So I realized today that I haven't posted on here for a long time, and that I haven't really had any big political discussions or arguments in about a week. So I felt like writing a post, and what better than on a pressing issue of our time and the topic of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain's speech today: national security.

Ronald Reagan summed up what American national security should be in a simple phrase of three words: Peace through strength. This has been misconstrued by many liberals to mean a kind of "fake peace" constructed only by force and coercion. There was definitely peace in Auschwitz and the Soviet Union under Stalin. But this is not what Reagan meant; otherwise, he would have used the words "force" or "coercion" in place of "strength."

What Reagan meant was that the presence of enforcement will always ensure justice and peace. The United States is, and isn't, an international policeman. It is not in the sense that we do not have the responsibility (or the means) to resolve or become involved in every conflict throughout the world. But it is in a sense that virtually every conflict affects U.S. interests merely due to its huge size and tremendous influence. The Israel-Palestine conflict interests us; Iran, Iraq, and North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons interests us; even a Chinese economic law can change our domestic stock markets. But I digress.

When the United States is subtly sitting in the background with a substantial, but fair, military force, it keeps the world in line. During the Somalia fiasco during Clinton's administration, we pulled out after eighteen casualties. Osama bin Laden pointed this out and described America as a "paper tiger." This single display of weakness set in motion the planning of a massive terrorist attack on American soil, eventually evolving into 9/11.

George W. Bush has responded to this in a way precisely the opposite of what the terrorists wanted or were expecting. In the 80s, while distracted with single-handedly toppling the evil empire of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's policy towards Islamofascism was going after only the individuals or organizations responsible. During the 90s, we ignored Islamofascism completely, including half a dozen attacks on U.S. soil such as the World Trade Center bombings in 1993 and several embassy bombings in the Persian Gulf region. In 2000, there was a direct attack on a U.S. naval vessel that went completely unaddressed.

Finally, in 2001, we got our policy right. We took the fight to the terrorists. George W. Bush appropriately used a horrible attack as an opportunity to wage a war on all terrorists, not just a few. He took the fight to the entire Taliban in Afghanistan rather than just Osama bin Laden. He took the fight to Iraq, a hotbed of terrorism and tyranny, not to mention a dictator who has been seeking weapons of mass destruction for over a decade and has been a U.S. military interest since the Reagan administration.

This policy has had the terrorists in complete disarray. They say that we have created terrorism; this is completely false and untrue. Terrorists have been flooding into Iraq to fight Americans, but they haven't been becoming new terrorists. This is the equivalent to the Union Army in the Civil War crossing into the South for almost all the battles. We took the fight to them. If we invaded North Carolina but all the Confederate Armies stayed in Georgia, would that do much good? Hardly. This is what is happening in Iraq. The terrorists know that if they can get us to leave and retreat as we did in Somalia (and as Obama would have us do next year), they will have a landmark victory and inspire more terrorism there and abroad.

It is the pressure Ronald Reagan exerted (via the U.S. military) that caused the Soviet collapse. It was the weakness of the Clinton administration that culminated in the weaknesses allowing for 9/11. And this will happen again if Obama is elected.

The Republican Party is not the only one in this century to have such an attitude. The Democratic Party was just as fine on foreign policy as the GOP during and after World War II. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wisely used Pearl Harbor as a reason to declare war on the entire Axis of Evil, including Japan and Germany. After winning WWII in Europe, his successor Harry S Truman smartly dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of American lives that could have been lost in an invasion and quickly ending the war in the Pacific. The civilian casualties were a tragedy, but it has ultimately led to the success of a capitalist Japan that is one of the most successful nations in the Far East.

When did this change? JFK was a bridge between the old and new Democrats. JFK was known to be weak on foreign policy. This is why Kruschev put a bunch of nukes 50 miles off our coastline. JFK held a tough stance, risking nuclear war but ultimately saving us from it. But after his assassination, Democrats embraced socialism rather than feared it. Lyndon Johnson made the New Deal permanent, something FDR did not intend or want, screwing every low-class worker into government dependence that is still a major problem in this country. Social security is falling apart and will be, according to one estimate, $53 trillion in debt in a few decades.

The point is, a strong national security is necessary for American safety and security. "Diplomacy" will only get us so far, and it also implies legitimacy. We cannot sit down with Ahmadenijad because it will legitimize his tyranny. We must pressure him through economic and social means, and, if necessary, military action. Yes, military action is a last resort, but diplomacy isn't even on the list of options, nor should it be.

There can be peace throughout the world. But it depends on the strength of America. America stands for justice and freedom. And that is the force that needs to have power in the world, not Iran or North Korea or Iraq which stand for oppression and tyranny.

"We will always be prepared so that we may always be free."

As the returns come in from Kentucky, Clinton has yet another massive victory. Currently with 93% of precincts reporting, Clinton has trounced Obama 66% to 30%. While the Oregon returns are still 2 hours away, we can expect a double-digit Obama victory. But "exit" polls (phone polls conducted among Democrats who claim to have mailed in their mail-in ballots) show such a victory being in the vicinity of 14%, not even half of Clinton's 36-point victory here or her 41-point victory in West Virginia.

So, fallout.

Despite Clinton's incredible performance over the past 6 weeks, Obama will still most likely garner the majority of pledged delegates of the party tonight. Nearly 300 superdelegates have yet to speak, but they say they will follow the pledged delegate allocation. In all honesty, Barack Obama will still most likely receive the nomination. I believe this is a huge mistake for the Democratic Party to make. And it is a perfect opportunity to prevent Obama from becoming another McGovern, which is why the superdelegate system was created in the first place: nominate Hillary Clinton.

I am not going to list the reasons why, because I have repeatedly on this blog. Tonight continues to prove my point. The exit polls in Kentucky are extremely disturbing for Obama.

One poll in particular caught my eye. Of Hillary Clinton supporters, only 50% would vote for Obama in the general. 32% would vote for McCain instead. 15% would stay home.

What it boils down to is that Obama is a left-winger. Clinton and McCain are moderates. When Reagan and Bush 43 ran, they were able to win the middle by appealing personably to the common man. Their incompetent opponents helped as well. Neither of them sacrificed conservatism to get elected. McCain has. He is a total and complete moderate, barely right-of-center on the political spectrum. Clinton, too, is moderate. She is barely left-of-center. The two of them would have one hell of a battle for the presidency. Obama, however, is a left-winger. He is very liberal, voting on the left of issues 97% of the time in the Senate. Clinton and McCain have done a great job of exposing him as the liberal he is. As I've explained before, this does not appeal to the majority of Americans, which is why he just can't get rid of Clinton. She is a bastion of moderation in a sea of anti-Americanism (embodied by Obama and his media followers).

