Betting on the Clintons being evil

On Intrade, the contract "Dropout.June08.Clinton" is currently trading at about 81%. That's about 4:1 odds on a short-sell; it's essentially a bet to see whether or not Clinton drags this thing out to the convention. Doing so would be her best way to damage Obama in the long run. She needs Obama to lose if she is to make a run in 2012.

This might be the most overvalued Intrade stock I've ever seen.

The Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact

It has been terrifying to watch the formation of an unholy alliance between the Clinton campaign and Fox News. It reminds me of the Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact in 1939 - and Barack Obama is Poland. Hillary Clinton and Fox News are mortal enemies, but the destruction of Barack Obama is a more pressing concern for both parties. Both have something to gain from Obama’s destruction: a Clinton run in 2012, and a McCain victory in 2008.

The Clinton camp will create the narrative, and Fox will continue to amplify it. Already we are seeing Clinton’s “feminist” surrogates lining up to accuse Obama of being a sexist; this to ensure that Obama never wins the female vote. Clinton will continue to pretend to be the friend of Michigan and Florida voters, to help McCain win those states in November. Meanwhile, Fox will continue to claim that Obama can’t win the white vote, and remind voters of Jeremiah Wright and “bittergate”. Obama does not have a white problem, he has a regional problem – he doesn’t do well in Appalachia. No surprise there – it’s poor, economically stagnant, uneducated, white, and racist; in other words, Hillary Clinton’s base.

The only people who could put a stop to this are the super delegates. A massive exodus from Clinton to Obama would be a firm rebuke to her divisive tactics and make a Democrat victory in November possible. However, I am not optimistic that the Democratic leadership will be either decisive or courageous. Over the last few years they have only shown themselves to be a bunch of indecisive, sniveling cowards; I don’t see why this time will be any different. How pathetic. This sad state of affairs reminds me why I am not a Democrat.

Sore loser, sore loser

Hillary Clinton recently blamed her imminent defeat on the media, claiming it has been sexist. Right. Hillary has been dead in the water since February. Had the roles been switched...had it been Hillary with an insurmountable delegate lead over Barack, what would the narrative have been? Hillary would have laughed at Obama for continuing to campaign. She would have declared victory months ago.

It was the media that allowed Hillary to keep in this race. The Clinton campaign has used the media to dictate the narrative for months. First it was pledged delegates. Then it was "big states". Then it was the popular vote. Now its working class white people. According to the Clintons, the criteria we should use to pick the nominee is changing every other week, and the media laps it up. Hillary shouldn't be criticizing the media, she should be thanking it graciously for allowing her to continue her campaign for far longer than she should have been able to.


Just in case anyone is wondering why Clinton keeps winning "the white vote", it has far less to do with race than region. Obama can win the white vote; states don't get any more rural and white than Iowa. What he cannot win is the Appalachian vote. The Appalachian region extends through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky...all big Clinton wins. Economically stagnant, uneducated, and white, Appalachia is Clinton's base. I'm not impressed.

Its over!!!

Granted, people who have been paying attention know that Obama won the nomination a long time ago. This has only gone on so long because the media wouldn't accept that Obama won until he delivered a "knockout blow" to Hillary. Last night, Obama delivered. North Carolina was a humiliation for HRC, who believed that she was going to keep it close. Indiana, with its abundant blue collar, working class, non-college educated white folk, aka "Hillary's base", should have went strongly for Hillary. Polls showed her winning by 6+ percent.

In reality, she couldn't even give her victory speech with confidence, because Indiana was still up in the air at that point. Bill was standing next to her, and he was absolutely furious. His face was as red as a monkey's ass. The Clintons knew last night that this race was over. I am so proud of Indiana, for being the state that finally destroyed the Clinton machine. Its been an exciting election thus far, but I'm glad its over. It has been a huge distraction, and I have work to do.

...and it most certainly is over. John McCain doesn't stand even a remote chance of beating Obama in November.

George Bush's third term?

