Democrats Whining Does Nothing For Their Cause

I would like to address something that occurred this week that made the Democrats look bad; incredibly bad. K-Lo @ NRO addressed this earlier this week:

President George W. Bush spoke to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday morning, to mark the nation’s 60th anniversary. The president said:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along . . . We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Immediately, the Democratic party responded in outrage, insisting it was an unprecedented political attack on their presumptive nominee from foreign soil. Barack Obama himself said: “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack.”

The sheer asininity of their outrage is quite telling. Let us, for a moment, start with the most obvious question that springs to mind. Given that President Bush cannot run for another term, and given that he literally has no stake in this election, why would he fly all the way to Israel to berate Barack Obama? The simple answer is he did not attack Senator Obama with his statement. If his statement is to be taken in context, then even a monkey with two brain cells can see he was referring to the sort of appeasement that was prevalent in the late 1930s when Adolf Hitler was, indeed, rattling a very large saber.

In direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno treaties, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936. In an attempt to appease the dictator, Chamberlain negotiated the Munich Accords on September 30, 1938. In obtaining Hitler's signature, Chamberlain believed the chancellor would be contained, and content with the scraps offered to him. That was not to be the case when an angry and astounded Chamberlain received word that Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia on March 15, 1939. Just six short months later Hitler would launch a lightning-fast assault when he invaded Poland, officially beginning the Second World War.

Appeasement did not work with him because of his desires to conquer the entire continent. This was the point of President Bush's address to the Knesset -- that appeasement will not work with those that have higher goals than what they state, and as a matter of principle appeasement works much like blackmail does. The demands for payment, or concessions, will only grow as the relations continue, and at some point a line will have to be drawn. But with appeasement it matters not because when the line is drawn too much has already been given up.

We see this now in Europe with the appeasement being perpetuated by our "nuanced" cousins from across the pond in how they deal with the violent Islamicists in their midst. France has given in to the point where if any Islamicists carry out an act of violence, the police will roll over at the behest of the government to avoid any sort of confrontations. (This was true under the feckless leadership of Jacques Chirac. To date, Nicolas Sarkozy has not had to deal with the Muslim youths that plagued the latter days of Chirac's regime, so we are not sure how he would address such acts such as the riots in France in 2005 and 2007.)

In Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, provoked stern rebukes and heated criticism when he proposed that a form of shari'a could be instituted and codified under British law. In fact, he claimed that certain aspects had already been adopted into the law, and that they could, presumably make "peace" with the Muslims in Britain that had been calling for such a thing to occur.

We face an enemy today in radical Islam that cannot be appeased. This was the point the president was trying to make. His statement was not reflective of any one person or party, but rather the idea of appeasement itself.

Democrats exploded in indignation at the presumed insinuation that they were who he was referring to, and that Senator Obama was the primary target for his words. Nothing could be further from the truth, but does it not seem odd that their irritation spoke loudly about what they believe? That they would even think that they are equated with appeasers? It speaks loudly to us. Some people seem to have a guilty conscience if they are to get upset over such a non-specific statement. President Bush did not say "Democrats" or "Senator Obama." It would not be prudent, nor would it be proper before the Knesset.

If Democrats have a problem with being painted as appeasers, maybe they might consider changing that outlook. And it should start with who they claim they would speak with in this world. Not every head of state is a friend of ours. Many would like to see America a smoking hulk of a nation. Democrats, and Senator Obama, might take that into consideration when they support a dialogue with nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba. Furthermore, we would suggest to them to take statements that might embarrass them into context before speaking up, and ending up with egg all over their faces.

Marcie

ADDENDUM: Thomas reminded me of this post at Little Green Footballs from Friday. In it, Charles Johnson highlights a piece in the Seattle Times where editor Bruce Ramsey penned the following:

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before—and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.

The emphasis for the first sentence in the second paragraph is not mine, but rather it is Mr. Johnson's. It is the one line that should stick out in everyones mind because, in essence, Mr. Ramsey just defended Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the annexation of Austria.

