From someone on MDD

"The United States are the perpetrators here of  wholly made-up lies, unprovoked Invasions, Occupation, Human Torture, Secret Renditions, Assassinations, Stealing away the natural resources (OIL) of soveriegn nations for U.S. Corporate profit, interfering and meddling in the Elections of sovereign nations, toppling governments, trafficking of weapons, manufacture, sale and distribution of illegal WMDs, and constructing 750 Military Bases in 130 countries all around the planet.

Since Bush Invaded Iraq, over 1.2 million people have been horribly slaughtered. Another 3-4 million mutilated, deformed, and crippled.  Bush has more innocent blood on his hands than Osama Bin Laden ever dreamed of.

We are the World's Tyrants.

If we stopped meddling in the Middle-East and stopped screwing-up their holy lands with Military Bases, and stopped seizing and pirating their OIL, then they'd have no reason anymore to hate us."

Disregarding the insidiously off base Cindy Sheehan statistics, is this how "progressives" think? Is Bill O'Reilly really that correct about you?

Personally, while I think most progressives have better language skills and more credible facts, I think the basic truths here do define the "progressive movement". Progressives hate the military, hate America and blame us for all the problems in the world.

Which is NOT the way mainstream democrats, like us here in Michigan, think. We have elected two Democratic Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. Both are credibly liberal. Both would find what was posted above to be insidiously stupid, ignorant and Anti-American. When do they become Bush Dogs? My Congressman, Sander Levin, is more liberal than his brother or Debbie. Sander would punch the jerk who wrote this in his face.

I wonder if those of you who are out there trying to purge the Harold Fords and Heath Shulers out of the party will ever come to your senses and realize that the Fords and Shulers and Levins and Jim Cooper's of the world ARE the Democratic Party. Don't kid yourselves otherwise.

And if the Matt Stollers and Kossacks of the world could ever get their heads out of their ass and quit playing Baby Stalin, they might even realize how incredibly lucky we are to have them.

I will be the first to admit, I don't understand the Obama boomlet. In a field that includes Hillary, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Edwards, Obama seems a choice that defies all rationality.

He campaigns on the fact that he was "right" about the war from the beginning. Think about this. Obama can only be right if the war fails to produce our objectives. So in order to accept the quality of Obama's judgment, you have to also accept that the war is lost.

Problem here is, the war isn't over, we haven't been defeated, a Biden style federalism may well be able to achieve a stable, functioning, democratic Iraqi state that unlike Saddam, doesn't require a constant US presence to protect the Shia and Kurds from genocide. I think even Dennis Kucinich would admit that Iraq is better than a Saddam run Iraq. Would Obama? No. Because unless is ALREADY a failure, he has no basis for a Presidential run. That's why he celebrates his judgment five years ago by declaring Iraq is ALREADY a failure, which, given that Americans are still fighting and dying over there, is the most disgusting and shameful exercise of the most horrific political cynicism I have ever seen. The fact that so many Democrats not only don't recognize this, but support the exercise thereof, is a blight on our party and the people who articulate this pabulum a blight on our country. They are Americans In Name Only.

Second, if Obama was so prescient of the consequences of going in, why is he so careful to avoid articulating the consequences of withdrawing? Because by articulating those consequences, he reveals himself to be in favor of continued military operations. Thus, he tries to have it both ways -- he masquerades as anti-war for not wanting to go in, but hides the fact that he is not anti-war now that we're there. So he plays on a ruthless, immoral cynicism, while quietly pledging to continue fighting what he believes is already a "lost" war.

Third, how exactly, is Obama going to change American politics? Will he propose a constitutional amendment changing us to a constitutional monarchy? A parliamentary system? Of course not. We will continue to have a 2 party Democracy of Democrats who don't want to compromise with Republicans, Republicans who don't want to compromise with Democrats and an empty shirt President who wonders why "we all can't just get along?"

Fourth, what has Obama ever done to make people think he's up for a presidential campaign? This man has never run against a serious Republican for anything. Bobby Rush handed him his ass when Obama challenged him for Congress and then he lucked out and got Alan Keyes in the 04 General. Obama is a neophyte, and a rather incompetent one at that (10,000 dead from the Kansas Tornadoes, negotiating with Ahmadinejad...)

I am a HIllary person. If not her, Biden. I can understand those who support Dodd and Richardson, two smart experienced men, even if they are both acting like useless idiots right now. I have no use for Edwards, but I can see his appeal. But no matter the score, whether its politics or policy, Obama is incompetent, incredible and unfit.

It may sound silly, given the polls that show 70% of Americans against the war in Iraq. But being anti-war equals being unelectable.

And Hillary, Obama and even the Phony Toupee know it. Which is why none would pledge to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013. Which is why Hillary and Obama have both pledged to have troops remain for support and anti-Al-Qaeda purposes (I'm not sure what the Phony Toupee's position is. I stopped listening to him when he added a 17th bathroom to his mansion in the Two Americas I can't afford to live in).

Go back through history. Presidents can be elected on pledges to avoid war (Wilson, Buchanon) but never on a pledge to lose one. McClellan, Dewey, Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern all have two things in common. The important one is that they all lost.

As 2008 gets down and dirty, the conversation about Iraq will turn to the consequences of leaving behind a failed state and the conversation about Iran will turn to the consequences of allowing a nuclear armed Iraq. And as much as the Code Pink, DailyKos, Chris Dodd/Bill Richardson Loony Left wants to day dream, this is a debate they are absolutely going to lose. We cannot allow a failed Iraq and we cannot live with a nuclear Iran.

Hillary, Obama and Biden are all smart enough to recognize this, both as good politics and good policy. They have left themselves room to react to changes on the ground, which is what good leaders ought to do.

Iraq opened a Pandora's box of deadly consequences in the most volatile region on Earth. The next President should be chosen on who can best respond to those challenges, not who can do the best job ignoring them.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards are providing manpower and munitions to the insurgents in Iraq, which are being used to kill American soldiers.

They know this. They admit this. And yet, the condemn Kyl/Lieberman and Hillary for voting for it.

They admit the IRG are killing American soldiers and aiding others in doing so. And yet, they cannot bring themselves to go on the record and call the IRG a terrorist force.

Let me say that again. Edwards and Obama see the IRG holding a gun to our soldiers heads, and yet their official position is, "well, maybe it's not so bad".

I expect this from Edwards, who is nothing more than a hypocritical, incessant panderer who will say whatever the idiot blogosphere writes for him.

But Obama? Obama, who prides himself on his 2002 prescience on Iraq. Since he was so right 5 years ago, why doesn't anyone ask Obama to explain where he sees Iran in 5 years, when they have a nuclear bomb sitting atop a ballistic missile aimed squarely at Israel. Ask him to explain how he will keep the Middle East pacified during his first term without actually using what God put between his legs. Ask him how he will contain an apocolyptic Muslim tyrant with a Nuke when he can't even bring himself to call the man holding a gun to an American Soldier's head a terrorist?

This vote was a no-brainer. More than that, it was a test of integrity, to see which Democrats would stand up, call a spade a spade and stand ready to confront the gathering storm forming over Tehran.

Hillary had the balls to stand up. Obama couldn't even be bothered to show up.

Obama and Edwards are cowards. God help us if either of them wins.

But at least we now know who The Man in this race is.