Someone asked Hillary if she knew of a single economist who thought her summer gas tax holiday was a good idea.

"Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists."

Classic. Its incredible how broad the census against this idea really is. It spans from the far left all the way to the far right. And yet, in the face of overwhelming agreement that this idea sucks, Hillary didn't backtrack. Instead, she became more adamant and more insistent that her idea was the correct one. She is now challenging Congress to pass legislation, to force everyone to choose to side "with the oil companies or with the American people" (barf).

This its just the latest illustration of a picture that has developed in many people's minds about what Hillary really represents. Her campaign reeks of nepotism; she is surrounded by yes-men and incompetent cronies. Her political tactics are vile and of the lowest order (she had to go negative early because she has no real vision of her own). She says offensive and dangerous things about other nations; most recently, claiming that we would "obliterate" all of Iran. She is a proven, pathological liar; indeed she does it so commonly that now it isn't even considered a big deal when she does. Notice how quickly the "sniper fire" controversy died down. Even many of her policies are outlandish and ridiculous - and yet, she egotistically clings to them in defiance. This isn't about whats best for the country, its about proving that she is right.

Hillary Clinton sure has a lot in common with George W. Bush. It is she, not John McCain, who most accurately would represent Bush's "third term" in office. Even now, her poll numbers are strengthening. She is poised to win Indiana and could even upset Obama in North Carolina. Polls now show Hillary beating McCain handily in a general election, while Obama-McCain is quite close. I've spent months trying to convince conservatives to support Barack Obama during this election cycle, citing his many strengths as a unifier and a stimulus for change. Now I'm going to urge conservatives, especially ones in Indiana, to rally around Obama for a different reason:

Do it, or be prepared to watch Hillary Clinton give an inaugural address in January.

One way to not get the Iranians to stop pursuing nuclear weapons:

Threaten to "obliterate" their nation. There seems to be a constant stream of American politicians who are willing to talk about nuking Iran. Most of the GOP candidates in one debate refused to rule out the use of preemptive nuclear weapons; only McCain and Ron Paul dissented. And now Hillary Clinton is talking of annihilating Iran? If I was an Iranian, I'd be pushing even harder for a strong nuclear program to deter a US attack.

I don't need to write a post talking about how stupid Hillary Clinton is, of course. There is not a single person who would ever read my blog that would be a Hillary supporter. My (small) reader base consists of only two types of people: bored, young, internet-saavy liberals who are well educated, and thus hate Hillary. Or family and friends who are educated and conservative, and thus hate Hillary. But I did want to put this out there because this is really the kind of thing that McCain or Obama fans should be jumping on to illustrate just how unpalatable a Hillary presidency would be. She isn't even the Democrat nominee yet and she is already pissing off other countries.

I can't believe I'm blogging at 1:45 am, the morning of my pharmacology final exam.

Message to Reverend Wright:

PUT A SOCK IN IT.

Who is this guy working for, anyway? I just saw Reverend Wright give his side of the story about all of the controversy as of late. He has a sharp wit and a quick tongue, I'll give him that. And I personally don't have a problem with what he was saying. However, I suspect that I'm more open minded and more capable of synthesizing words than most people in Indiana. Most people in Indiana aren't going to be OK with the Reverend's talk. It was arrogant, condescending, and will make people wonder why Obama associates with him at all. Those words will be playing on the news nonstop from now until the Indiana Primary on May 6th.

On Super Tuesday, I called the Democratic Primary for Barack Obama. The type of scenario that it would have taken for him to lose the nomination was too far fetched to take seriously. For the first time since February 5th, I am doubting my conclusion. Obama isn't going to win Indiana; not after that speech by Reverend Wright. At the same time, polls are showing him doing worse against McCain and Hillary better. That far-fetched scenario where Obama somehow loses the nomination is no longer a stretch. I already dumped all of my Obama stock on Intrade; at 80% to win, it was way overvalued. The Democratic race is a tie at this point. When Indiana goes for Hillary, the balance is going to shift in her favor.

At least I still have plan B: John McCain.