There is a slim chance that Clinton will steal the nomination. If she can use the recent contests, her votes in Michigan and Florida, and the fact that Obama has lost 300,000 votes to her since Wisconsin and all but one state since March 1st, to convince the superdelegates that she is the more electable, then who knows. But this is unlikely. And a McCain landslide is in store for November.

I think it is safe to say that Barack Obama has an 85% chance of being nominated for the Democratic Party. It is going to be a close race, and the superdelegates will be split very close down the middle. After all, even now it is only a difference of 1-2 votes, and only about 2/3 of them have checked in. But they will follow the delegate count and nominate Barack (even though I still believe this to be a mistake). I also believe that if this happens, Hillary will be his running mate; this is the only solution I can come up with that could speed up the healing of the wounds from this ridiculous nomination process.

So what is the deal with Barack Obama? Today's sermon in Church brought up the Rev. Wright. It wasn't what we have been hearing on the tube, however; the priest actually quoted Wright's NPC speech from a couple weeks ago. He used a short excerpt regarding the need for a radical change in the way society elevates some and denigrates others; how some are "more equal" than the rest. Today being the Christian feast of Pentecost, celebrating the Holy Spirit's descent from heaven, the priest emphasized this need for change toward a better world.

But where must this change originate? Here is where the interpretations differ between my priest and Rev. Wright. This change comes from prayer and a call for the Holy Spirit's presence in our lives. Real, radical, positive change is inspired by God. And here is where Barack Obama comes in. He believes that he is God. He is the source of change. He can make this world a better place! His silver tongue has gotten people to faint over the way he presents his ideas to radically alter the way society thinks and acts. But the problem is, this change cannot originate with him. It cannot originate with anyone. It has to be inspired by God.

Granted, not everyone in America is a Christian. There is even a sizable population that doesn't believe in any type of higher power. But a belief in something greater is innate in our government system. The Founders, while not necessarily Christians and some even atheists, gave the government legitimacy by stating that its power is derived from "God." Our currency says "In God we trust." Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence refer to God frequently. While separation of church and state is important, the government has to admit that its government comes from something else. Once that principle is abandoned, the government becomes all-powerful and replaces God. This results in socialism and tyranny.

The problem with Barack and many liberals is that they have no problem with this. They want the government to control everything. It's not about success, it's about power and control. Tax hikes, healthcare, social security, welfare: all programs to make you more dependent on the government rather than on yourself. The Founders would be shocked to see what we're wasting our money on right now. It is sad and unfortunate that it has reached what it is now, and it will only get worse if a liberal is elected.

Barack Obama does not seem to believe in America. He has never once made a statement one can claim is truly patriotic; his appreciation of the American dream is a narrow view of his own success from a lower class. He overtly refuses to wear a flag pin; while many liberals may tell me this is irrelevant and a stupid argument, I will disagree. Our flag is revered here more than any other flag in the world is revered by its people. It is a symbol of freedom, democracy, justice, righteousness; it reminds us of that incredible story of the Revolution. By not wearing it, many Americans (including myself) are confused and slightly offended by his disregard for a country we believe in and hold dear. Only 45% of voters believe Obama shares their values, while 55% believe John McCain does.

I do not like John McCain's policy initiatives because they compromise with liberalism far too much. I do not want him elected because of the redefinition my party will suffer. But compared to Obama, he is a far better choice. He loves this country, nearly losing his life for it. He believes in it and understands what it's about. I believe Hillary Clinton does as well, which is why she is the one I want to win.

Obama has friends that overtly hate this country and its ideals. His mentor of decades is on video for saying some of the most horrible things you can imagine about the U.S., and he is very close to a known terrorist who has bombed government buildings and wants to bomb more. His wife has stated that she is only proud to be an American now that voters are choosing Barack, and she claims Americans are "ignorant" when it comes to race relations. Hamas has stated that they support and respect Barack Obama, to which one of his staffers offered thanks! He himself has stated that middle Americans cling to guns and religion and antipathy towards people different than themselves to help guide them through times of economic trouble. I see no evidence that he is in this for America; he is in this for himself. It is just a job promotion to a post of more power.

This scares me. I believe the voters will see this and flock to John McCain. It happened in 2004: even the exit polls had Kerry winning handily. But people knew that Bush loves America and wants it to succeed. McCain is the one who wants this country to do well. While I disagree with his methods, he is the lesser of evils.

We have to keep this man out of the White House.

Tonight's two contests fulfilled virtually every prediction. Clinton is winning a narrow but decisive victory in Indiana, but losing by a very large margin in North Carolina. It is still early in the returns, but it is no question that he wins NC, and by a larger margin than he loses in Indiana.

What does this mean? Let's first look at how the Obama camp will spin it.

Obama's victory means that he is the more popular. He was able to win big in North Carolina and lose small in Indiana. The pure math is in his favor and indicates him as more electable, and thus more appropriate for the nomination. It is just another in his long list of states that he has racked up and indicates a will among the electorate for his nomination.

This is what the campaign will say, and most likely what the Democratic leadership will take into consideration. It is now extremely difficult for Hillary to steal this nomination, even though I still believe she is the one who should run against McCain. Why do I think this, even after this night that looks so good for Obama?

What I think tonight really proved was Obama as the race candidate. He won over 90% of the black vote, and in NC this is over 1/3 of the electorate. This allowed every network to call the state the second the polls closed. In Indiana, he did just as well among blacks, but there simply weren't enough to counter Clinton's popularity in the other groups. Clinton won, in both states, both white men and women, seniors, uneducated citizens, and working class voters. This is the majority of America and the majority of voters.

Tonight should prove to the superdelegates that Barack Obama cannot win outside of the "black belt" if you will, such as the south. He won other states early on because of a wise campaign strategy that focused on caucus states and his messianic speeches about change and hope. But he lost that magic. He looked like an absolute idiot at the debate in Philadelphia, is on record for insulting the religious beliefs and gun ownership of the majority of Americans, is close to a pastor that has repeatedly insulted his country and associated Obama with him, is close to a terrorist who has attempted to bomb multiple government establishments, and is married to a woman who has never before felt proud to be an American. This will all come out again in the general election.

Clinton carries baggage as well. But she is doing an incredible job lately overcoming these negatives. She looks vibrant, looks happy, looks friendly, and looks like she's having fun. Her interview with Bill O'Reilly was smart, and she looked on her game and intelligent. She is down to earth and has a clear set of solutions.

