Gingrich has seen enough from his GOP

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of parodies on YouTube featuring a scene from "Downfall," a movie about Hitler's last 10 days. The clip lends itself to very humorous twisting; the monologue is in German, and folks have written subtitles that tell, among many things, the Fuehrer's anger with Vista, having his car stolen, and the Buffalo Bills signing Terrell Owens.

The Forth Estate has joined the fray with its take on how New Gingrich must be feeling about his party these days. The content, while R-rated, is current; hopefully the subtle ironies come across as well as "Newt's" bombastic pronouncements.

Be sure to click HQ in the lower right corner for cleaner subtitles.

Enjoy.

Bulldog Fleischer still peddling Iraq-9/11 connection

Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush, was a guest on MSNBC's Harball with Chris Matthews Wednesday, and it was cable news gold.

Clearly, Fleischer is a dyed-in-the-wool Bush apologist, his every appearance on television a verbatim rehashing of the tired lines sold to the American public nearly six years ago.

Beyond the obligatory repulsiveness of Fleischer's arrogant and dismissive nature, he made a couple of outrageous, though unoriginal, comments during the shout fest, at least one of which struck a chord with Matthews' well-informed viewership.

In all fairness, though he is very charismatic and isn't the kind of host to allow guests to skirt questions, Matthews will push a point when he feels it's popular with Americans, and his willingness to talk over guests in search of the answer he wants can grate even his most faithful. 

In contrast with the nastiness of rubes like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, however, Matthews is a kitten. 

Besides, Fleischer deserved the roasting he received.

YES, THEY STILL DO THIS

His first comment was to conflate the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 with the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Said Fleischer: "After September 11th, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam might not strike again? And that's the threat that's been removed …"

Fleischer spoke with Matthews today to "clarify" his comments, saying he didn't intend to suggest Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but that he had struck his neighbors before and might turn his sites on the U.S.

Of course, there is no mistaking what he actually said. Not only was his first statement a direct implication of Saddam in the attack on America, but his follow-up, "… that's the threat that's been removed …," is a clear indication of how former Bushies want to keep spinning his legacy: It was Saddam, not al Qaeda terrorists, that posed the greatest danger to this country, and now he is gone because of Bush.

Frank Gaffney, Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, took to the air Thursday to defend Fleischer, apparently right after discussing the game plan with him so as to utilize the same Clintonesque syntax semantics.

Gaffney's performance was more of the same kabuki theater Americans have come to expect from Neo-Con automatons who, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, will go to their graves insisting not only that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but the reasons given have stood the test of time. 

They are not saying Saddam was behind 9/11 … even though he was, but they're not saying that … but he was.

SO, WHEN DOES A PRESIDENT BECOME THE PRESIDENT?

The most outrageous statement from Fleischer was during a heated exchange where he used common phrases of Republican indignation like, "How dare you," and, "What you just did is shameful." Of course, what else can he say when he's dead wrong?

His comments were, though, of the most maddening spin that has ever come from the GOP.

Fleischer, as do all Bush's former aides, touted the one factual claim of "success" they have: The country has not been attacked since 9/11.

When Matthews took him to task on this standard of success, pointing out Bush was in office when the country was attacked on 9/11 and, by Fleischer's own measure, Bush's administration was an epic failure, Fleischer feigned moral outrage that someone would ever put that off on a president.

Yes, really.

THE PARTY OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

There was a lustful eagerness within the GOP following 9/11 to blame President Clinton for the attack. Of course, there was never a Republican acceptance of responsibility for the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, just more than a month into Clinton's presidency; that, too, was his fault.

And, despite an economy that has been reeling and hemorrhaging job for nearly two years, there are fringe folks within the GOP — no, that doesn't completely encapsulate the party … yet — who blame President Obama for the current financial crisis.

Of course, that didn't stop Fleischer from asking Matthews, were the country to be attacked soon, if Obama would be blamed.

It truly becomes impossible to wrap one's head around the arguments/justifications/rationalizations of Bush's legion of hacks, and it's never advisable to try to get into the mind of sociopaths. But, we can still have some fun with it.

So … when the WTC was bombed 37 days into his presidency, killing six, it was Clinton's fault. Then the country was attacked in four separate incidences on 9/11 — eight months into Bush's presidency — killing nearly 3,000. But this was not Bush's fault.