The timing couldn't possibly have been better.

My previous post came only hours before an ABC-hosted debate between Obama and Clinton in Philadelphia. A relevant comment from my post:

"...the discourse [in MSM reporting] is so superficial. The "debates" that they have on most of these programs are so inane that they barely scratch the surface of what really matters in an issue."

In that post I cited CNN as an example, but now I can cite the performance of the ABC moderators in the Philly debate to further prove my point. The Washington Post says that the real loser of the debate was ABC. To watch a five minute video that highlights some of the "important issues" brought up in the debate, there is one posted here. Finally, the ABC news website is being flooded with literally thousands of angry viewer comments. There are 15,000 and counting at this point. The ABC site with comments can be seen here, but I'll pick out just a few representative samples:

This is exactly the reason I canceled my cable subscription this year. The major media has been destroying this country for some time now, and the saga continues. This was not a debate over politics, this is a joke. These people must think we are just dumb sheep that don't care about actual issues. I felt like I got dumber watching that "debate".

The mainstream media's disdain for the American public has hit a new low after last nights debate. It is clear that the moderators' impression of Americans is that we are an uneducated hoard with a sick craving for confrontation. Furthermore, their assumption is that our collective intellect cannot comprehend a discussion of serious issues that affect our world.Your entire network has framed this *debate* in nothing but bellicose noise. Look no further than the debate report title - "Philly Fight Night". How does this pass for news? How do your staff members pass for professional news journalists? Do you hate your country enough to make petty attacks and gossip the criteria on which we select our president?

It's about lack of substance and a failure to deal with the critical issues facing our country. I know many McCain supporters, including my father, who were just as disgusted by last night's debate as I was.

What a complete and utter disgrace your hosts and their questions made of this debate. Instead of focusing on real issues, you chose to question Sen. Obama's patriotism? Ask about the capital gains tax? Talk about flag pins? Shame on all of you. I will no longer watch ABC This was truly reprehensible.

On the MSM

Bill Clinton recently suggested that young voters are easily fooled into voting for Barack Obama. On Digg, one user left a comment that I thought was fantastic:

Bill Clinton has it exactly backwards: Hillary is stronger with older voters because these voters are more likely to get their news mostly from the MSM, while younger voters rely more on the Web. On the Web, Hillary's spin gets shot to smithereens in seconds, whereas it has a much longer halflife on the MSM. The MSM is far more manageable by candidates than the Web is. The Web EMPOWERS its readers to get answers to their questions; they don't need to settle for and second-guess the narrow, cautiously worded narratives that the MSM puts out. For this reason, the MSM not only promotes ignorance, it also promotes self-mistrust in one's understanding of the political landscape (because consciously or not one is aware of the fact that the MSM is not being 100% level in its reporting).

Getting political information from the MSM is a terrible idea. This isn't because I believe big corporations are pulling the strings behind the scenes, or that its pure and deliberate propaganda. No...getting info from the MSM is a bad idea because the discourse is so superficial. The "debates" that they have on most of these programs are so inane that they barely scratch the surface of what really matters in an issue. Want proof? Watch CNN, and then watch CNN-International. It is undeniable: CNN purposefully dumbs down their content for American audiences.

Why is the US Military still fighting al Sadr?

In recent days, the Iraqi city of Basra has seen intense fighting between rival Shia groups. One is financed and trained by, and politically tied to, Iran. A reasonable person might think this is the group that the US Military is fighting, but alas, that person would be wrong. We are fighting along side the Iranian-backed Badr / rebranded ISCI, against local nationalists led by Muqtada al Sadr.

I've said it before, al Sadr is "anti-American" only in the sense that he wants us to withdraw from Iraq. So do all of the Sunni groups that are cooperating with us in Anbar since the surge! We still work with them, don't we? If someone was really interested in the long term stability of a place like Iraq, they would realize that al Sadr is the type of person who could help make that happen. He is a nationalist, keen to curb Iranian influence, and willing to join forces with Sunnis for the sake of "Iraq".