Barack Obama seems to have a golden road to the nomination because of the thick-headedness of Democratic party leaders. But he cannot beat McCain. He will get eaten alive by not only McCain but by independent groups that will do everything they can to keep him out of the White House. He just claimed, in his NC victory speech, that Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat! Watching this speech, he sounds like he is trying to rejuvenate the magic that got him through the string of states after Super Tuesday. That is what it was: magic. Barack Obama is a complete moron with no qualifications whatsoever for president. He will absolutely destroy this country for every American, rich and poor. His policy is unwise, unsound, and poorly thought out. This will be proven when McCain spars with him and shows that this guy just doesn't have a clue.

Barack Obama is change we can't believe in. He hasn't done a thing in the name of change for his entire career. He is in it for a promotion; if he really cared about the party and the country, he would drop out and throw his support behind Hillary. Same goes for her. They are selfish and only in it for themselves. I want Hillary Clinton to win the national to avoid the redefinition of the GOP while still maintaining some semblance of a successful America, but if Obama gets in there is no avoiding the disasters he will incur.

Tonight means that Obama is the race candidate. He cannot win in the general election, where blacks don't make up 1/3 of the electorate. McCain will win the south, and Obama will get creamed in the swing states. So who knows: maybe a few smart Dems will realize it's Clinton's chance. But I doubt it. And the Democrats will, as Paul Krugman said, "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

This week I got a chance to see Michael Moore's latest award-less documentary, SiCKO. It details the plight of American healthcare, calling for universal, government-paid healthcare for everyone. He spends the first half of his movie discussing the way insurance companies screw most of their applicants out of coverage, then the second half exploring foreign universal systems in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba.

Of course, it is the Republican Party's fault for this disaster: Richard Nixon's administration started the HMO system in which companies have a financial incentive not to insure people; George W. Bush signed a prescription drug bill that resulted in costlier pills.

I'm not going to argue that our healthcare system is fine. It is a mess. No hospital should have to turn away a patient with a sawed-off finger or a tumor just because they don't have coverage. But in today's system, they have to, because there is no way to be sure they will be able to pay for their treatments. But I do not believe a universal system is a viable answer in American society.

I admit, universal healthcare systems are amazing. I like them. I wish we had one. Just imagine, walking into a hospital for anything for free at any time of day. But the thing is, we can't afford it in this country.

In Europe, people get taxed obscene amounts of their salary, rarely blow 50% and usually around 60-70%. Furthermore, their populations are a fraction of the U.S.'s, so to guarantee their people healthcare is much easier. If America taxed that much, our healthcare system would be absolutely incredible. But I do not want the government taking that much money, and most Americans agree with me. No one will get elected if they campaign on raising the taxes enough to pay for a universal healthcare system.

I believe the solution, as it always has been in the U.S., is capitalism. Look at dentists. Dentists are not in the HMO world. Granted, they don't deal with life-threatening diagnoses or treatments, but it is an interesting case study. Dentists are free to set whatever price they feel is fair and charge it. You give them your credit card and you pay. It's like buying anything else. (Insurance will cover dentistry in some cases, but they simply sign a check; you are free to choose any dentist.) Dentists have to compete for customers, and therefore price accordingly.

Doctors do not have this luxury. They are told which patients they will get by insurance companies, and to go to a specialist requires time-consuming referrals and other paperwork. Care is costly and inefficient. I see no reason why we can't have a free enterprise system in healthcare like we do in all of our other industries.

When you are only taxing the public between 20-30% of over 300 million people, there is no way to afford a healthcare system that will be on par with private doctors as far as care quality. I see nothing wrong with a healthcare system for people who can't afford care, much like a type of welfare, but to guarantee free healthcare for everyone is just impractical.

I also do not understand this conclusion that the government must guarantee healthcare. What makes it different from other necessities? The government doesn't guarantee housing or food for every American. These are just as essential to life in this country. The idea that this is necessary I believe is just wrong.

Liberals know they cannot set up a healthcare system right now with the tax dollars coming in. The goal is not decent care, it's more control. Call me a selfish jerk, but I do not want my tax money paying for some idiot who skateboards off the side of a building. Would I want my tax money paying for a hard working American family father who has a tumor? Probably. But it's not the government's place to tell me that I have to. And believe you me, once universal healthcare is created, the road will begin toward the elimination of free enterprise and, as the goal always is with liberal government, higher taxes.

As far as prescription drugs go, I think it's troubling when drugs here are hundreds of dollars for 30 pills, but any quantity of any pill is £6.65 in the U.K. Yes, I believe in competition, but pharmaceutical companies don't compete. They race to find a drug first, then sell it for as much as they can. This is not fair, and it is not competition. I believe drug patents should be dropped to 1-2 years, so that they have that much time to be rewarded for the invention of a drug. After that, all companies should have access to the formula, be able to produce it, and compete for the lowest cost. Seems like a reasonable solution to me, and gasp! It means changing an existing law rather than adding ten new ones.

The system sucks. There is a problem. But universal healthcare is not the answer. In the end, Moore's film isn't about healthcare, it's about government control. It's about how America sucks. And his anti-Americanism makes me sick. Our country has problems, but they can all be solved with less government rather than more.

Let's sit down and make some common-sense solutions with the money we have, rather than try to expand the government so much that it collapses upon itself and becomes the failures of Medicaid and Medical in New York and California, which have forced both states into billions of dollars in debt.

Let's put real competition back into the healthcare system.

I took a little walk earlier this week to clear my head about some things, and as always, my brain took me to politics. When confused about something abstract, like a relationship or emotions, the mind will almost invariably settle on something that, to you, makes perfect sense. For me, that is politics; it gave me something concrete to hold on to in the middle of some confusion.

As I was walking around the campus at night, I noticed all of the orange lights they have lighting the paths. The new area, however, has white lights. Personally, I think white lights look a lot better than orange ones, but orange ones are far more common. I was thinking to myself, why? They may be cheaper, use less energy, something like that, but I jokingly thought, "It's probably just another liberal conspiracy."

But as I thought this, I began to explore this sentiment a bit more seriously. Obviously, the orange lights themselves (I don't think) are a liberal conspiracy, but how many things have liberals forced us out of or into using?

Liberals are the ones telling us what light bulbs we can use; what cars to drive; what to set our thermostat at; what pesticides we can use (DDT was banned, resulting in the deaths of millions around the world); how to dry our hands in the bathroom (I don't know one person who enjoys using an air drier); what textbooks to use; where we can or cannot smoke; what pictures we can have in our lockers; how much money you're allowed to make; what healthcare provider you're allowed to have; what type of gun you can own, and where you can own it; what size toilets we need to have; how much you should pay your employees; the necessity to wear a seat belt in your own car; how a town can punish its criminals. I am all for sensible regulation: I agree with speed limits (or at least their concept, they are too low because of liberals who wanted to limit gas usage during the oil crisis 30 years ago), prevention of monopolies, and monitoring of the workplace. But liberals have forced so much upon us, and wish to force more.

