126 posts tagged “liberal”

Recently, a long-time reader and part-time thinker expressed his anger at the "predictions" he claimed I was making about fuel prices, the future of the Warming religion, and other things, exactly what it's hard to know since his comments were apparently made while he was fully immersed in some sort of stupor. Nevertheless, I thought some clarifying was in order, since if he could have so badly misunderstood what I was saying, it's entirely possible that some other readers could have misunderstood ever so slightly. And you know me, I hate people to be in the dark about anything

So first off, let me make this perfectly clear - I was not predicting. I was merely detailing what was currently happening and extrapolating from there. In other words, what the warmists are saying about what will happen regarding "climate change"... those sorts of things are predictions - they may or may not happen, and since they are arising from rank speculation, any of their predictions that do come to pass are due to Newton's "Crap thrown at the wall" law.

I, on the other hand, was talking about what WILL happen given a continuing rise in fuel prices and the failure of the Democrat Congress to take any meaningful action. You don't have to be a genius (you just have to not be a liberal) to see that oil drives everything, and that the public's uncertainty about price and supply will have a fundamental effect on attitudes - even those of lesser liberals - of the man-on-the-street variety. They are the ones in which economics still trumps ideology, and they are the ones who will be most able to see (because they'll live it) the consequences of failed liberal policy.

Still, having said all that, I don't care if the least among us, i.e. liberals, want to call me a prognosticator, just as long as they don't call me late for dinner, even if dinner is a lot more expensive this year, and well, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I'm so confident in what I've been saying that I actually have no confidence at all - because I don't need any. What I mean is, to say that I had confidence would also mean that I had some doubt, and since I am only commenting on what's actually happening, albeit it's early stages, words like "confidence" and "doubt" do not apply. Put another way - a way, one even rankest liberal can understand, you're about to see what the meaning of "is" is.

To that end, there's a thoroughly enjoyable article in that magnificent British liberal rag, The Guardian, this very day in which the headline itself would ordinarily be enough to send Hens worldwide screeching that the sky is falling: "Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change."

How is that possible? Hadn't they been thoroughly indoctrinated. Ah yes, but what liberals don't get is that economics and security will overcome indoctrination almost every time. Besides, the "warming" indoctrination actually was successful as this quote from the article will attest:

"Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research."

You see, the public schools did what they were supposed to do - and now reality is doing its job on real people. Me, I got rhythm, I got music, who could ask for anything more? Which is why the following quote is just the cherry on top - -

"There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues."

YES! And gee, I hope it wasn't something I said?!?

Just kidding, as overly-serious as I may fancy myself to be, even I couldn't affect British thinking... could I? I mean I know I didn't set those European truckers to protestin' fuel prices... did I? No really, did I?

But seriously folks, -denting-? Well remember, the British ARE prone to understatement.

To be fair, the article wasn't all bad news for enviro-warmists. The poll shows people are rightfully doubtful... and cynical... and wary of "stealth taxes, and generally lacking in confidence that their government could handle anything, much less handle it competently, but on the bright side, they are still "broadly concerned" about "climate change."

I'm not worried. it's one thing to be broadly concerned about "warming," and quite another to be imminently concerned about one's degrading lifestyle.

Do I think the Fuel Crisis of 2008 will be the death knell for enviro-wackos? No? If I did, I'd be making a prediction, and if I were to do that, I'd predict just the opposite - no amount of discrediting will cause enviro-warmists to abandon their positions. Why there are still people who believe the Earth is flat, for God's sake. Although in their defense, even those people don't believe man is responsible for "climate change."

And the good news for me personally, and wackos everywhere should be pleased too, is that the rapid rise in fuel prices - and everything prices - has actually caused me to regain my sense of humor. I may be too serious on the outside, but I'm laughing on the inside that the enviro-warmists sowed the seeds of their own demise and that their comeuppance may finally at hand. Looks like we may not have to be hauling dry ice to the arctic after all!

This morning, I came upon a piece on the American Thinker blog in which Rocco DiPippo did an absolutely tremendous job of assessing and characterizing liberals. Unfortunately, he didn't stop there, and so after he'd profiled today's essential liberal, he launched into a rant in which he seemed to hold the left solely responsible for all the trouble America is in today. I wrote a short comment about how he'd failed to hold Bush and the Republicans accountable, but I can't get Pippo's commentary out of my head because it and the other readers' comments it drew are exactly what's wrong with the conservative movement today.