Iraq is the perfect setup for Iran. First we take out Iran's number 1 enemy in Saddam Hussein. Then we sacrifice thousands of US lives and billions of dollars fighting other enemies of Iran; Al Qaeda, the Sunnis in Anbar, and even local Shia nationalists like al Sadr. We are doing all of Iran's dirty work for it, protecting the elected government that Iran more or less owns, and all the while Iran gets to berate the US every day for occupying a Muslim country.

I've got a longer post on this topic coming, but I had to get this one off my chest.

Speaking of preachers who blame America for 9/11

Obama is taking criticism because his reverend, Wright, said some comments about America being partly responsible for 9/11. "Chickens coming home to roost" and all of that. Here are some thoughts.

1. The idea of 'blowback' was presented in the 9/11 Commission Report and describes that actions may have unintended consequences. This isn't a new idea, and it isn't anti-American to suggest that blowback is real.

2. Reverends Falwell and Robertson blamed America for 9/11 as well. Video link is here. Although in their case, the culprit responsible for the terrorist attacks was not blowback, as Wright claimed. Rather, it was moral depravity.

So lets recap. It is anti-American to suggest that covert CIA operations in foreign countries can cause resentment in the local populace. However, it is perfectly reasonable, but not anti-American, to suggest that belief in evolution or partaking in gay sex causes terrorism.

For the record, and to my eternal dismay, John McCain long ago accepted the endorsement of Falwell and spoke at his "university". Anyone who would think less of Obama for his association with Wright should think still worse of McCain for his association with Falwell.

For the record, I could care less about either. It would be impossible for a person to become a contender for the presidency while never once associating with some mildly scrupulous characters. Relative to other politicians, both McCain and Obama are very clean.

Interesting historical tidbit

From Wikipedia:

The Hawley-Smoot Tariff (or Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act)[1] was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, and, in the opinion of most economists, worsened the Great Depression. Economists have now generally regarded this Tariff Act (i.e., tax increase on imported goods) as the greatest policy blunder in American economic history, coming as it did after the 1929-30 recession and preventing the economy from a full, natural recovery which had already started by the Spring of 1930. Many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half.

During the 1992 Presidential Debate, Ross Perot warned of a "giant sucking sound" to describe job losses to Mexico if NAFTA was signed. During a debate on CNN, Al Gore presented Perot with a framed portrait of Congressmen Smoot and Hawley. The Clinton Administration subsequently won the election and passed NAFTA, which was considered for years to be a fantastic bipartisan achievement.

More trade discussion from my favorite economist Greg Mankiw on the NY Times.

Playing a dangerous game

More concrete word about Republican tactics. They are coming out in droves to vote for Hillary Clinton in Democrat primaries. For a republican it's a cost-benefit analysis. Their best-case scenario is President McCain; worst-case scenario is President Clinton. A President Obama falls somewhere in the middle. Republicans adopting this tactic of helping Hillary are going for an all-or-nothing strategy. That doesn't make sense, though! The reward in such a risk should be high; its not. John McCain is not the next Reagan. The risk, however, is extremely high - the prospects of another President Clinton. Meanwhile, the odds of a favorable outcome (McCain beating Hillary) still aren't that great - especially if the economy tanks or Iraq gets worse. Republicans should realize that settling for four years of Obama is a far less risky and more sensible prospect.

Ultimately, conservatives should be thankful for the existence of Barack Obama. If not for Obama, we would be looking at President Clinton in 2008 - end of story. She would have clinched the Democratic nomination with ease, and she would have trounced any republican, even John McCain, in the general. The only reason McCain could potentially give her a run for her money now is because Hillary's campaign against Obama has shown many Democrats how despicable she really is. Without Obama, the Clintons would still be revered among all Democrats.