Being (I hope) a well-rounded political analyst, I of course turned to the conservative side. When have we ever tried to force things upon the American public? I can think of two things: making abortion illegal and preventing gay marriage. I can also think of a liberal citing the Iraq War, which I'll discuss momentarily. As far as abortion and gay marriage, these are specifically defined by our Constitution and law as wrong. The Constitution guarantees life to every citizen; by condoning abortion, the government violates this most important right given from God. Marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman by the Defense of Marriage Act, passed with bipartisan (shudder) support in the 1990s (this isn't some "archaic" concept from hundreds of years ago that needs to adapt, it is a modern perspective).

As far as the Iraq War, the idea that liberating 40 million people from the grip of a power-hungry dictator is "force" is just wrong. "Forcing democracy" is an oxymoron: people naturally want to be free and govern themselves. By giving them democracy, we are giving them the ability to be self-sustaining. It was Saddam Hussein torturing dissidents, his brothers torturing the Olympic teams for losing; we're building them a Parliament building so that they can express their views and govern together! If that's not freedom, and if that's force, the world really doesn't make sense to me anymore. (Why we chose Iraq over other nations is another argument for another day.)

So what's my point? Liberalism is about force. It is about knowing what's better for you, and therefore making you do it. If you think about it, it is elitist in nature. By banning smoking in entire cities, they are saying they know what's better for you. They are trying to ban it in your house to protect your children: We know how to raise your children better than you. They know how much a worker deserves to be paid, and can judge that better than you. They know you'll be better off with your seatbelt on, so they pass a law saying what you must do inside your own car. (Many might point and shout at me, "But you are!" Yes, maybe so. But it's not your job to tell me that. I can decide for myself.) If you're rich, you should either give your money to charity or the government, because making hundreds of millions a year is just "unfair." If you're poor, you shouldn't have to work, the government will take care of you. Liberals know what's better for the planet, and are saying that all car companies in the U.S. should have average fuel economies above 30 mpg in the next five to ten years (INSANITY!). In related news, trust us, CFL's are better than incandescents, we're going to make them illegal.

Conservatism is about freedom. We don't pretend to know what's better for you. The reason we want to "force" the banning of abortion and gay marriage is because these are things deemed completely illegal and just wrong by U.S. law and the morals we were founded on. (As a federalist, however, I believe it is up to the individual states to decide these issues via public referendum.) What you want to do in your own house or car is your business: as conservatives, we trust American individuals as good people that will make the smart choice. Of course, not everyone will, and once harm is inflicted on another it is the duty of the government to intervene. But every individual deserves that chance. Regulation is one thing; stepping in and forcing someone's hand is another. Conservatives seek to elevate the individual at the bottom, not take down the individual at the top. By cutting taxes on the wealthy, a stronger economy will present more opportunities for those below. We give the people more freedom, less government.

America was founded on conservatism. The entire purpose of creating our nation was to rid ourselves of a tyrranous, liberal government. Liberalism, to a certain degree, is un-American in that it seeks to use the government to control multiple aspects of people's lives. That is why I'm a conservative, and that is why I believe conservatism will always prevail in this country. All it takes is a good leader and speaker to state the obvious: America is the greatest country in the world, and I want to continue the tradition of greatness. People like John Kerry can't beat people like George Bush by insulting America; the same goes for Barack Obama. None of the current candidates are saying that, and it's a problem that people like me have to deal with. Hopefully soon another man like Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush will return and say, America is great. America is conservative. And only then, will America be truly free.

What a night for Hillary Clinton! Her nearly ten-point victory in Pennsylvania Tuesday night over Barack Hussein Obama put her back in the race, and in no small way. Make no mistake about it: this was a blowout. The polls were predicting a five- or six-point margin, and Obama spent nearly three times as much as Clinton did in the Keystone State. She still massacred him by a near double-digit lead. This is not only bad news for Obama, but also for the Democratic Party and its leaders.

By winning Pennsylvania, Clinton has called into question one of the most hailed qualities brought up about Barack Obama: his ability to unite. Obama still cannot beat her; Tuesday night wasn’t even close! My question to Obama supporters is this: How do you expect a man to unite the entire country when, after three months of primaries and nearly a year of campaigning, he can’t even unite his own party? Yes, he has a slight delegate majority, but in the popular vote that includes Michigan and Florida, he has virtually no lead. The magic that got him through several major primaries and caucuses is gone: we don’t hear the “change, hope, future” mantra like we used to.

His electability is also becoming a serious question that the superdelegates have to address. And that is what matters: the superdelegates. Neither of these candidates can get the 2025 delegates needed to secure the nomination. If you look at the general election, Clinton actually has the better chances. Out of the past seven presidents, two have been Democrats. Both have been from the south, and have thus won the south. But now, as in 2000 and 2004, it will be swing states that decide who gets the majority of electoral votes. These states are Ohio, Florida, and Michigan. Clinton is the one who can beat McCain here, not Obama. They are classic Clinton demographic, just like Pennsylvania: mostly white, older populations, lower incomes. She gets 60+% of each of these groups virtually every time. Obama did well in states that are going to go Republican in November anyway.

The debate in Philadelphia last Wednesday night didn’t help Obama much either. The majestic image of strength, hope, and unity just fell apart when his script got taken away. He can barely string two words together without an “umm” or “uhh,” and clearly has no idea what the capital gains tax is or how it works. His socialism was blatant when he claimed that he would raise taxes on the rich not for economic gains but for the sake of “fairness.” He wouldn’t take a stand on the D.C. gun ban, even after he claimed that people in middle America “cling to guns, religion, and antipathy towards those different from themselves” because of their economic frustrations. (In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 60% of gun owners and Church goers.)

At the same debate, Clinton had her act together. Her clear, concise answers to many of the economic questions made Barack look incompetent and foolish. She also didn’t stutter, and her references to the economic prosperity of the 1990s (of which she wishes to appear involved with) reminded people of the great times of that decade. It is a winning strategy for her: Elect another Clinton for another 8 years of economic success!

Clinton’s campaign has also been extremely successful in the recent weeks. While the debate was I think a stroke of luck (way to go Charlie Gibson for holding him accountable to the facts about taxes), Clinton is the one who has torn Obama off the pedestal that he was on. She is attacking him relentlessly on his inexperience and lack of substance. Her husband is saying that his victory in South Carolina was the same as Jesse Jackson’s in the 1980s. Gerry Ferraro is saying that he is only successful because he’s black. And they will not apologize for anything they are saying! They’re tougher on Obama than McCain has been. And how does Obama respond? He whines about negativity. He is being wimpy and more of a woman than Clinton ever was. As I mentioned above: the magic is gone.