Then, in the 2004 campaign against John Kerry, Dick Cheney said America had better vote for Bush, or "the danger is, we'll get hit again."

Republicans tried the same ploy against Obama last year, only to realize most of America had tuned out their ridiculous rhetoric and were not about to be scared into voting for the wrong guy again.

In the waning days of Bush's time in office, the legacy spin machine was in full effect, with Dick et al telling everyone who would listen what a great job the administration had done to prevent further attacks.

DON'T BLAME ME, I WAS AT THE RANCH

Which brings us back to 9/11. Most folks forget Bush not only had been in office for nearly eight months prior to the attack, but he also took a month-long vacation from early August to early September. 

Former CIA Director George Tenet said he did not have a single briefing with Bush during August, despite CIA fears there was an imminent attack in the works.

And there was the Aug. 6 Presidential daily briefing, entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

All of this begs questions even a child would ask, many of which have already been posed. But there's no point in submitting the most crucial: How can Republicans constantly preach personal responsibility when they never accept any for their failures? No one will ever answer. 

But there is this one worth mentioning, even rhetorically: When will you pink old fools shut up and go away?

One View for Four Faces

Lost in the great debate of Rush Limbaugh's place in the hierarchy of Republican leadership was an almost unnoticed remark the entertainer made a few days ago regarding open primaries. 

For those unfamiliar with the process, many states allow voters of any political affiliation to cast their ballot for anyone during the presidential primary season. Thus, an Indiana Democrat can vote for a Republican candidate in May, and vice versa.

Limbaugh, in yet another flurry of mostly unintelligent and brazenly ironic arguments, sounded off against the open primary system and charged RNC Chair Michael Steele with ridding the GOP of the possible onslaught of Democrats seeking to subvert Republican elections.

What is the term psychologists use?

No one can forget Operation Chaos, Limbaugh's infamous attempt to derail then-candidate Barack Obama's building momentum by encouraging Republicans to cross over and help nominate Hillary Clinton last Spring. 

At the time, almost exactly a year ago, Obama was cruising through 11 straight primary victories; John McCain was already the presumptive GOP nominee, so the party could afford to shed some votes "for the cause." Many pundits believed Clinton a weaker foe.

There is some evidence to suggest the ploy worked, namely in Texas and Indiana. Texas voting statistics showed Clinton won the lion's share of cross-over vote, and she also faired very well in Indiana's rural, thus red, counties. Clinton edged Obama in both states.

Apparently, Limbaugh is now terrified that his cute little game, which might have won a few battles but ultimately lost the war, could now be used against the GOP in 2012. 

While there was much gnashing of teeth at Limbaugh's hijinx, many Democrats will likely employ the tactics next time around. Obama won't have a primary fight, so Dems could wage a little chaos of their own and have a big hand in determining the president's general election opponent.

HYPOCRISY KNOWS NO HOME

Unfortunately, the "my rules apply to everyone but me" doctrine is owned by those on the left, as well. There is no greater example of this truth than liberals who insist on freedom of speech but are the very first to slap someone down when their sensitivities have been offended.

There is little more maddening to thoughtful, centrist Dems or liberal-leaning Independents than the senseless whining from weak-principled leftists who demand their voices be heard on any agenda they've set, yet will let loose the dogs of war when some crackpot calls basketball players "nappy-headed hoes."

Limbaugh again recently provided the chum by enthusiasticallly cheering for President Obama to fail. His statements, liberals complain, are tantamount to treason — Limbaugh hates America and wants the country to fail.

While Limbaugh may very well be the woman willing to let King Solomon cut the baby in half lest it not be her's alone, are his views really treasonous? Really?

During President Bush's 8 years in office, many books were written on the subject of "unpatriotic liberals" who wanted to destroy America. Psychotics such as Ann Coulter have penned their nonsense on the topic.

But now Democrats are in power, so it is they who decide who hates America.

"PATRIOTISM IS THE VIRTUE OF THE VICIOUS"

All of this makes for great theater and coffee house debate, but none of it remotely promotes the civil discourse and progression of this country. 

You'll find no argument on this blog against the notion Limbaugh and his "ditto heads" — and seriously, only fools would proudly proclaim themselves so devoid of intellectual reasoning and thought as to blindly mirror a radio clown — have only their interests in mind. They are the Joker, happy to set fire to that which they cannot control and gleefully watch it all burn.