After eight long years of abject failure under Bush, conservatives should recognize that they don't deserve the presidency this time around. They need to spend the next four years reorganizing, cleaning up their act, and going back to true conservative principles. In the meantime, they should be thankful that at least its not Hillary.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

It isn't impossible to imagine a scenario where Hillary wins the Democrat nomination. She will be permanently behind in the delegate count, as many have pointed out. It may not matter - neither her nor Obama will be able to make it to 2025 delegates on their own. That is the number required to lock the nomination. The super delegates would have to call it in such circumstances. If Hillary had ended the primary season on a winning streak, its not hard to imagine them deciding in her favor, even if Obama had a very slight overall delegate lead.

This would almost certainly cause a civil war within the Democratic Party. It is much easier to imagine a John McCain victory after such a tumultuous outcome. I for one would not hesitate to vote for McCain if forced to choose between McCain or Hillary. This may be the third virtually unlosable election in eight years that the Democrats are well on their way to losing. It almost makes me pity them.

Almost.

Addendum to previous post

Short video of Barack Obama discussing education; I completely agree with every point he makes. The short version: while there are lots of things we need to be doing to improve education in America, parental responsibility is most important. This is so obvious, and yet few national politicians are hitting on it.

On a contrary note, I would like to reiterate how strongly I disagree with Obama on economic issues. I am a supporter of NAFTA; on the whole it has been a good thing for North Americans. I support free trade. There isn't any other force that will be capable of lifting billions out of poverty world wide. Free trade unites people as well; nothing in mankind's history has been so effective at preventing wars. Read about the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" for more details (no two nations with a McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other).

As I said below, I am willing to take a hit on economic issues for this election cycle, because the pros of an Obama Presidency more than make up for the economic negatives. Still, I am hoping that Barack's anti-trade rhetoric is mere politics designed to win a primary, not something that he genuinely believes.

The conservative case for Barack Obama.

I posted a year ago that a McCain-Obama matchup would be a dream come true. It is exactly what this country needs right now - minimally divisive, with bipartisan appeal in both candidates. So who would I support? I consider myself a libertarian; socially liberal but economically conservative. As such, I disagree with just about all of Obama's economic policies. Conversely, I have parallel views with McCain on many issues. Yet, there is no question as to whom I am supporting in November: Barack Obama. Even if I was an arch-conservative, I would still be pulling for Barack Obama in November. Here are eight reasons why.

Reason Number 1: The conservative movement has abandoned its core principles. Anybody with half a brain will recognize that George Bush's administration has not been conservative. The conservative movement needs a timeout. They need to reduce the power of evangelicals and militarists. They need to once again espouse true conservative economic principles, and a more modest foreign agenda. Republicans should be downright embarrassed that Bill Clinton's economic record puts Bush's to shame.

Reason Number 2: Immigration is irrelevant. Regardless of one's opinion on immigration, they might as well forget about it this election cycle. McCain and Obama have very similar opinions on immigration.

Reason Number 3: John McCain is not going to usher in a new conservative economic revolution. McCain's biggest weakness is on economic issues. What a conservative should be looking for is the next Reagan - the next leader who can articulate a new conservative economic agenda. John McCain is not that man. Electing McCain for the next four years would simply delay the time when the next conservative economic revolution takes place.

Reason Number 4: Iraq is not strategically worth it. Despite initially opposing the war, I supported the war after the invasion because I believed we owed it to the Iraqis to try to piece their nation back together. After almost 4000 dead American soldiers, 4 years of battle, and trillions of dollars, we have fulfilled our moral obligation to the Iraqi people. The surge has been an amazing success, and I credit McCain for that (and wish he had been in charge sooner). However, surge or no, the Iraqi politicians are not making political progress. The state of Iraq is going to fragment. It will happen if we withdraw immediately, or if we do so in a decade, but it will happen nonetheless.

Many people believe we need to stay in Iraq to ensure a steady oil supply. This is not just the strong strategy - its the wrong frigging game. The oil is running out! We can deal with this reality now, or we can draw it out for another few decades when the wells run dry. Either way it will happen; the goal is to eventually no longer be reliant on oil.