Compared to McCain, however, I believe both of them will be greatly disadvantaged. While McCain isn’t the best of speakers, he’ll look fine in a debate setting. When he lays out the facts of his economic plan that have proven plans to help the economy and lower gas prices, he will pick up a lot of support. He will garner a huge number of center and even center-left voters, leaving either Democrat in the dust.

I do not know which candidate will be nominated. But it is unquestionable that Clinton is the more electable than Obama in the general contest. If the superdelegates are smart, they’ll nominate her. But as evidenced by the past thirty years, Democrats don’t know how to nominate a candidate. So in conclusion, while it is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain stem that Clinton has a better chance than the moronic pretty-boy Obama, the Democrats still may not make that smart decision. And if they don’t, McCain is assured a seat in that White House on January 21, 2009.

Charlie Gibson and George Stephonopoupoppolis (spelling?) have left me shocked and awed, in the best way. Last night's debate on ABC, moderated by both these two ABC news anchors, exposed Clinton and Obama for the true liberals and, quite frankly, morons they are. Both proved their incompetence, lack of knowledge, disdain for America, and socialist initiatives that I am sure turned off the 10 million people watching last night.

Let's start with Obama. This man cannot string two words together without and "umm" or an "uhh" if his life depended on it. He is not articulate or a fluent speaker unless he has a teleprompter or transcript in front of him. I'll be the last to argue Bush is articulate, but at least he admits it. Obama is made out to be one of the best speakers in the history of presidential candidates, on par with JFK. Well I'll tell you, he is no Jack Kennedy.

He also is clearly oblivious to the way the economy works at all. The argument of whether or not income tax cuts or hikes help the economy is one that can be argued intelligently from both sides. Historical numbers can indicate the success of both cuts and hikes of the income tax. However, last night Gibson pressed Obama on the issue of the capital gains tax, a tax applied to companies on their profits. This tax trickles down to any stockholder that owns a stake in this company. During the Clinton administration, this tax was reduced from 28% to 20%. Bush then cut it further to 15%. Both cuts have resulted in revenue increases from this particular tax. It is agreed by any economist: cutting the capital gains tax will increase government revenue. More people invest in stock, and thus that 15% of a greater number becomes a larger amount of money than 20% of a smaller number. But Obama either doesn't understand this or doesn't care. When Gibson explained to him that a) cutting the capital gains tax increased revenue both times and b) 100 million Americans (that's about 1/3 of our nation's population) own stock and thus would be affected by a hike, Obama was oblivious. He was clueless. His response was virtually I don't know. (Quote: "It might or it might not. We'll just have to see how things are on Wall Street." Does he get that the capital gains tax can directly affect Wall Street's condition?)

His inability to defend his "patriotism" was also blatantly obvious. He was asked why he doesn't wear a flag pin. He claims that he has "never said that he wouldn't wear one." YOU DO NOT WEAR ONE, MR. OBAMA. He stated that he wore one recently at an event, but only after a disabled veteran asked him to. Last year at an event, he explained that he didn't want to wear the flag pin because he wanted to show "true patriotism" by stating his opposition to the war. So in effect, he isn't wearing it to cater to the kook left that is screaming "Bush lied, kids died" and blames America for everything. His ties to extremists were also brought up. He is "friendly" with a man who set bombs in the Pentagon and, after 9/11, claimed that they "didn't do enough." He served as a paid board member with him even after 9/11 and these comments. Obama tried to sidestep the issue saying it isn't important. But it is, and people have to understand this. Obama is unknown, and the people he is involved with are crucial to judging his character. No one will disagree when I say that the word of a politician is no good, especially a liar as skilled as Obama. When he is found "friendly" with a terrorist, "family" with a man like Jeremiah Wright, his wife calling America ignorant and that she hasn't been proud to be an American until now, a pattern of hatred and anti-Americanism emerges. He does not love this country. His comments in San Francisco display his dislike of the common man, the gun-toting God-fearing NASCAR fans in the heartland that make this country work.

Hillary's performance was equally amusing. Her approach, however, was probably much smarter. Will it pay off? I don't know. But she did the right thing. She knows she has Pennsylvania. She knows that it is unlikely she can change the minds of the people who really don't like her. Her job is to get the superdelegates to realize she is the only one with a real shot in November. She referred often to the "1990s," and how she would basically return our economic policy to those years (which were, we all agree, years of great economic prosperity). She dodged a bullet, not having to defend her husband's pardon of several terrorists of the group she accused Obama of fraternizing with, but I can explain it: it was to get the Puerto Rican vote in New York for her Senate race in 2000, not because of their ideology. (Not that I condone it, but it speaks to her character (or lack thereof) more than to her ideology.) She really didn't present anything new or revolutionary, and did not exhibit any ghastly lack of knowledge. She, like Obama, agreed to raise taxes on incomes over $250,000 but cut taxes on lower incomes, and also promised not to allow the capital gains tax go over "what it was in the 1990s" (i.e., 20%).

Both were either pandering or just again pandering to the left when their plans for lowering gas prices involved looking into price manipulation by the oil companies. Of course there is price manipulation, but it is by the Middle Eastern nations in OPEC that control our supply! And there is nothing we can do about that. But we can lower gas prices by either drilling our own oil or simply cutting gas taxes, as McCain has promised to attempt. He suggested a tax-free gas day on Memorial Day. Can you imagine tax-free gas? It would be over 50 cents cheaper in some states! That would also prove where the majority of the gas money goes: the government, not some CEO's wallet.

The Democrats are in crisis mode, and the party leaders have no idea what to do. Neither of these candidates can beat McCain. McCain is smart, has character, and has definite plans for our future. He clearly cares about America and our international interests. He has what it takes to win. Neither Clinton nor Obama do. It is McGovern all over again. The superdelegates were created after the McGovern fiasco, and this is exactly when it is time for them to hit code red. They have to choose a third nominee. I have no idea who. In fact, I don't think they have anyone. But if they don't they're definitely screwed. I don't think the DNC has the intelligence to make this move, but it's the only way they're going to win. Over 10 million viewers watched two idiots make complete fools of themselves on broadcast television. Not something the Democrats can be too happy about.

So all in all, a great night for John McCain. And a bad night for the Democratic Party as the sun sets on their presidential prospects.