But how does becoming that with which you disagree elevate the discussion? How does the devotion of so much energy to proving the radical right looneys of the world aren't "real Americans" help the American cause?

Pointing out and discussing "unpatriotic" comments is, of course, necessary; evil ignored and left to its own devices is the scariest of subversives. The harm is not the acknowledgment of the lesser ideals of man, but the way in which those ideals are rejected.

If Dad witnesses a fool being a fool and uses a four-letter word to describe him, his daughter has learned less about that which she shouldn't do and more about nastiness and contempt of her fellow man. 

But if Dad points out the foolish behavior and explains to his little one "why we don't do that," she has learned something that will help her grow and be an example to others.

Oscar Wilde's famous quote is well-taken: When will those who claim to love America use their patriotism as a constructive means for all and not the tip of a spear aimed at those with whom they disagree? When will adults stop speaking and thinking and reasoning as children? When will those who espouse a belief apply it to themselves?

With the greatest sense of hope, and likely naiveté, that time might spring from Obama's leadership.

If Jindal was the answer, what was the question?

Since President Obama's speech spoke quite well for itself — and reaction to it was well received across the board — the less viewed, though roundly rebuffed, Republican response deserves special attention.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal might have set a Guinness record for the fastest flameout in presidential primary history — and there's still four years until the next election!

While Jindal probably jockeyed to deliver the Republican rebuttal to President Obama's speech, it's likely he met little resistance; there were probably few Republicans eager to follow a very popular president with their very unpopular stance on the recently legislated stimulus bill.

Jindal, who apparently (yay!) leads the cast of characters vying for leadership of the party, used his address as a means to introduce himself on the national stage. He started with an ill-advised and poorly-delivered story about his mother's emigration to the U.S. and how, since he was conceived in another country, his in utero status was a "pre-existing condition."

It's hard to imagine the nation's youngest governor could follow with anything worse … though not impossible.

The first and most enduring impression of Jindal was his tone, sounding more like he was speaking to school children than the kind of political wonk who would stay tuned at 10:50 EST to hear the GOP counterpoint.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews perfectly captured the collective national sentiment, and this before Jindal opened his mouth. The set quieted as Jindal rounded the corner, appearing more like a cardboard cutout than a warm body. As the stiff approached his spot in front of the camera, Matthews quietly uttered, "Oh gawd."

Exactly.

Beyond the inanities expected from a hard-right ideologue, whose indignation about deficit spending appears only when it's the other party doing the spending, Jindal dropped one stunning note that defied logic.

Imagine, a Republican from Louisiana using the disastrous Bush administration reaction in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as an example of why government doesn't work.

Really?!

Jindal clearly fails to understand that folks have not turned against government in general, but against the Republican way of governing specifically. One cannot point to his own failures and expect to believably paint others with the same brush.

Some might meet Jindal's postulation with incredulity, but c'mon — this is who they are! His entire monologue was predicated both on returning to failed policies that brought about the predicament in which this country is embroiled, and the expectation that the electorate is so ignorant they will believe in the Republican's fantasy notion of a high speed rail line from Disney Land to Las Vegas.

Viewers were likely pleading for one original thought or substantive idea. As has often been the case the last 8 years, they were disappointed.

In any case, Democrats certainly slept more comfortably last night with the knowledge Jindal is the new face of the Republican party.

A Party Divided

Democrats as a party — Nancy Pelosi (CA) in particular, and President Obama and Harry Reid (NV) to a lesser, though still substantial, extent — have endured pointed criticism from Republican congressmen the last several weeks over what they say, motivated by legitimate concern, political principle or partisan posturing, is an ill-conceived and grossly overreaching economic stimulus bill.

In recent days, the party has turned its aim from political foes, its membership now leveling their sights on each other in what might unfold as an ideological civil war that could split the party between a small yet powerful faction that still believes in Newt Gingrich's manifesto of GOP demagoguery, and those who awoke November 5 to a new world order and realized the futility in reiterating failed practices while expecting a different result. 

The rift has arisen between many Republican governors and their party's congressional leadership. While there are a few vocal critics of the bill — many of them having national political aspirations — most of the 22 Republican governors understand the extraordinary benefits an influx of new cash would have as their states suffer from declining revenues and mounting budget deficits. 