Why do I bring this up? Well, for starters, it is disgusting that a newspaper editor in this day and age would make such a statement, and use it to defend Senator Obama who, by his own statement during the CNN/YouTube debate, would negotiate with our enemies. But, I bring it up for this snort--worthy attempt to "revise" history; namely the one created by Mr. Ramsey himself. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Ramsey has edited his blog entry to omit the phrase that obviously caused a level of furor. This is how it reads now:

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

The narrative we’re given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany’s claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.

So the British and French let him have it. Their thought was: “Now you have your Greater Germany.” They didn’t want a war. They were not superpowers like the United States is now. They remembered the 1914-1918 war and how they almost lost it.

In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless—and the British and French did not appease Hitler any more. Thus the lesson of Munich: don’t appease Hitlers.

The phrase is still there, but now it is buried under a caveat that starts the paragraph off, and there is no mention at all regarding why it was changed. It is obvious that Mr. Ramsey's opinion still stands -- that the demands of Hitler were not unreasonable -- but he has a "preemptive caveat" followed by a post-spin caveat. Additionally, his extra emphasis regarding the course of history, while not incorrect, was unneeded. His previous explanation in the above piece was sufficient to suit his needs.

It is sad that his supporters, minions, and willing enablers in the MSM take the public for fools in a day and age when information and news move at nanosecond increments. A note to Mr. Ramsey: People are not fooled, sir, and your attempt to obfuscate makes you look all the more foolish.

Marcie

Senator Clinton's Chickens Come Home to Roost

The basic gist of the piece in question, from this morning's Boston Globe is that Senator Clinton and former President Bill Clinton have both made a good deal of enemies during their terms in politics. This is especially true of Democrats that, while they say past slights are not the primary reason for turning their backs on the Clintons, it did make the decision much, much easier:

When Democratic superdelegate Jim Cooper, a Tennessee congressman, pondered the choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, his thoughts wandered back to 1993. That year, Clinton was trying to change the nation's health system, and Cooper, a moderate Democrat, had a bipartisan healthcare bill of his own that, unlike Clinton's proposal, did not require employers to provide health coverage.

The president's wife, Cooper recalled, was determined to stop her fellow Democrat. "She set up a war room in the White House to defeat me," he said.

Like many superdelegates, Cooper insists that his endorsement of Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination was driven by Obama's inspiring message. But the Tennessee lawmaker's past disputes with Clinton and her husband certainly made the decision easier.

For Clinton, holding one of the most famous names in Democratic politics has had both advantages and disadvantages as she has sought to persuade superdelegates to make her the nominee. Much of the Democratic establishment jumped to Clinton's side early, rewarding her and her husband for years of friendship and shared political struggles, giving the New York senator a large lead in superdelegates at the beginning of the campaign.

But the reality of the Clintons' relationship with fellow Democrats was always more complicated.

As even some Clinton supporters concede, there are many superdelegates who have had issues with the Clintons. And now, when the New York senator most needs the loyalties of her Democratic colleagues, the checkered history of relations between the Clintons and Democratic officials is making the task tougher, say lawmakers and political analysts.

"The Clintons have a lot of enemies, even in the same Democratic establishment that embraced them," said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "Now that it looks like she's done . . . there's not a lot of reason [for them] to stick their necks out for her."

While Bill Clinton launched an upstart campaign in 1992 with his loyal team of FOBs, Friends of Bill, Senator Clinton is now dealing with the fallout from years of disagreements and perceived slights lawmakers have felt over the years.

"This is part of the problem with being in politics for so long: You not only make friends; you make enemies," said Jon Delano, a political analyst at Carnegie Mellon University.

Now if one does not read beyond this opening page, you would believe that Mr. Cooper is the only one to have a grievance with Senator Clinton. Enter page two where the Globe gives a few more examples of those that have had problems with her, and all the names are recognizable:

They include Senator Robert Casey Jr., a Pennsylvania Democrat whose father, Governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, was prevented from speaking at the 1992 Democratic National Convention after a dispute with Bill Clinton over abortion. The elder Casey said at the time that he was being punished for his antiabortion stance, but he also refused to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket at the time.

Former vice president Al Gore, who sometimes sparred with the president's wife during the Clinton administration, has remained silent.

Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat whom Hillary Clinton criticized after he made a botched joke about Bush that was perceived as an attack on US troops in Iraq, has endorsed Obama.

Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who disagreed with Hillary Clinton on healthcare changes when he was Nebraska governor and her husband was in the White House, has endorsed Obama.

Representative Niki Tsongas, a Lowell Democrat whose late husband, former senator Paul Tsongas, endured negative attacks by Bill Clinton in the 1992 campaign, has not yet endorsed a candidate.

The Globe is right to remind readers that in politics you do make friends, but you also make enemies and those that you do upset have a habit of coming back to bite you when you need them the most. Senator Clinton, as far as we are concerned, is finished with regard to the presidential election. Senator Obama will end up with the nomination, and the race that follows will be a bitter one. Bitter in the regard that we are not sure if Senator Clinton will actively campaign for her rival, or if she will remain silent; content to cause a fight at the convention in August.

One thing is sure: Senator Clinton has made a great deal of enemies. Republicans remember her condescending, lie-ensconced life as First Lady, and they also remember how nasty she was when she became a senator from New York. She was one of the first to lambaste and lash out at President Bush post-9/11. But it seems that the animosity that Republicans have for her is nothing compared to that which Democrats have for her after run-ins with her not only as First Lady, but also as a senator.

Indeed, her chickens are coming home to roost, and it took long enough for them to begin hammering her for her contentious attitude and behavior. The old adage that "revenge is a dish best served cold" comes to mind with Senator Clinton, and her failure to become the most powerful woman in America.

Marcie

Operation Mosul commences; 1000 detained; Pelosi moving the goalposts?

This is a report from Reuters that talks about the operations currently underway in Mosul where the Iraqi military, reinforced by US troops, are taking back the last remaining province under AQI control, and AQI is losing badly:

Iraqi forces have detained more than 1,000 suspects in an offensive aimed at crushing al-Qaida in northern Iraq, the military commander of the operation said on Saturday.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki returned to Baghdad on Saturday after spending several days in the city of Mosul and surrounding Nineveh province to supervise the crackdown.

Many gunmen from Sunni Islamist al-Qaida have regrouped in Nineveh after being pushed out of other areas. The U.S. military said Mosul is al-Qaida's last major urban stronghold in Iraq.

Lieutenant-General Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, head of the Iraqi-led offensive that began a week ago, said 1,068 suspects had been detained so far.

"This operation will last until we finish off all the terrorist remnants and outlaws," he said.

On Friday, Maliki said fighters who handed in their weapons within 10 days would be given an amnesty and unspecified cash rewards. His offer applies to gunmen who have not killed anyone.

Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Mohammed al-Askari said scores of militants had already handed over their guns.

"We are committed to the amnesty and have reassured them there will be no judicial pursuit against them," he said, adding the government would soon make public the compensation available for different kinds of weapons handed in. ...

An influx of additional U.S. troops last year and a decision by Sunni Arab tribes to turn against al-Qaida has enabled U.S. and Iraqi forces to push the militants out of Baghdad and the western province of Anbar, their former strongholds.

The Iraqi military wants to repeat that success in Mosul.

Police and soldiers have raided some towns on the Syrian border, where many foreign al-Qaida fighters enter Iraq, as part of the operation and turned over some suspects to U.S. forces.

In late March, Maliki took control of a military operation against Shiite militias in the southern oil city of Basra. The operation started badly, as the Mehdi Army of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr put up fierce resistance.

Iraqi troops, backed by the U.S. military, gradually took control of Basra but fighting spread to Baghdad, drawing security forces into daily gun battles with militiamen claiming allegiance to Sadr.

A week-old truce deal between Sadr's parliamentary bloc and the ruling Shiite alliance has helped ease fighting, especially in capital's Shiite slum of Sadr City, a Mehdi Army bastion.

Residents said Sadr City was quiet on Saturday. Police said they were able to gain access to parts of the slum to start clearing streets of roadside bombs.

Things seem to be going well with the Mosul offensive. The Sadrists that seem to be working with AQI are giving up the ghost, and AQI is now trapped in Mosul. They'll either fight or they'll surrender. Either way this goes the offensive will continue until AQI is driven from Iraq, or destroyed outright there.