I have openly stated in previous posts my opposition to John McCain. But I want to make it clear that these oppositions are purely based on issues. McCain has the most character and integrity of the three current presidential candidates; it's just a shame that he happens to be a liberal.

McCain believes what he says and has acted on it in Congress. For example, Barack Obama claims to be a unifier that will cross party lines and work with Republicans on issues. In his two years in the Senate, Obama has never drafted legislation with Republicans and has voted with his party 97% of the time. He has skipped "tough" votes that could come back to bite him in the campaign. If you really want someone who will work with both sides, vote John McCain. (This is, in fact, one reason I dislike him.) He has drafted controversial legislation such as the immigration bill (which was more pro-immigrant than Obama's "yea" vote on a border fence, even after he criticized conservatives for being too anti-immigrant) and McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, both of which have been extremely unpopular among his party's base.

McCain has refrained as much as possible from negative attacks on the two Democrats. While I am sure that will change once a nominee is chosen, he is not attacking Obama's idiotic comments about the U.S.'s China policy or Clinton's lies about Bosnia. Obama, however, has ridiculed McCain and said it was "about time" when McCain called for greater government intervention in the pay distribution of companies such as Bear Stearns. McCain even called Obama "qualified to be president." This shocked and disturbed me, but again, goes to his character. There is no need to say that; in fact, it is unwise to say that about your opponent even if it is true (which it most definitely is not).

He served in Vietnam, and actually believed what he was doing was right. He survived as a POW and didn't return to stomp on his own medals. He has been a man for the troops and for our noble venture in Iraq ever since it began over five years ago. His goal is success, regardless of the political circumstances.

The long and short of it is that I believe McCain is in this for America. He honestly thinks that he is making this country a better place, and as president can do so. While I disagree with much of his ideology, and do not want the failures of liberal policy being attributed to a newly defined Republican Party, I respect that America's interests are at heart, not his own. Clinton and Obama do not care about their party or their country; they are two selfish politicians fighting over a promotion. If either of them did care, they would step down for the sake of the voters. The fact that they haven't, and most definitely won't until the party votes, proves what is really important to them.

I am greatly disappointed that McCain is the nominee, and I am worried about the possibilities his presidency could bring both in our diplomatic relations and domestic policy initiatives. But one thing is for sure: he is by far the most qualified of the three to run this country, and has more character than the other two could ever have. And when he's sparring with one of these Dems in front of Tim Russert in the fall, this may be a big factor for the voters.

Happy April Fool's Day! I just want to make it clear that this post is not humorous or satirical in any way. I actually attempted to write one about how Obama is the second coming, but realized that too many people already believe it to be true for it to be effective. But I digress.

As the poll numbers begin to take shape in the two situations for the general election, Obama's prospects are darkening by the day. While McCain has a very good chance of beating either candidate, he has not yet been touched in general election campaigning which could turn the tables. The real question is which Democrat can do better in the electoral college, the thing that really matters as we have seen in both 2000 and 2004.

There are certain states that either party always win (except for the presence of an extraordinary leader, such as Ronald Reagan). In fact, if you look at the only 2 Democrats to be elected of the past 7, the only way they could accumulate enough electoral votes is by garnering southern states (which, in both cases, were because of their home states: Carter of Georgia, Clinton of Arkansas). Every other election, the Democrats have only gotten votes from the urban, liberal strongholds of the Northeast and West Coast, with major cities like Chicago and Minneapolis delivering a few states in between. Other than that, the Republican can be relatively safe in assuming that the South and the majority of the Midwest will go red. This election is no exception in this regard, both Democrats being from traditionally left-leaning states anyways.

What does any of this mean for the battle between Clinton and Obama? Let's look at the primary results. Clinton has done very well in the two swing states: Florida and Ohio. She has won virtually all the states that Democrats need in November: New York, Pennsylvania, California, and much of New England. Obama has won more states, yes, and therefore more delegates; these states, however, are going to go to McCain anyways.

Now we have to decide which poll numbers are the most important. National polls are more like a gauge of popularity as opposed to a legitimate predictor of election results. Obama has been ahead of McCain nationally for most of the election, until recently when McCain has pulled ahead narrowly. McCain has been ahead of Clinton for most of the election, and remains so by a greater margin. However, this does not truly show whose chances are better in the general election. The three most interesting states I want to mention are Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Here are the numbers, according to the RCP average of all major poll data:

Florida:
McCain-Obama: McCain +6.8
McCain-Clinton: McCain +2.8
Ohio:
McCain-Obama: McCain +7.0
McCain-Clinton: Clinton +0.3
Pennsylvania:
McCain-Obama: McCain +2.2
McCain-Clinton: McCain +0.4

These are very bad indicators for Obama, because it shows why Clinton is the more electable of the two. She can accumulate electoral votes more easily, and is more popular in the Democratic states. The superdelegates will see this and will vote for her. I find the Democratic nomination process hysterical in its confusion, especially after some of the comments of some prominent party leaders. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson are all supporting Obama (and are all superdelegates themselves). And they claim that superdelegates should reflect the popular vote (which favors Obama). They conveniently forget, however, that the states they represent (Massachusetts and New Mexico) voted for Clinton! So they are completly ignoring the will of their constituents, but yet they want all the other superdelegates to do the opposite? Which popular vote do you wish to reflect? In fact, even the regular delegates can vote unbound for whomever they want! The party is in madness.

The reality is, now, that Obama is the less electable of the two. The polls and electoral college show this to be true. As Clinton gears up to win Pennsylvania in exactly three weeks, the superdelegates can decide to run Clinton (who has a moderate chance) or Obama (who will get destroyed by McCain). Knowing the Democratic Party and the geniuses running it...


the choice is not so obvious.

As the national average of gasoline soars yet again, approaching new records over $3.20, the complaining also ensues to new heights. Every time you turn on the news, they are discussing the high gas prices and the murder at the pump. Some say they are being robbed, and blame can be laid on pretty much anyone.

But I am sick of hearing Democrats complain about high gas prices. In fact, I am implementing a new rule: Democrats, you are not allowed to whine and moan about high gas prices ever again, at least until you get your fuel policies in order.

There are a handful of reasons for this rule, and I am using only the things Democrats claim about themselves:

1. Democrats are the party of progress, and energy is one area that they believe needs more progress than other, less important issues (like better armor for our troops, for example). Clinton, Obama, and even McCain (he's an honorary Democrat) have pledged investing in the research for renewable resources. Don't high gas prices create an even greater incentive to do this? Won't it influence public opinion to push toward other sources of energy? They should be enjoying the high gas prices. It will simply limit the amount people drive, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It works in Europe, why not try it here? In all honesty, that is a legitimate argument if you really want to get people to stop driving. So go ahead, argue tha we're going to tax the hell out of gas just to get you on the subway. But do NOT claim that a) companies are stealing honest Americans' money and b) that gas prices are too high.

