One of the enduring memes employed by the Republican Party and more recently by McCain himself is the assertion that the surge has worked and that we are finally succeeding in the war in Iraq. Like many here I call bullshit, but with caveats I think are important to the political discourse.

After the recent death penalty ruling, I had the opportunity to talk to a acquaintance that is an ardent conservative.  He's still an ardent Bush supporter, and though he doesn't like McCain, he will vote for him to avoid the "liberal takeover of America".

No surprise that the recent death penalty ruling provided him with what he thought was a brilliant opportunity to poke a stick in my eye about the "direction" this country would be headed, if the "liberals" took power.

This will probably be an unpopular position, but I am sick of people not from the state of Virginia, pushing for various Virginia candidates as possible veep candidates without considering the consequences of that choice to the political landscape of either the state of Virginia or the Country.

What follows will be my assessments of each of these men and why I support or oppose them as VP candidates.

A message to Hillary Clinton and more importantly her supporters.

The numerous discussion about an Obama-Clinton ticket are ultimately puzzling to me.  I say this not because I am an Obama supporter, but because I don't see any real value to Hillary Clinton being Vice President.  I know many of her supporters would like her to be, and even Clinton has said she wants it, but ultimately IMHO it makes no real political sense for her to do so.

Let's back track a moment and let me give you at least a couple of reasons why she would want to be on the ticket.  First, if something were to happen to Obama, she would become President.  Second, she would go down in history as the first woman to be Vice President.

Apparently, an early draft of Clinton's concession speech was leaked to un-named sources.  I don't know what to think of it other than to be puzzled.

Embargoed for release, June 5th, 2008.

Once again I stand before you, having endured much in my quest for the Democratic nomination. It has not been an easy road, with unfair accusations of racism and actual acts of sexism causing division amongst well meaning Democrats. Regardless, the issues that bind all Democrats and all Americans remain the same. America is ready for universal health care. America is ready for a leader who will end the war in Iraq. America is ready for energy independence. American is ready for a government that puts competency ahead of cronyism. American is ready for comprehensive immigration reform.

File under "you can't make this sh%t up".  Clinton's first stop on her Election 2008 Farewell Tour was Shepard University.  Ironically, the event was held at McMurran Hall.

According to historical evidence:

Shepherd University's white brick McMurran Hall was under construction as Shepherdstown's town hall in 1862, when the battle of Antietam overwhelmed the city with thousands of wounded; with no place left to go, the bloody and the maimed occupied the still unfinished building -- a bit of history now celebrated in plaques on the front lawn.

Clinton's decision to endorse the gas tax holiday is an unmitigated disaster in the making.  The opportunity for gleeful Republicans to stem Democratic gains in the house and Senate and to improve GOP chances in November.

This is actually one of the reasons I have opposed Clinton since the beginning.  I was never a big fan of Bill to begin with.  In addition to the scandals, Bill had a tendency to support issues like NAFTA that garnered more support among Republicans than Democrats, and effectively undermined Democrats in 1992.  Their tendency to triangulate hurts Dems.  Personal ambition always superseded loyalty to party.

Hillary has repeatedly indicated that Obama can't win because he can't win the big states.  The problem with her argument is that Democratic strengths lay not in the rural areas where she tends to win most frequently, but in the Urban areas where she tends to be disproportionately weaker.  What guarantee does she have that she'll do as well against McCain in the rural areas?

Does she honestly think she can win rural Ohio and Pennsylvania?  Voting trends would suggest otherwise.

So let's take a look at who won most of the Urban areas.  After all, what's good for the goose, etc.

Granted she won in all the major cities in New York, but she's a Senator there.  Not surprisingly, she lost all the major cities in Illinois where Obama is Senator!

OK, she can win California, because she can win Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose, but she still can't win Sacramento.

She can also win Florida if no one campaigns there just based on name recognition alone.  She can also win Michigan if she's the only name on the ballot.

Last night on Countdown and this morning on Good Morning America, Clinton took the extra-ordinary measure of insisting on her willingness to "obliterate Iran" if Iran was ever to attack Israel with nuclear weapons and to provide a nuclear umbrella to other Middle Eastern countries.

Promising an ally our intention to retaliate against a nuclear attack is not  really anything new.  On its face Charlie Gibson's question was a ludicrous future scenario that is unlikely to be a real decision the next President will have to make.  Many intelligence experts recognize that Iran is probably 5 to 10 years away from nuclear weapons in the best of circumstances.