It should be noted that Nancy Pelosi has made a surprise visit to Iraq and that her view of the surge has changed significantly:

The prime minister returned to Baghdad from Mosul — where he has been overseeing the crackdown — to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who made a surprise visit to Iraq on Saturday.

Pelosi, a top Democratic critic of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, expressed confidence that expected provincial elections will promote national reconciliation.

She welcomed Iraq's progress in passing a budget as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power among local officials.

"We're assured the elections will happen here, they will be transparent, they will be inclusive and they will take Iraq closer to the reconciliation we all want it to have," said Pelosi. She also met with Iraq's parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.

Captain Ed notes that Paul Mirengoff over at PowerLine speculates that this change in her tune maybe a precursor to a change in their rhetoric. Namely that if there's success, the Democrats can declare Iraq won and push for a withdrawal of troops. While there me a bit of truth to the speculation, it'd still be foolish to withdraw troops now. Iraq is not entirely secure, and if AQI manages to slip through the noose, we still have work to do in Iraq. A withdrawal now might foment a destabilization with the influx of new fighters through either Syria or Iran. If that happens, and the situation deteriorates, we will have guaranteed defeat instead of victory.

Publius II

The New York Times swings and whiffs again on McCain

In today's New York Times reporter Matt Bai examines "The McCain Doctrines" with regard to his experience dealing with national security matters. Bai swings and strikes out badly in his assessment and hypothesis that John McCain knows little of war because he was a POW in Vietnam:

There is a feeling among some of McCain’s fellow veterans that his break with them on Iraq can be traced, at least partly, to his markedly different experience in Vietnam. McCain’s comrades in the Senate will not talk about this publicly. They are wary of seeming to denigrate McCain’s service, marked by his legendary endurance in a Hanoi prison camp, when in fact they remain, to this day, in awe of it. And yet in private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; he never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol. Whatever anger McCain felt remained focused on his captors, not on his own superiors back in Washington.

Not all of McCain’s fellow veterans subscribe to the theory that the singularity of his war experience has anything to do with his intransigence on Iraq. (Bob Kerrey, for one, told me that while he was aware of this argument, he has never believed it.) But some suspect that whatever lesson McCain took away from his time in Vietnam, it was not the one that stayed with his colleagues who were “in country” during those years — that some wars simply can’t be won on the battlefield, no matter how long you fight them, no matter how many soldiers you send there to die. ...

“I have seen this movie before, and I know how it ends,” says Cleland, who lost three of his limbs to an errant grenade during the battle of Khe Sanh. “With thousands dead and tens of thousands more injured, and years later you ask yourself what you were doing there. To the extent my friend John McCain signs on to this, he is endangering America’s long-term interests, and probably his own election in the fall.” ...

[I'll correct Bai here on the fact that Cleland didn't lose his limbs on the battlefield. He lost them while no in combat, having beers with his fellow soldiers. It was an accident, and wasn't caused by any action he saw at Khe Sanh.]

If it is true that McCain’s Vietnam experience left him with a different attitude about foreign wars from the one held by those who were on the ground, then it certainly wasn’t apparent earlier in his political career. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, after he arrived in the Senate, McCain was, in fact, an outspoken opponent of American intervention in faraway lands — at least in cases where the country wasn’t willing to lose thousands of lives to achieve its aims. But during the post-cold-war 1990s, as America’s foreign-policy establishment struggled to define the nation’s obligations to the rest of the world, McCain went through his own kind of inner journey, seeking some balance between the legacy of Vietnam and the pull of new crises around the globe — crises born of savagery and rife with human consequence. That journey led him inexorably toward Iraq, where McCain’s resolve hardened to the point that now, as he prepares to run the climactic campaign of his life, he finds himself carrying the weight of another war, one that has divided the country and devastated his party. One way or the other, Iraq will determine this last phase of McCain’s political life, as surely as the war in Vietnam defined its beginning.

The idea that his time in a prison camp somehow sealed him away from the horrors of war is preposterous. His captors regularly tortured him and his mates. Everyone likes to point out he was afforded special treatment because his captors knew who he was. But after trying to send him home, and his blatant refusal to go, things changed. Beatings and other abuses were meted out by the guards. On two occasions McCain tried to hang himself in his cell, only to be cut down by the guards and severely beaten. Point of fact -- this experience showed John McCain exactly what a totalitarian, abusive regime was like.