2. Representative John Dingle (D-no idea), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has proposed a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gas in the country. This brings us to the whole tax issue. Democrats like to blame all the high gas prices on the big companies like Chevron or Exxon. They claim that they are stealing our money and must be broken up. But in reality, these companies never make more than a nickel in net profit from each gallon. (The reason their profits are so high each year is because that is a TON of nickels.) In fact, Gannett Publishing, parent company of USA Today (which, ironically, voices concerns about high gas prices), has a profit margin roughly ten times that of Exxon Mobil. Why isn't the government stepping in to lower the cost of their papers? Taxes account for 30-40 cents of each gallon, depending on which state you live in; that translates into roughly ten times the amount the oil companies make. It's the government robbing you at the pump, not the corporation. Because Democrats favor higher taxes, and most of these taxes were introduced and passed by them, they caused these high prices and should therefore not complain. Unless, of course, they want to repent.

3. Democrats have prevented the construction of a new refinery in this country for decades. The most modern one was constructed in 1972. They are inefficient and dirty. But because of their opposition to common sense, Democrats won't allow new, more efficient ones to be built due to environmental and progressive energy reasons. Per gallon of gas, over $1.25 goes to the refining process. This could be reduced drastically by building new and better refineries.

4. Democrats oppose the drilling for oil in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge (pictured). There is no logical reason for this. ANWR is not the Yosemite Park they make it out to be; it resembles the surface of the moon. There are centuries of oil supply underneath this one spot, but they'd prefer to allow a couple blades of grass live undisturbed than to facilitate lower gas prices to aid hard-working Americans. Not only do they oppose this drilling, but they also clamor for our independence from foreign oil. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!! Or just shut up and let the adults work in peace.

Several studies have conclued that there are over 5000 years of oil left on this planet, even if we account for the exponential increase in consumption we are seeing. The "years left" figure is only based on known reserves, which is constantly growing as we discover new sources. It has fluctuated between 30 and 60 years left ever since oil became such a huge commodity.

So Democrats, or any Republicans who agree with them for that matter, you are not allowed to complain about high gas prices anymore. If you agree that a) companies are stealing your money at the pump; b) global warming is being caused by our cars; or c) that higher taxes are a good thing, then you are responsible for those high taxes and therefore should be celebrating. Thank you.

I am not lacking in extraordinary Easter break vacations. Because it is the time we have the most time off from school and the weather in Buffalo is not worth staying for, those two weeks are usually the ones my family use to get out of town and travel. We are a huge family for travel, and have had some simply amazing trips. I have spent three breaks in Europe, three in California, two in Hawaii, and one in Australia/New Zealand. We have also gone down to our family in Philadelphia once or twice and, more commonly, to our family in Florida.

Florida pales in comparison to any of those other exotic locales. I'm not a particular fan of Florida; in fact, I have a legitimate dislike for this state and resent having to spend too much time here. If it weren't for the following reasons, I would never come. But this break was special in a variety of ways.

The first parts of the break were just plain fun. I flew into Atlanta to see one of my best friends, and I stayed with her Friday night. The following Saturday we painted the city red and then I took a bus (NEVER again) at midnight to meet my family in Columbia, SC. We continued the drive down to Amelia Island, a small island on the Atlantic coast north of Jacksonville. Here we checked into the Ritz-Carlton to spend Sunday night, and as always, the stay at the Ritz was surreal. It's so classy everywhere you look, it almost grows tiring and irritating ("How can any hotel be so damn perfect in every way?!"). I'm exaggerating of course; it was an incredible 2 days.

But the real trip began that afternoon when we left for Winter Park, a small "suburb" of Orlando. My mom's cousin and her British husband have a small home here, where we all stayed. The branch of my family that lives down in Florida is just awesome: they are extremely kind, welcoming, happy, and friendly. As they were preparing dinner for us Monday night, with my uncle saying such things as "tip top" and "done and dusted," I just had an experience. As we all know, Obama's pastor had some unkind words for the US in some of his sermons. But as I watched this combination of family doing something as simple as making a meal, I was moved. This is America. This is what life is all about. The love of family is a bond nothing can break, and America is what protects that bond greater than any other country on earth.

As the trip continued, these feelings only grew. We spent an afternoon at Disneyworld (courtesy free all-access passes), enjoying the incredible rides and laughing at the fat people decked out in Mickey Mouse gear. Afterward, we met up with the family friends that got us the passes and got big burgers at a local alehouse, watching basketball, hockey, and catching up on old times.

On Thursday, we piled into the car with my aunt to drive down to Bradenton, a small town about 30 miles south of Tampa. My mom's other cousin (my aunt's sister) lives here with her family of four. We remained in Bradenton for the rest of the trip. On Friday, we went to a Pittsburgh Pirates spring training game (my uncle works for them), which was really fun and just a good few hours. It was a small stadium, about 6000 people, and it felt like we were in an old movie at an old-fashioned baseball park. It was very intimate and relaxed, just a pure American atmosphere. The smell of Cracker Jacks and hot dogs filled the seating area.

But probably the most emotional moment of the entire trip was Easter mass this morning. This was the first Easter since my grandma passed away, my mom's mom, who was very close to this side of the family. Even though we didn't visit Florida with her before, it was still hard to go to a mass I know she would have loved with a group of family that she adored. As the choir sang the Hallelujah Chorus as the Gospel Acclamation, I sang the baritone part remembering the long drives to Philadelphia when we'd play it in the car and sing along. While it was sad, it was happy to see what an amazing family she helped shape, and I know she is proud of these relationships. We proceeded to pack up our feast of ham and potato salad and drove out to the Gulf Coast beach for a beautiful afternoon in the sun. What a day.

The point of this little digression is that this country isn't about how much money we have. It's not about how good the dollar is, how many troops died today, how much the Dow dropped by. It's not about the Fortune 500, about Barack Obama's passport, about where we're drilling for oil. All crucial issues just the same, what this country is about is relationships, family, and most of all, freedom. No other country experiences what we experience everyday, even if their currency is higher or their healthcare system superior. What makes America the best country in the world is our ability to be free, and to be able to love and express that love in any way we see fit. The rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright is so shocking because it trivializes that right, nay, that privilege to exercise our right, to something base and needless. It didn't matter that I was only 1400 miles from home instead of 11,000; that I was in the US instead of Italy; that I flew on a regional jet instead of a 747. I had an incredible break because of my ability to love and be loved by the people that really matter in our lives. It moved me, this year more than ever, and I hope that you take a minute to appreciate it too.