Meanwhile, the occupation of Iraq does remain a rallying-cry for Islamic extremists. A withdrawal from Iraq, certain to happen under Obama but definitely not under McCain, will rob extremists of that rallying cry. After a US withdrawal from Iraq, no longer will Muslims read in the paper that US soldiers accidentally killed X civilians today in X Iraqi city. Instead, they will be horrified by the intense intra-Muslim violence that will inevitably follow our withdrawal. It will be a tragedy, but one that will quite clearly reveal the evil and hypocrisy of religious extremism for all to see.

Reason Number 5: Barack Obama would stand by far the best chance of any recent US President to solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This is in part because Obama is less biased towards the Israeli side of the dispute, and thus will be seen as more of a fair mediator. Additionally, Obama will have more credibility as someone who opposed the War in Iraq. Finally, having a Muslim father will give Obama a special credibility among Palestinians; a credibility that a militaristic white Christian in McCain could never have.

Reason Number 6: Barack Hussein Obama can fundamentally change the perception of America in the Muslim world and beyond. Obama is a multilateralist, and would help to mend our relations with Europe. As the child of an African man, he is positioned to forge ties to various nations of that continent for mutual benefit, and help curb China's malevolent influence there. Finally, as an opponent of the Iraq war, the child of a poor Muslim father, and having the middle name of Hussein, Barack Obama is going to send a strong message to the billion+ Muslims of the world - Americans do not hate Muslims, they just hate murderers and terrorists. I will quote Andrew Sullivan here, as his passage on this subject is the best I've read:

"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can." -Andrew Sullivan, "Why Obama Matters"

Reason Number 7: Obama can do a lot for race relations in this country. Men like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are political opportunists who exploit racial divisions for their own gain. The election of President Obama is going to shut them up for good. An Obama victory proves that their representations of the racist nature of America have been inaccurate. It proves that they are wrong to not give people the benefit of the doubt, and to assume the worst about their inclinations. Electing Obama will take the mantle of African-American leadership from those who exploit division for their own gain, and hand it to a man who preaches unity, reconciliation, and working together for the future.

Reason Number 8: Obama can restore this nation's balance. The Presidency of George Bush has been an absolute failure in every sense of the word. He has squandered our reputation abroad, and exhausted the vast reserves of American soft power (ie, our moral authority). His economic policies have been disastrous. He has exploited the religious, ethnic, and social differences of Americans for political gain. The result is a nation that is as divided as ever. The nation needs to be reoriented. All conservatives should know that the political scene needs to shift back to the left if it ever is to effectively move right again.

We can shock the world, and indeed even ourselves, by casting our votes for Obama in the fall. We can move beyond the old divisions and start with a clean slate after 16 nasty years of sub-par presidents. Every conservative should recognize that economic issues can wait. There are too many pros to pass up an Obama presidency.

Yes we can!

Yes we can?!

Losing Ohio or Texas will be the final nail in Clinton's coffin. She even tacitly acknowledged as much in the last debate. The only remaining question is whether she is going to accept defeat with any dignity.

The next thing we need to do is make sure that Obama has a very top-notch security force. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the first African-American President of the USA might have some enemies. Its unfortunate, but its reality.

She has been defeated.

I am calling the Democrat Primary right now - Hillary Clinton has been defeated. Barack Obama has won the Democrat Primary, and in November he will defeat* John McCain.

Recent polls have shown Hillary ahead by double digits in Ohio, and supposedly she is leading in Texas as well. However, for her to win at this point, the super-delegates would have to convene "in a smoke-filled room" and decide to pick Hillary over Obama against the wishes of the majority of Democrats. They would face open revolt if they attempted to do so. If Democrat super-delegates tried to install Hillary as the Democratic nominee, they would be handing McCain the presidency on a silver platter.

Had the situation of a couple of weeks ago persisted, with Hillary having a slight lead, the super delegates might have been able to get away with deciding the primary in Hillary's favor. They would have been able to tout the presumption that Hillary was the front runner anyways, so they had to make a tough but fair call. Now, Obama is clearly the front runner. Even a loss in Ohio and Texas won't change that.