He didn't need to be on the ground to understand war. In fact, John McCain did something that John Kerry, Jim Webb, and Max Cleland didn't do. After the war was over, he went to the National War College to study up on war and it's effects. Add twenty-plus years service on numerous congressional committees that dealt with veteran's affairs and national security, and you get a man who brings a unique experience to the national security credentials debate.

Basically what Bai is trying to tell readers is that because of his experience, the fact he enlisted freely, and he has a distinguished military history within his family, John McCain can't be trusted. He's a war monger. This is another ludicrous accusation that Bai can't back up. He tries to equate Vietnam to Iraq (oh, where have we heard this meme before?) and fails there, as well. There are very few similarities to Iraq and Vietnam. While critics point to the argument that, like Vietnam, our soldiers had a problem distinguishing friend from foe, soldiers returning from Iraq brush off the insinuation. They knew who the enemy was.

John McCain's national security experience makes him far more qualified to be commander-in-chief. In fact he understands the horrors of war far better than Barack Obama does. Obama was born in 1961, and just missed being able to serve in Vietnam. There were no wars when he was growing up, save Gulf War I, which by then he was already well on his way in his chosen career. The fact that Obama couldn't see the necessity to go into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein speaks volumes in terms of his critical thinking capabilities. Saddam was funding and giving sanctuary to terrorists all across the region, including al Qaeda. He was a threat to the region because of his ambitions. We can argue over his WMDs, which weren't the primary reason for going into Iraq even though critics always claim they were, but it doesn't change the fact that in deposing him, the region is a bit more stable now with a free, democratic Iraq than it was with a dictator in charge.

The Times really needs to give up these attacks on John McCain. Since endorsing him on 25 January of this year the Times has unleashed hit-piece after hit-piece, and they constantly miss the mark. Whether this is a contrived effort to see if he'll lose his cool is unknown, but what we do know is that every time they draw a bead on him -- despite their thunder and gnashing of teeth -- the charge never sticks. It's embarrassing to see the Times keep this up. And they wonder why their paper is slowly dying on the vine.

Publius II

New Issue Up!!!

Today is the 16th of May, and that means that Mr. Lindaman has published his magazine Common Conservative, and it is awaiting your attention. I will give you a rundown of who is what this issue in a second, but first the reminder.



This post will remain at the top of the page until tomorrow. If there are any newer posts, they will be below this one so scroll down.



Mr. Lindaman begins this issue with a piece on the group of nuts that intend on "recreating" the chaos of the 1968 Democrat convention this year.



Mr. Simoneaux discusses racism, and explains why those who spout racist rants should simply be ignored.



Mr. Shanahan is still on hiatus, but feel free to check out his archives here.



Thomas and I decided to try something new, and we go over ten questions about the election thus far.



Starting off the guest portion is Thomas with his take on an extraordinarily foolish speech given by Gordon Brown which calls on America to cast aside her Declaration of Independence.



Richard Parker Robison is next, and he recounts a meeting with a "terror boss" from his CIA days; he also explains that these are the ones we are hunting now.



Ralph Reiand is next and he explains that a recent uptick in violence in Chicago may have something to do with the Jeremiah Wright flap that has been going on now for some time.



J.J. Jackson discusses Senator Clinton's predilection for embellishment, and he nails her on her recent remarks pertaining to OPEC.



John Lillpop has a short, sweet, and to-the-point piece on why Howard Dean should be seen as the feckless buffoon he is.



And, closing out this issue is Robert Meyer who reviews Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."



As always we do hope you enjoy reading these fine writers, and that you come away with some critical thinking regarding what you're read.



Marcie

Facts rear an ugly head

On the heels of the worthless endorsement from John Edwards, I have to include this because I'm sure Obama isn't looking out for this.

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs posted two important pieces in the last 24 hours. The first was posted yesterday and it's a post that has a picture of the cover of the Trumpet magazine with Barack Obama's and Louis Farrakhan's picture on it. Additionally, the lizardoid army identified 11 of the 19 pictures on that cover. He notes that there is a picture missing that should definitely have been present. That of Dr. Martin Luther King.

