the oil from ANWAR. It would seem, from the statistics above, that the Pentagon is.
Are there better ways to reduce the cost of oil and gas?
If we weren't in a state of perpetual war, the supply of oil on the market would increase exponentially. The price of oil and gas will drop dramatically. So too would the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the environment by the DoD.
Something to think about on your way to the pump.

Iran Protests to U.N. About Clinton Comments

TEHRAN — Iran has lodged a formal protest at the United Nationsabout comments by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that the United States would “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the state-run news agency, IRNA, reported Thursday.

Iran’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, sent a letter of protest on Wednesday to the United Nations secretary general and the United Nations Security Council denouncing the remarks, according to IRNA.

Mrs. Clinton made the comments in an interview on ABC last week. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she said when she was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,” she added.

Mr. Danesh-Yazdi wrote in the letter that Mrs. Clinton’s comments were “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible” and “a flagrant violation” of the United Nations charter, IRNA reported.

We've had a chance to see an uncontested John McCain make speeches and proposals and give interviews.  We've seen him on the straight talk express with his lobbyists.  
My assessment is either democratic candidate can beat him in November.  By a landslide.  
I'm factoring in the Republican attack machine.  Countered by the Democratic attack machine.  ("100 years in Iraq", "most people are better off now economically"). The severely fractured Republican party.  And the lack of enthusiasm to support John McCain.  Even now.  
I've taken into consideration the last eight years of the Bush Administration.  The war.  And the economy.  
And considered the record turnout of newly registered voters and the millions of younger voters that are now as influential as any other voter segment.  
And the record fundraising by the democrats as compared to the Republicans. 
Sen. Clinton would have us believe that John McCain and the Republicans are as strong and united as they were in 2000 and 2004.  

And that we should seriously consider which of the democratic candidates has the best chance of winning the general election.  
She says all that matters is that a democrat win in November. 
I don't buy it.   
All that matters is which democrat will be sworn in January 2009. 
I believe it will be Barack Obama.  
But my post is really about the weakness of the Republican party right now.  
I don't think the polls that show match ups between John McCain and the dems will hold up in November. 
Does anyone have any reason to believe the Republicans will build the same powerful coalition they had after eight years of the Clinton administration?

I don't mind hearing the points of view of Republican pundits.  
To offer an opinion about the effects Rev. Wright has had on Obama is fair. 

But here's how Joe Watkins just characterized it on MSNBC:
"Whites are running from (Obama) in droves."
That's just not civil discourse by any stretch.  
 It's one of the most toxic proclamations I've heard about the race issue.  It's in Sean Hannity territory.  
Maybe I'm wrong.  What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/clinton-criticizing-closu_b_98972.html

As of today, there are more U.S. air craft carriers in the Persian Gulf than anywhere else.  Naval destroyers have been navigating the Strait of Hormuz. 
Here's why:

http://www.peakoil.com/article37985.html

I don't.  
I don't even know who's leading the democratic party.  Do you?  
Howard Dean?   Pelosi?  Reid?  Kerry?  

No?
Is it the Clintons?
Do they represent the moral and ethical values that I identify with?  Will  I have to lower my standards? 
What about the FL and MI issue?   Will the DNC uphold the rules they set and Obama has honored?  Or will they yield to Hillary, fold like lawn chairs and break them?  
Are the leaders of my party powerless?  
They chose to stand idly by and watch two people destroy the unity that was sweeping across the country.  The unity that brought new democrats, young democrats, old democrats, black, white, hispanic and asian democrats all together.
They watched two people divide the party, the country, and essentially recreate the same vindictive relationship there was between Democrats and Republicans in the 90s.
Now there's even a  vindictive relationship just between democrats.  
These "democratic party leaders" and "superdelegates" are watching these same two people assassinate the character of a statesman in their own party. And in so doing, fracture the progress and civility that took decades to make between blacks and whites.  
All because a former first lady is trying to fulfill her own personal sense of entitlement?
That's not democracy. 
That's hijacking democracy.  
And we've just spent the last eight years trying to get it back.  
I'm a democrat now.  
I'll be an independent by November.  

The gas tax holiday is an "old politics" gimmick.   I would have expected this from the Bush administration.  Or someone running for office. 
 The Senator from New York is so in touch with the poor and middle class that she'll give them a half-tank of gas.  

But not for free.  It will cost the federal government an estimated 10 billion.  Where is the government going to get that kind of money? 

Out of the pockets of the poor and middle class.  
Taxes are a real bitch.  