Unlike Senate and House representatives, who spend the lion's share of their time in Washington, many of whom having lost touch completely with their constituents, governors live at ground zero and deal directly with business closures, job losses, home foreclosures and staggering unemployment claims. 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, an ardent supporter of the stimulus package, had to fight California state Republicans in order to increase tax revenues in a marathon budget session to counter a $42B deficit, garnering only six GOP votes for the measure. At the state's Republican Convention, a vice chairman condemned the Governator as a "kidney stone" that will take another year to pass, and a few petulant delegates even crafted an "apology" to recalled Gov. Gray Davis, an obvious swipe at Schwarzenegger.

Governors Charlie Crist (FL) and Mitch Daniels (IN) have also opted for pragmatism, recognizing the benefits this windfall of cash will produce. Crist took the unusual step of openly championing the bill, even going so far as to introduce the president at a speech in Florida two weeks ago. The governor has been lambasted for his efforts.

Utah Gov. Jim Huntsman, Jr. sounded the sharpest criticism, blasting Washington GOPers as "inconsequential," saying their leadership is so lacking that he's completely uninterested in anything they have to say. 

But then, Huntsman admitted he's taking cues from Gingrich, so there's that.

THEATRE OF PAIN

This provides the lead-in for President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress tonight, a Mardi Gras of sorts for Democrats, and a political high wire act for Republicans. 

The donkeys will be in full lather tonight, this their first address from a fellow Democrat in 8 years. And while these quasi-choreographed affairs always have a self-congratulatory air from the party in power, don't expect the president to be too puffed up; he is well aware of the seriousness of the moment.

President Obama's most daunting task will be acknowledging the dire situation in which our country finds itself and maintaining a sense of caution while invoking the kind of optimism that will encourage Americans to be hopeful. In effect, he must again become candidate Obama, his address one that stirs the soul and makes folks believe the impossible is possible, his optimism becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Republicans will not be as raucus, though they cannot afford to appear gruff or bitter. Sure, references to the stimulus will get muted applause, if they even stand at all. But they're surely aware that this new president is still very popular, and their shenanigans of late have been viewed very poorly by the public — nearly 80 percent of Americans want GOP congressmen to part with party politics and get behind the stimulus.

… AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO RESPOND

Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA), whose eyes are clearly focused on 2012, will deliver the Republican response to the president's speech. Jindal has already announced his intention to refuse some of the $4B slated for his state. 

It bears mentioning that Louisiana's expected 2010 budget shortall is about half what the state would get from the stimulus bill. 

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has said he'll take any money the state turns down. Schwarzenegger said the same of any state that refuses stimulus funds.

Don't expect anything new or original in Jindal's rebuttal, but more of the same ridiculous hipocrisy you've come to expect from Republicans. He will use tired phrases such as "saddle future generations with debt" with "programs we don't need," disregarding the $6T by which his party increased the national debt the last 8 years, especially on the back of a war the U.S. didn't need. 

It becomes increasingly difficult to listen to these clowns rail against the Democrats' attempts to save our country from the epic failure of their leadership. The idea Republicans have any credibility whatsoever when their ideals and policies caused this mess is no longer laughable but downright pathetic.

How safe is stimulus without protection?

A final thought is warranted on the STD prevention programs cut from the stimulus bill after John Boehner (R-OH) and conservative factions raised umbrage about "spending hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives," if only to prove the ability of politicians to obfuscate and mislead the electorate.

The House version of the bill contained $335M that was partially intended to help low-income women who qualify for Medicaid pay for contraception. 

Several Republicans and right wing groups mischaracterized the funds as "money for condoms," which, of course, grabs headlines and sways those who have neither the resources nor inclination to sift through the garbage and find the truth. Why do the legwork when omniscient blowhards like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh can just tell you how it is?

But let's go with that. Let's say all $335M of the $787B would have been spent solely on prophylactics.

Let's say your son and his college friends are heading to Costa Rica for Spring Break. You want him to have a great time in this, his last hurrah before hopefully joining the workforce in May, so you float him $500 for the trip.

You expect the lion's share of this money to go to the essentials — transportation, lodging and food. Of course, SCUBA, souvenirs and cocktails are part of the deal, expenditures both fun and good for the economy.

Would you not, then, for the love of your son's health and future demand that he spend one quarter of that $500 on condoms to protect himself from disease and pregnancy?!