The second post came today and it has the other two issues that have Louis Farrakhan on the cover. Now, Obama isn't on the cover of the other two, and maybe he missed seeing those two. But he couldn't say he missed the first one that had his picture on the cover. The man does like admiring his accomplishments, no matter how few he may have.

Stanley Kurtz wrote about the magazine at The Weekly Standard for the 19 May issue. It's not a pretty picture given what he's dug up.

I'm sure some readers are yawning at this, and to each their own. But you should understand that to win against him, we have to play offense. His ties to Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church speaks directly to the character of the man who wants to be president. And this doesn't paint a pretty picture. We've already listened to and transcribed Michelle Obama's speeches, which sound strikingly like Jeremiah Wright on a rant. Again, we go to character. His is in serious question right now.

He has ties to a man whose fate is being determined by a jury of his peers right now on corruption and money laundering charges. He has ties to two unrepentant domestic terrorists. He navigated the swamps of the Chicago Way of politics. He shows every nuance of a typical, hard-Left liberal who has his sights set on drastically changing this nation, and it won't be for the good.

It's time to take the gloves off. McCain will need ever bit of help from the center-right 'Sphere, from talk radio, and from grassroots activists. We know he's not liked by the base, but neither Marcie, nor myself, will cede this nation -- the war, the economy, and the courts -- to the likes of Barack Obama, and his radical sense of "change," and his twisted ideas of "hope."

Publius II

"Major" Obama endorsement to come from Edwards

This was talked about earlier today with so many people speculating who it would be. MSNBC confirms that it will come from John Edwards:


NBC News has confirmed that former Sen. John Edwards, who ended his bid for the Democratic nomination earlier this year, will endorse Sen. Barack Obama tonight.

Edwards, who was Sen. John Kerry's running mate in 2004, will be introduced by the Illinois senator at his campaign event tonight in Grand Rapids, Mich.


OK, all at once now -- YAWN. Whoopty-doo. Who cares? We knew this was going to happen. Who else would he endorse, Hillary? He wouldn't be picking up a job from Hillary if she were elected, but there's speculation that Edwards, in an Obama administration, would be his Attorney General. And yes, that shudder up your spine wasn't imagined. It was real. We know because we got it too.


But what does this endorsement bring to the table? According to this Politico piece from 3 May the endorsement doesn't mean much:

For all the speculation surrounding John Edwards’ conspicuous silence on the eve of his home state’s primary, one important fact has been overlooked: According to North Carolina’s political class, the former Democratic presidential contender has virtually no clout at all in his home state.

The former senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, they say, was like a political comet. He seemingly appeared out of nowhere, inspired awe with the intensity of his talent, blazed through a single term in the Senate, then disappeared from the radar almost entirely.

“The guy is truly an exceptional story, but for someone who is so well-known nationally, he has very little standing in the party in this state,” says John Davis, president of the North Carolina Forum for Research and Economic Education (NCFREE), a business-backed organization that conducts political research. “You simply do not hear his name associated with the work in the vineyards and making a difference in terms of fundraisers or endorsements.”

Insiders agree that even if Edwards decided to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, he would have no discernable political organization to fire up on their behalf.

If this is his idea of being one of many people to endorse him in the wake of the West Virginia whooping he took, Obama could have found someone better to come out for him. Edwards comes off as a disingenuous shyster, and an untrustworthy ambulance chaser that didn't catch and hold any fire when he was running in the primaries. Need we remind readers of the little plot he tried to hatch with Hillary about excluding others from future debates because the other candidates weren't "serious" enough for them? John Edwards is a snake, and his endorsement means little to political junkies and pundits.

No doubt the MSM is going to spin this endorsement as "major" or a "huge boost" for Obama, which is bunk. Let little Johnnie have his five minutes of fleeting fame for the history books (barely worth a footnote, in our opinion). He'll put his two cents in, and tomorrow most people will forget that he'll go on a cable network that continually ranks dead last amongst all of them, and with an endorsement that means little in the first place.

Publius II