Bad news
There are growing indications that either one of the two presidential candidates that had backed Bush's decision to invade Iraq John ("One Hundred" Years") McCain or Hillary ("Won't Apologize") Clinton are going to end-up in the White House. And to get an idea of what's going to happen after the election, read this bipartisan manifesto and this "analysis" by a New York Times' cheerleader for the Iraq War who wasn't fired. I also remain very skeptical about the notion advanced by some analysts about the realist resurgence in Washington led supposedly by Gates and Rice. I don't buy that wishful thinking. I just see tactical adjustments here and there. But consider the following: If either McCain or Clinton are chosen by their parties as the presidential candidates, Bush-Cheney are then left with a wide window of opporunity (say from June to November) to take U.S. military action against Iran (which will probably be in response to some Iranian "provocation") or to give Israel the "green light" to do that. Is Hillary going to oppose U.S. backing for such an Israeli action. Or is she going to refuse to "support our troops" fighting against the "Hitler in Tehran." I don't think so.
Comments
Look for his luck to sour in coming states that dont allow non-registered Republicans to vote in the Republican primary. I have a hard time believing that some dont know how he stands on immigration and voting for him because he seems "tough" to them. Its amazing.
The traditional Republicans need to make a choice on which of the others they prefer (Romney, Thompson, Huckabee) and get behind one of them. Ron Paul, bless his heart, is too far behind unless he can really pull a rabbit out of his hat in the next few primaries. Guiliani should get the hell out, but I hope he doesn't and contiues to take votes from McCain.
The Dems are passing, in my opinion, on their most electable candidate in Edwards. He would have more appeal, and has a more extensive record than either Clinton or Obama. He also has been successful in life as a lawyer. Obama was a damned community "activist" before getting into politics (which makes me about sick personally) and we all know what Clinton has been her whole life.
I will say this to any that read this blog. Don't let the goddamned media pick your presidential candidate for you. VOTE. Even if they say its all over but the crying, vote anyway. The closer the election results, the less of a "mandate" the winner has. You would NOT want to send the message to the party that McCain is what we overwhelmingly want even in defeat folks. I voted for that nut, Alan Keyes, in the 2000 primary when it was down to just Keyes and Bush in my state because they were the only two left running. I expected Bush to be open-borders because of his vagueness on the issue back then, and I was right. I also resented how he was "anointed" by the mainsteream media and instinctively distrusted him based on that and from some of the "unusual" sources of his funding by folks who normally give to the Democrats way back when and how much "establishment" money he got also. I was right in voting against him, if only others had been as discerning we might have avoided the last eight years of nuttiness altogether.
For four more years of "invade-the-world-invite-the-world", vote for McCain or dont vote at all.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
I kinda get the same feeling.