Of course, if your head was buried in the sand like this woman, you would not.

America's coming energy revolution

     "Eighty percent of Republicans are Democrats who just don't know what's going on."

                                                                    - Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. spoke at Ball State University Wednesday night in what was both a enlightening and enraging dissertation on the environment and economics. Kennedy heaped voluminous facts and figures on a rapt audience clearly shocked that they had given the Bush administration's ability and eagerness to rape and pillage the U.S. such short shrift.

The sheer numbers of lobbyists-turned-heads of such sensitive departments as the Interior, Energy, and Health and Human Services, who then turned over their policy decisions to the very industries from whom they were hired to protect their departments, were enough to make one's head spin.

It is, alas, too late to fight those battles; the damage is done. But it is not too late to start moving forward.

FOR THE COST OF YOUR ONE-YEAR SUBSCRIPTION TO FOREIGN OIL …

Kennedy addressed one stunning number that gives tremendous hope to environmental and economic progressives while invoking an overwhelming desire to grab one of those bleating Republicans by the neck and choke the nonsense out of him: $750B.

That's a common number these days, $750B. The stimulus bill is roughly that amount.

That number also represents the American taxpayer cash that is transferred to Saudi Arabia and other nations that either do not share American beliefs on humanity and liberty or who outright hate Americans. Seven hundred and fifty billion hard-earned American dollars going to fill the coffers of misogynist tyrants who, in some cases, arm terrorists to kill Americans, just so the U.S. can lavish in their precious oil.

Well, of course, that money isn't on the backs of current residents of this country. No, it's borrowed from China and consigned to future generations of Americans.

That number, Kennedy said, is roughly the amount it would cost for a new energy grid and the solar and wind infrastructure required to supply the energy needs of every American, including the electric cars they will be driving in the next two decades. 

That's right — for the amount of money we send overseas in one year, the U.S. could be outfitted for free, renewable energy forever.

And taxpayers wouldn't even be burdened with the bulk of the cost! The infrastructure for a smart energy grid, which would also eliminate the need for peak plants — carbon spewers that run for weeks during the summer and waste vast quantities of energy only to serve customers for a few hours here and there when folks crank up the air conditioning — would run about $150B, only 20 percent of what is spent for foreign oil each year.

Private companies would foot the bill for solar fields in the desert Southwest and wind turbines in the Dakotas and Montana. 

What's more, a smart energy grid would further reduce utility costs by allowing homeowners to sell back excess energy. A smart grid would recognize and redirect surpluses from efficient homes to other homes or businesses. 

And none of this expels toxins into our environment.

Despite the economic woes and sense of gloom currently hovering over the U.S., there's a very real sense that, should leaders wisely pursue this tack, America is on the precipice of boom that would reverberate around the globe and likely change the face of international politics and hostilities forever. 

The Grand Obstructionist Party

Don't expect any tears to be shed for those Republicans who whine because they didn't exact their pound of flesh from the stimulus bill. The GOP ruled the White House for 20 of the past 28 years and the only period of economic prosperity was during a Democratic administration. Republicans had a multitude of opportunities to get it right; they only proved themselves incapable of handling such an awesome responsibility.

There's much rabble from the right about enslaving future generations with billions of dollars to be spent on "pork." Where was this outrage when President Bush and the Republicans took a budget surplus and now seemingly modest $6T debt and turned it into massive deficits and a $10T debt? In fact, the last three Repulican presidents have accrued $7.5T worth of national debt on their watch. 

Impressive, oh party of fiscal responsibility.

SO A WHITE GUY AND A BLACK GUY WALK INTO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING …

Astoundingly, Republicans can stay true only to their ideals — even while relegating themselves to a regional and irrelevant party. The selection of RNC Chair not long ago highlighted their internal struggle between traditional indignation and institutionalized stupidity; the final vote came down to a racist white Southerner and a black man. It took six rounds of voting to eliminate Katon Dawson, a man who, until September, had a 12-year membership at a Whites Only country club. 

And it's obvious Michael Steele's selection, by a narrow margin of eight percent, was little more than a cynical ploy to get "our Obama." Unfortunately, it's more like a parent embarrassing his kids by trying to use "jive" that's no longer part of the lexicon. 

Immediately after accepting the political equivalent of the clap, Steele briefly acknowledged the new political landscape and vowed to usher in a new era for the party before digressing and beating his chest in the same tired fashion Republicans have been waging war the last decade. 