Senator Clinton's biggest flaw is her tendency to over-reach.  Not satisfied with fomenting controversy over Obama's "bitter" comments in San Francisco, Clinton felt the need to drive a spike into the controversy.  Had she been smart, she would have left her comments at her initial salvo.  The pundits were doing a lot of the work for her.  The occasional reminder via questions asked by the media, would have served her purpose well rather than continuing to try to press her advantage.

Instead, Clinton chose to use the opportunity to pander to the very voters he was most likely to offend, religious conservatives and gun owners.  Her story about shooting a gun as a young child, however, was the the verbal equivalent of Dukakis getting in a tank and driving around a base.  

It really irritates me when Wing-nuts like Hannity, Coulter, et. al. accuse Obama of throwing his Grandma under the bus.  It's as if we cannot recognize the faults and weaknesses of our family without it being considered "throwing them under the bus."

By that logic, right-winger would probably accuse me of throwing my Grandma under the bus.  Here's why.  When I was in college, I was taking a class on Nazi Germany.  During one of his classes, he spoke of the role of women in Nazi Germany.  Hitler emphasized women's role as caretakers and mothers.  My professor indicated that many women actually joined organizations that spoke out against other women who chose to work outside the home.

Most students were disbelieving.  After all, how could women do such a thing.  Why would they be part of an organization that would seek to deny women the right to do something as simple as working, running for office, or the right to vote.

This is the newest poll by Rasmussen.  Interestingly, among those polled Obama leads by 5 points among Democrats, but leads by a significant 2-1 margin amongst unaffiliated voters.  This provides further evidence that Obama is widening the lead among those most likely to matter in a general election battle.  For my view, this provides evidence that he is more electable in a general match since he is able to attract more independents than Clinton.

New poll in Iowa, conducted over the weekend, also shows Obama leading McCain 46-42, while Clinton would lose handily against McCain 51-36.

Important development in Maryland. WaPo is reporting that:

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) will ask the state legislature to pass emergency legislation that would allow the state to hold a special general election to replace outgoing U.S. Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D) without first holding a primary.

As we all no Cheney glibly dismissed the Public's view on Iraq saying that he doesn't care what the public thinks. Public opinion polls have continuously shown the publics desire to get out of Iraq, a fact that has been supported by more than 60% of Americans for more than 2 years.   Cheney's attitude? Who cares!

When asked about Cheney's comments White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino added that we had our chance four years ago.  Hot on these revelations is a poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org that effectively rejects the views of Cheney and his supporters.

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to talk briefly to a friend of mine that WAS a Hillary supporter.  "Ann" voted for Hillary in the Maryland primary.  Interestingly, she strongly supported her b/c she felt Hillary had more savvy than Obama.  That all changed, when Hillary offered Obama the Veep position recently.

According to exit polls in Mississippi, 13% of all voters were Republicans. Seventy-Eight Percent of them voted for Hillary.  That means 10% of all Mississippi voters were Republican and voted for Hillary.  

78% of 13% equals 10%.  Granted not all are Limbaugh republicans, but you can take it to the bank that many are.  Thus, if 10% of all voters are Republicans who voted for Hillary.  If HRC wins 40% of the total vote that means a quarter of her supporters were Limbaugh Republicans.

Whenever you click on the map link on CNN's election page results, it takes you to a page that shows how each county voted.  Light blue is Hillary and Dark Blue is Obama.  We won't get into the possible racial overtones present in that choice.  Instead, I want to point out something curious, which I also noticed in a couple of the counties on the Texas map.  Whenever, a county has Obama and Clinton with an equal number of votes, instead of coloring some other color, they shade the county as if Hillary had won the County.

For anyone who doesn't mouse over the results, this gives the false impression that Clinton has more support than she actually does. For those interested in checking it out, here's the link.

Hillary Clinton made a speech on Wednesday that illustrates the problem with and the power of speeches and underscores why accusing Obama of doing nothing more than making speeches misses the mark.

Speeches are powerful things.  I don't mean just the kind that motivate people to hope, or to motivate society to change.  

Speeches are 99% of all foreign policy.  Speeches demonstrate leadership and character, but they also signal policy directions.  In fact, it is the rare occurrence in which presidents are expected to take a call at 3am and make a decision on the spot.  Often the purpose of a 3am phone call is to alert the President of an oncoming crisis. The apparatus of government is often already in motion to deal with a problem that will likely play out over days if not weeks.