If Hillary truly cared about the Democratic Party, she would exit gracefully and quickly to ensure the Democrats unite behind Obama against McCain. Dragging out the primary only strengthens the hand of the Republicans, who have pragmatically united around their strongest general election candidate. Alas, I think even life-long democrats have seen this election cycle that Hillary doesn't care about the Democrat party, she cares about Hillary. All thats left to see is how gracefully Hillary accepts her defeat. If history is any indication, I suspect that it will not be pretty.

Oh, and the latest numbers from Intrade? Obama - 72%, Hillary - 25%.

*Disclaimer: I could see McCain beating Obama if two things happened. First, the US economy would need to avoid recession, and be booming come election time. Second, Iraq needs to be completely pacified. If the economy is stagnant, or US soldiers are still dying in Iraq, Obama wins by a landslide.

Why can't people put two-and-two together?

McCain was dealt a firm rebuke by GOP primary voters tonight, winning only 26% of the vote in Washington and losing in a couple other states. Granted, McCain is still going to win the GOP nomination, but this shows how unhappy many Republican voters are with McCain's prospective leadership. Many Democrats realize this, and are collectively saying "Yay, now the GOP is screwed in November because Republicans are going to stay home!"

These people do not get it. They are correct in thinking Republicans will stay home if McCain's opponent is Barack Obama, but they are dead wrong if Hillary Clinton is on the ballot. In that situation, I assure you, those Republicans will not be staying home. If Hillary gets the nomination, the only people staying home would be Barack Obama's numerous disenfranchised supporters.

It is quite simple. If the Democrats want to win in November, they choose Obama. If they want to lose again, they pick Hillary. I am so not going to tolerate Democrats whining about another militaristic right-wing Republican president if they are the ones that pass up Obama.

I'll end on some good news. A week before Super Tuesday, Obama's intrade value to get the Dem nomination was 30% to HRC's 65%. The day of, it was 47%, tied w/ Hillary. As of now? 70%. She is losing. I am not 100% confident that she will lose, because I suspect she has some insidious plot up her sleeve to steal the nomination away from Obama. But it looks more likely that she will be stopped with each passing day.

My money goes with my heart.

For the last month or so, I've played the Intrade Politics Market with only logic, not emotion. It was more fun when I got to buy McCain and Obama, of course. Other times, like after Iowa, I knew the Clinton machine just wasn't defeated yet. Selling Obama and buying Clinton was depressing, but proved to be the right financial move at the time. I correctly predicted that Obama's surge after Iowa wouldn't last. Indeed, the numbers only a couple of weeks ago had moved back to their pre-Iowa state; 30% Obama for 65% Hillary.

However, as of now I have dumped the rest of my Intrade balance into various Obama contracts. I did so because I realized something. The implications of Hillary Clinton first defeating Obama in the Democrat Primary, and then defeating McCain in the general election, would be devastating. If this happened - if Hillary became President, I would be so disheartened, so disappointed, and so jaded, that I would probably stop following politics altogether. What need would I have for Intrade at that point, anyways?

Obama is going to win. I've always believed this, but never with more conviction than now. I know he is going to beat Hillary. I know it because I also know that this is a great nation. I know that the American dream isn't dead. America can still set a positive example for the world, and lead it to a better tomorrow. Hillary represents everything that is wrong with this nation. She is the continuation of George Bush. She represents division, the status quo, the political elite, dynastism, cynicism, and regression. We have had enough.

The American people are ready, but the fight against Hillary won't be easy. Behind her is an nearly invincible political machine that will stop at nothing to see her in the white house. Truly, the Clinton Machine would rather see the Democratic Party and the nation divided and destroyed than lose the presidency. Know hope! What as of late have we learned about evil, "unstoppable" machines? Are there any lessons that we could draw from recent history, like say 2/3/2008? It takes courage and hard work, but they can be defeated. Just ask Eli Manning.

YES WE CAN.

And Hillary? No, you absolutely positively may not.