Steele also stated he doesn't "do cutting-edge. That's what Democrats are doing. We're going beyond cutting-edge." Should someone tell him the only thing beyond the cutting edge is that which is about to get cut?

All of this has Democrats "raising the roof." 

TAKE YOUR STIMULUS AND SHOVE IT WHERE … OH WAIT, CAN I HAVE SOME OF THAT?

House Minority Leader John Boehner (OH) is toeing the same party-line antics as well, willfully ignorant to what that course has done to dismantle the reign of power Newt Gingrich promised would last generations. Boehner reportedly told his caucus to shoot the bill down before President Obama, in a demonstration of his bipartisan approach, went to the Hill to make his case and hear their gripes. Hell hath no fury as an impotent Republican.

Boehner then stood in front of the cameras and, as is the party wont, lied about and mischaracterized provisions in the bill. He made big hay of money for condoms, knowing the subject matter alone would sound sensational. Boehner ignored the actual dollar amount's insignificance, given the heft of the bill overall, while failing to recognize that preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies would save American tax payers billions. 

He also blasted a high-speed LA-Vegas rail line that isn't even in the bill as "not going to help the construction worker in my district," while apparently oblivious to the two lines expected to be built in his home state.

There's also the much ballyhooed "Pelosi mouse," which, again, has no basis in reality.

Whip Eric Cantor (VA) made the latest assault on the bill — and the intelligence of the electorate. Cantor's ill-advised and poorly constructed video bragging about the zero votes House Republicans gave the bill contained yet another lie, this time claiming ACORN is earmarked for $1B that it, in reality, is not. There is $5.2B slated for community development programs that were signed into law by Republican presidents, funds for which many organizations can apply, but why let facts get in the way of ridiculous lies meant to spur your base?

Of course, the principles guiding Republicans to clamor against the stimulus package do not prevent them from accepting, nay, actively scrambling for the money. At some point, we can expect GOP congressmen across the nation to laude themselves for directing expenditures so deftly as to bring about the revitalization of the American economy. 

Oh wait, it's already happening! Kit Bond (MO), who, of course, voted against the bill and lambasted it as a debt stimulator, is now patting himself on the back for a $2M provision he added to the bill. And he's only one of several House Republicans now glad-handing each other for the fabulous work they did on a bill they voted against.

There are a few possible hold-outs, though. It will be very interesting to see how these rubes do in the polls as they try to explain to their constituents why "principles" are more important than "jobs."

THE PARTY OF BIN LADEN 

The puerile behavior exhibited by Republicans the last few weeks only further cements the belief that they care far more about having power than working for the people they were elected to represent. Party leaders pulled every nasty trick possible to attain and maintain power before and during Bush's presidency, and despite a resounding rebuke by the American electorate in November, they do not demure, yet insist they deserved to write half the stimulus bill. Those whose memories do not run short know that kind of generosity was never given to Democrats the last 8 years.

So now they parade around as children, openly cheering for the bill to fail, which is, in fact, cheering against America. What's more, Pete Sessions (TX) proudly compared his party's tactics to Taliban insurgents. Wow. 

It is to this end President Obama should tear a page from Bush's playbook and insist that Democrats will not negotiate with terrorists.

Clinton: Laughingstock … or Kingmaker?

As darkness drew on what was supposed to be a big Wednesday night for Hillary Clinton — her interviews were to be featured on all the major networks — the evening, and the nomination, went for Barack Obama. The perfectly executed precision bombing that was John Edwards' endorsement of Obama had that effect.

Clinton and her supporters can no longer be excused from not soaking in the reality that is her excruciatingly narrow loss for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Her campaign must now pivot from its indomitable search for a path to victory to devising a strategy for her exit from the race.

Despite her landslide win in West Virginia and expected Kentucky pickup, the question of "if" no longer remains. Clinton will draw down. 

What is of greatest import now is when she decides to shutter the doors, and how.

Clinton's comportment through the end of this nomination process could still shape the outcome of the general election in November. Already, her insistence on continuing the race is blunting the fanfare and post-nomination bump Barack Obama should be enjoying as the now presumptive nominee. If she stares down the abyss and belligerently hammers away at her grasp on favorable demographics, the perception that certain dyed-in-the-wool Democrats will ignore their interests and swing for John McCain could become reality.