I have two quotes from Ronald Reagan that I feel encapsulate both my theme and what we need to realize in these times of desperate struggles for freedom.

"All great change in America begins at the dinner table."

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."


Of course, as these types of speeches so often do, I conclude with the obligatory:

God bless America.

The Obama campaign has finally proven why they are going to have a hard time winning the superdelegates this summer and possibly even the election this fall. He is an unknown quantity.

To sum up recent events, videos have come to light of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years and extremely close friend and mentor, making extremist and frightening anti-American and anti-white sermons. His message is one of hate and racism, claiming such things as:

• 9/11 was simply America's chickens coming home to roost;
• "God bless America? God-damn America!"
• The U.S. of K.K.K. A.
• America created HIV/AIDS to start a genocide in Africa

The list goes on, and it is painful to even listen to. You can look them up for yourself on YouTube; I, for one, do not wish to embed such horrible videos on my site.

But what does this mean for Barack? Whatever it means, it is not good. In fact, this could single-handedly tank his campaign. Barack has been campaigning on "change we can believe in" and "yes we can." These bumper sticker slogans sound great...until we learn that they are quotes from Rev. Wright. He quoted an entire speech of his in one of his books, which included the line "Where whites breed, troubles seed." Wright was the first man he called for thanks after winning his Illinois State Senate seat.

The idea that Barack was unaware of such outrageous statements is preposterous. He would not allow Wright to deliver the invocation because he knew that this would simply turn the public eye on him, revealing these sermons that have scared so many Americans.

I will say this: if my own father were a pastor and began making statements like this from the pulpit, I would walk out and never come back to that church. And I expect every self-respecting American to do the same. Barack Obama is an unknown quality, with no track record to speak of or back him up. When you are an unknown, these seemingly little things are very important to who you are and what the public should think of you. We all know what kind of man Hillary married. We all know the types of tactics they use in their campaigns. These all go to her character (or lack thereof). But Obama has no such public record, and this is a major addition to that resume.

But what is really important here, at least to the Democrats, is not what was said, but the sheer surprise it has provoked. This is exactly the type of thing the superdelegates would fear in an Obama nomination, and why they would stay with the safe choice of Hillary Clinton. Obama will not come from this unscathed by any means; in fact, for the first time in a while, McCain has surged past the declining Obama in the realclearpolitics.com poll average since these videos have aired.

His speech today was supposedly brilliant, but it was about race and the deep divisions of America. While these are important issues, the president is not some type of cultural healer. We have major economic and national security problems to deal with right now; frankly, I'd take someone with the public face of Richard Nixon if I knew he could take care of these. Maybe in ten years we can handle a Barack Obama to close our cultural gaps, but right now we need an economic and military leader. Obama is not it.

Furthermore, I would like to know how Obama unites. He can't even get half of his party to support him, much less half of the country. That's because most of the people in this country realize he is full of crap, and a pretty picture on the wall may look nice but is only that: a pretty picture. Geraldine Ferraro was half-right: his success is due to his great ability to communicate (albeit nothing) and to his race.

While his speech today might put a band-aid on the wound so deeply inflicted, not by Wright himself, but by Obama's foolish and despicable maintenance of a close relationship with this horrible individual, it will not help to convince the superdelegates that he can win in November. In fact, it will only prove that this mystery man is exactly that, and nothing can change that between now and election day. Now more than ever, Hillary is going to be the safe vote. It will be close, but she will win Pennsylvania in a few weeks, and she will win the nomination in a couple months.

God BLESS America.

The Obama-Clinton battle is getting more furious every day, and is causing chaos and confusion among the entire Democratic Party. It has come to a point where no matter who is nominated, a significant number of Democrats will be greatly alienated; the question now is which candidate will create a smaller one of these groups.

Hillary Clinton wants this win more than anyone can imagine. This has been the plan of the Clintons since their aspirations began, and she is not going to let some junior senator newbie from Illinois ruin it because of a bunch of crazed lunatics that support him. Her gloves have truly come off.

Over the past few weeks, especially since the rejuvenation of her campaign on March 4, we've heard the bitter words being bounced around by these two candidates. Clinton especially has been noted as being extremely vicious toward Obama's campaign.

The most recent wave is Democratic Party relic and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first woman on a presidential ticket as Mondale's VP in 1984. She basically claimed that if Barack Obama weren't black, he wouldn't be anywhere near as successful in this election as he is.

First a quick aside as to the validity of this statement. It is curious. What are his merits? He is an excellent speaker, very personable, and says what we all want to hear. Are these really the only qualities that have led to his success? I'm not so sure. There are plenty of white politicians with the same qualities. Why aren't they leading a cult of delusional followers?

That being said, in the days since she said this statement, she has been bombarded by attacks from the media and the Obama campaign calling her a racist. Obama on the Today Show told Matt Lauer that he would never say Hillary has gotten to where she is because she is a woman. But Ferraro, being a tough and loud-spoken individual, is not backing down. Instead, she is stating how offended she is to be called a racist. All she did was make an observation about Obama's success and its relation to his skin color; she never said she preferred black or white, etc. etc.

The way Ferraro was pounced upon sounds awfully familiar to me...oh, that's right, that happens to every single Republican who even mentions race. "Macacca," which was used by the Democrats to tank a very successful and viable Republican Senator; many of Ann Coulter's comments; and even Rush Limbaugh when he claimed on ESPN that McNabb's success is due in no small part to his skin color.

It is fascinating to see the Democrats being shocked at the tactics that they have employed towards Republicans for so many years, but only when they are employed at each other. Articles pop up every day about how Clinton is doing some sneaky this or tricksy that, how she is throwing cheap shots or low blows. But we Republicans knew this would happen; we experienced them completely unleash their tactics on us for nearly a decade.

This, of course, is highly beneficial to the GOP, for multiple reasons. For one, McCain has no grapes, and his campaign has even issued "talking points" about what can and cannot be said about Barack Obama so as not to set off the sensitive issue of his race, middle name "Hussein," and other things. It appears that even Hillary is more readily going after Obama than McCain will, which is dangerous considering Obama's possible (if not likely) nomination.

But also, as the Democrats tear each other apart, the rift in the party will be far more damaging than the rift on the Republican side. Yes, many Republicans have their differences with McCain; but in the end, the party wins us over. (Who am I kidding, I don't think I'll be flicking that Clinton lever in November, regardless of my feelings about McCain.) We've been grappling with this party battle for decades. But the Democrats have never experienced such a split, and it should be interesting to see how this nominating process pans out for them, for us, and for the country.