So in addition to scaring people into voting for her, the Senator from New York will pay you to vote for her.  
And then charge you for it later.  

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/a_holiday_from_gas_prices.html

Nine states left.  Hillary is pounding away at Obama.  The media is pounding away at Obama.  The Republicans are pounding away at Obama.   
Rev. Wright couldn't have come back at a worse time.
Obama's campaign hasn't changed tactics.  Aside from doing smaller venues as opposed to stadiums, his message and demeanor is identical to when he started.  
But the dynamics of the race couldn't be more different. 
And Barack isn't hitting back.  In fact, he's quieter than ever.  Some of the speeches he's making now in Indiana are no different than those he made at the very beginning of the race.  Same basic script. 
If Hillary wins Indiana(she's 9pts ahead today), which is 90% white,  she might win pretty big. 
Assuming Barack quietly rides this out, what are your predictions for the outcome in each of the remaining states?
And by the end, do you think Hillary's strategy of convincing the party that he's unelectable will work?

NAFTA-GATE was about Hillary, but that's not how it was reported.  As this dailykos article details quite well. COLOMBIA-GATE was about Hillary too.  The Clinton campaign's lies about free trade are far more damaging than the lie about Bosnia could ever be.  
While telling the voters of Pennsylvania about her opposition to Colombia Free Trade, Hillary's top campaign strategist was in Colombia supporting it.  Bill Clinton was being paid nearly a million to champion it. 
And while Hillary was denying her support for NAFTA the last week before the Ohio primary, the lie about Obama and NAFTAGATE was all over the media.
The Obama campaign doesn't have to insinuate anything about the Clinton's advocacy of free trade.  He doesn't have to spin it to make them look bad.  
All he has to do is tell voters the truth.  And while the Obama campaign calls it negative campaigning, I call it a fair and legitimate and substantive issue to bring up.  Especially in places like Indiana, where Hillary is telling steelworkers how she's all about jobs, jobs, jobs.  
There's a reason George Stephanopolous didn't ask Hillary about the Colombia free trade issue and it wasn't because he ran out of time.  
There's a reason the media didn't follow up on the truth about NAFTA GATE and it isn't because they didn't have all the facts.  
I give the Obama campaign all the praise in the world. They're winning in a way no one thought possible.  
But there's a part of me that can't help but get furious at them for not standing up and defending themselves on the most important economic issue facing people like the voters of Indiana. 
Or at least demand that the media do it's job.  



http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/28/11221/0150/789/504662

Hillary could win all nine remaining primaries by 20pts each and Barack Obama would still come out ahead. (I used the Slate delegate counter.) Many of us know this but I mention this because I'm betting voters in Indiana and North Carolina don't realize this. Bill and Hillary are telling them that if she wins in Indiana, she'll go on to win the nomination. I would even bet that most Clinton supporters(not in the blogoshere but in towns across America), don't really know the reality of this math. And the MSM isn't exactly on a mission to inform voters of the facts. The math favors Obama but the unawareness of the math favors Clinton.  
And that's dangerous. Because if Hillary wins a majority of the remaining contests, and Obama still wins the nomination, the less informed voters(and there are hundreds of thousands of them) will feel like Obama stole the election from Hillary.
That, in turn, will increase the intensity and size of the division among democrats come June.  
Shouldn't the local media make the facts of the delegate math available to all voters?

I have to keep reminding myself that a lot of voters in the upcoming state primaries are just starting to pay attention to what's going on.   
A lot of things that have transpired over the last five months fall through the cracks.  
I remember that long after the rumor about Obama being a Muslim was put to rest, 60 minutes went to PA to talk to some voters.  One guy still thought Obama was Muslim. 
If Bill Clinton tells a crowd that Hillary and Obama are tied in this race, why shouldn't they believe him?  If Hillary talks to steel workers, she's certainly not going to bring up her past support of NAFTA or the fact that her campaign strategist and her husband support Colombia free trade.  Remember when Hillary was telling people at her rallies that Obama was the one who prevented MI and Florida from being counted?  
I wonder if anyone's done a poll about how informed voters in communities across America have been. 
Well, that's why I try and browse local newspapers like this one to see if the national election coverage varies from the local coverage.  
http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage


Here are two links, one for  Indiana newspapers, the other for North Carolina newspapers.   I recommend that people check them out every few days.   It could make the discussion here richer.
http://dir.yahoo.com/news_and_media/newspapers/by_region/u_s__states/Indiana/complete_list/

http://dir.yahoo.com/news_and_media/newspapers/by_region/u_s__states/North_Carolina/complete_list/