Her defiance of conventional wisdom, nay, her denial of the truth, appear to some testimony to her strength and willful self-reliance, traits to be admired, for certain. To others, it smacks of a megalomaniacal disregard for honesty or process, qualities, if they can be called such, more reminiscent of the disdainful and outrageous politics that thrust the Republican machine into the fore and were the eight years of George Bush.

If Clinton continues to drop comments construed as divisive or degrading of Obama's chances in the fall, superdelegates will bury her rhetoric in an avalanche of endorsements. This is likely one of the last tactics they'd seek to employ — the move would silence her campaign, but it would come in the form of public rebuke and humiliation.

They could ignore her. SDs might provide Clinton the opportunity to see the process through while treating and discussing Obama as if he's already the nominee. Here, though, she becomes irrelevant.

Should Clinton continue her ignoble assault on Obama's electability, and should Obama lose to McCain in November, many if not most will blame her. Her petulant indignation in the face of certain defeat will draw ridicule from all quarters — it's already gaining traction on Saturday Night Live — and mockery would crescendo if she is shamed out of the race. 

Her fate is likely set, regardless. As Rep. Jim Clyburn recently noted, Democrats don't run with losers. While Republicans don't always shoot their wounded, Democrats who fail in primaries and general elections don't become presidents. Sure, Clinton could defy that maxim, but the tone and tenor of this contest suggest it's doubtful.

BELLE OF THE BALL

Now is the time for Clinton to write her own story.

That she holds tremendous political sway is undeniable. Her old money contributors — can we refer to them that way yet? — made noise recently by threatening exodus should Michigan and Florida votes remain uncounted. And women were a formidable Clinton bloc.

Instead of chancing political folly through tepid support of Obama's presidential campaign, Clinton can cast herself as savior of party and country by delivering constituencies Obama will need to win the election. 

While it's unlikely Clinton supporters will, when the chips are down, stay home or jump ship and vote McCain, it isn't impossible. If Clinton aggressively advocates for Obama, and if those voters currently viewed as solidly and solely in her corner show up for him in November, Clinton will be celebrated as Midas, her stature prior to her candidacy restored and surpassed.

Behind the president, there is no one with more clout, no one deserving more praise — or favor — than the one who cleared his path.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD

For some Clinton surrogates, chicken exits no longer exist.

Terry McAuliffe has degraded to court jester, a 50 year old child hopped up on Mountain Dew and shouting a laughable script. McAuliffe proclaimed Clinton's West Virginia victory speech the "greatest speech ever." He swears the delegate count necessary for nomination is 2210. He claims Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot for political purposes while ignoring that Clinton only now sees the necessity of seating Michigan's delegates.

Even Clinton's hound, Communications Director Howard Wolfson, cannot bring himself to toe these lines; he has not appeared on television for Clinton since Indiana and North Carolina. Apparently Wolfson's survival instincts have not abandoned him.

Geraldine Ferraro has surely attained martyrdom within certain circles. But her relevance nationally, if she ever had much, is certainly spent. Her ill-conceived comments that suggested being black in America is a political advantage, and her subsequent railing against those who dared imply she made a racially divisive and stupid remark, will follow her forever.

Mark Penn. There's a special place in political purgatory for Penn. 

While there are many others still, none suffer more than Bill Clinton, and that by his own hand. Well, his mouth, actually. 

Bill Clinton left office resoundingly rejected by Republicans and conservative Independents, his stock so low Al Gored refused to utilize him in 2000. 

Ironically, the presidency to which Bill's divisiveness gave birth repaid the favor. As war and economic woe took hold of the country and George Bush's approval rating plummeted, much of America reminisced of Bill Clinton's 90s. He was widely regarded a year ago as Hillary's greatest asset, her most effective surrogate.

Bill's missteps — comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, reviving Hillary's Bosnia gaffe, saying Obama played the race card on him and then claiming the next day he had not said it — have him once again relegated to the role of village idiot. Fond memories of relative peace and economic prosperity are now stifled every time Bill wags that finger, a dog whistle signifying disingenuousness if not outright lying.

Several times during a crucial stretch where Hillary seemed to cut into Obama's momentum, Bill swooped in and killed her charge. 

During the Bush regime, Bill Clinton rebuilt much of the capital he squandered with Monica Lewinsky. But times, they are a changin'. It's hard to imagine how he redeems himself in this new world order.

Tipping Point

In her latest and most deplorable attempt yet to provide evidence Barack Obama is unelectable, Hillary Clinton has strode forcefully into the racial divide, a foray that should send chills through the remaining uncommitted superdelegates and harken a quick end to her interminable death march to Denver.

In her USA Today interview Tuesday, Clinton stated, "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. … There's a pattern emerging here."

As she hammers away at the idea only she can garner the working class vote, Clinton is intentionally inserting a racial element that could only be to one end: She wants to put white voters off Obama in November.

Clinton, it seems, has determined her final path to the presidency. Not this presidency, mind you — that bus ran out of gas in Indiana. Clinton is now clearly eyeing 2012.

CATALYST FOR CONCLUSION?

Clinton's divisive comments, should she continue that tack, will likely heighten the anxiety amongst undeclared SDs and force them to move en masse for Obama. As much as they must want to allow her to choose her own exit strategy, Democrats cannot stand idly by and allow her to diminish the presumptive nominee ahead of an election they absolutely must win.

John Edwards, per his Friday morning talk show circuit, clearly believes Obama is the party's nominee. Since he has remained neutral since suspending his own campaign, Edwards' comments were likely a shot across Clinton's bow, a blatant signal for her to cut with the negative tone.

If Clinton ignores pleas for decent comportment, party elders and heavyweights could approach her soon, this weekend or early next week, and lay out their criterion for allowing her to finish the race versus forcing her out now. If she denies their overtures and appeals to reason, the dam could break Tuesday or Wednesday.

There will be no olive branch in the form of the vice presidency, though. It is canon within the Obama movement the need to shift to a new representation of the American people, one to bridge divides, not exacerbate them. Clinton's adherence to mud-slinging and pandering, hallmarks of the old-world politics that have emboldened Obama's call for change, make it impossible for him to choose her.

ONLY WHITES WORK HARD, APPARENTLY

Why, when Clinton and mainstream media slice demographics, are there working-class whites, but all blacks are lumped together? Are blacks not also hard-working Americans? 

In contrast to Clinton's belief only she can amass the support from white America to win in November, an honest assessment of each candidates' general election viability along demographic lines would more likely conclude that Obama will do fine with whites, while Clinton has a serious problem with blacks.

Determining general election results based on party primary votes is a dubious venture. Going into this process, Democrats were forced to choose between two attractive candidates; the incredibly close popular vote and delegate tallies bear this out. 

As the rhetoric built, though, especially through Bill Clinton's comments post-South Carolina, there was a palpable sense the Clintons were belittling black voters, despite still getting a decent share of black votes. 

Obama's S.C. win, and Bill's subsequent, dismissive insinuation that Obama was just another black candidate enjoying inconsequential minority support, were watershed moments: The black vote went from 3-to-1 for Obama early in the process to 9-to-1 in Indiana and North Carolina.

While it is true Clinton currently enjoys stronger support from older women and whites than Obama, it borders absurd to suggest those voters will not chose the Democrat candidate over John McCain in November. Clinton's supposed grasp on those demographics is not by the startling ratio in which blacks now turn out for Obama.

And, while the 'bitter' comment and Rev. Wright obviously give some pause, Obama has not spurned white voters with racially-charged comments. He has never suggested Clinton could not get black votes against McCain, though observers could certainly reach that conclusion at this point.

WHO WILL YOU BELIEVE, ME OR YOUR LYING EYES?!

At first it seems hard for Howard Wolfson, Clinton's campaign manager, now a punchless brawler swaying on wobbly knees. What is his argument? To what depths must he reach to muster incredulity when MSNBC's Chris Matthews asks if he truly believes Clinton's claim to the presidency now hinges on seating Michigan as is and the popular vote of Puerto Rico.

Obama's name, as we all know, was not even on the Michigan ballot. And Puerto Rican's cannot vote in the general election.

Rumors that Wolfson has been working on a book deal the last few days certainly don't stem the feeling the race is over.

POLITICS AND SPORTS: A TASTELESS ANALOGY

It is fitting, though perhaps inappropriate to acknowledge, that Clinton's last jog around the track might come in Kentucky, where her choice and the only filly in the Derby field, Eight Belles, was euthanized on the track after finishing second to Big Brown.