Hold on, my last sentence is what's wrong with conservatives today - they don't represent a movement. They represent a "standing still." They point fingers at the left and fail utterly to hold their own accountable. Not that they don't know there's a problem, they just believe that the left with its media and education system are all-powerful and conservatives are the hapless victims. They're blind as bats. They're lemmings. That's it, they're blind lemmings. Interestingly, conservatives have created a self-fulfilling prophecy

Even now (or especially now), Republicans haven't learned one lesson from their defeat , and if anything, they've become even more closely aligned with Democrats. And all the right does is whine a bit and shift their focus to those terrible liberals.

Don't get me wrong, "terrible" is far too kind a word to describe liberals, even the best of them, but the right seems, for all intents and purposes, vanquished. McCain is the "standard bearer," Gingrich is doing climate ads with Pelosi (and where's the outrage?), and to my knowledge, there are only two conservative radio hosts who show no desire or inclination to be friendly to liberals, and one of them, Rush Limbaugh, was told by several listeners this past week about how he was letting them down by not showing stronger leadership. Last night, I saw Laura Ingraham substitute for O'Reilly, and she was sickeningly friendly and accommodating toward one liberal "guest." Look, you don't berate people without reason, but the instant a liberal starts the litany of lies, he has to be shut down.

I personally won't be friends with, or even friendly toward, even the nicest of liberals if he refuses or is unable to be rational. Irrational people are, in my book, worse than animals because you don't have to try to reason with animals, and they can't vote... at least not yet.

So I urge you to read the American Thinker commentary, but let's get a few things straight once and for all: The Dems and the left are our, meaning America's, most dangerous enemy. You may not see it, but you have more in common with Muslim radicals than you do with liberals, and so isn't it ironic that the only people who don't think Islamists need to be destroyed are... that's right... liberals. Michael Savage says they're diseased. I say they're depraved.

But conservatives and Republicans are not well by any stretch. people love to reference McCain-Feingold as John McCain's signature mistake and probably the defining moment in the start of Republicans' decline, and who am I to disagree? Except that as I keep saying, McCain's bill was a blunder, and he should have disassociated himself from it as it took final form, but in the end, McCain was merely one member of the Congressional majority that passed it, and not the one responsible for it becoming law. But there was one person responsible for that. And he's a Republican. And my own mistake was in not, many years ago, labeling the bill by it's proper name and order of blame. It's Bush-McCain-Feingold, and it shall be forever thus.

Which reminds me, can you name one thing George Bush has done since? And don't say "the Surge." Not only did Bush not initiate that, he was dragged into it as a last resort, yet one I and others had been demanding long before Bush finally had to do something, anything, to counter not just the withering criticism, but what would possibly have become a movement for impeachment had he continued to allow our troops to die without reason or reward.

And have you seen any Republican shouting from the rooftop that Democrats are totally and solely responsible for the current fuel crisis? It's a no-brainer... except to brainless Republicans.

One last thing, and I blame Scio for this since he alerted me to the Vox politics page. I now check it every few months, the latest being today, and I was struck by what a bit of liberal propaganda it's become. It may have been forever thus, but today it was in-your-face liberal garbage from the referenced commentaries right now to the descending size of the keywords. To say that I won't be part of that is ludicrous since I'm not already, but I can't be part of any service that holds liberal views in high regard - or any regard for that matter. If only I could just find some conservatives who would place brutal honesty above ideology, perhaps we could start, say, The Cold Light of Reason, or maybe buy a frozen yogurt franchise?

Fie on it.

Two great commentaries this day, the first deals with how dishonest and disreputable liberals are, and the second deals with how stupid and dangerous Barack Obama is. Unfortunately, being dishonest, disreputable, stupid and dangerous is the left's tradmark course, so, like Scott McClellan, I'm not revealing anything.

And here's at least the best column title of the day: Meet the gaffable Barack Obama:

"Now, people who know Obama have been telling me for months that he is a very likable fellow and very clever. The problem he has, they say, is that things come easily to him. So easily that oftentimes, he simply wings it, expecting his facile mind to get him through. That makes sense. The tendency to wing it is encouraged all the more by Obama's insufferable arrogance."

It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of racists...

Identity politics is finally bringing its just desserts to the Democratic Party, and as a result, those of us on the outside are treated to a delightful spectacle, the likes of which we've never seen before.

Liberals were gleeful each time Bill Clinton slipped through unscathed after seemingly being in a Republican career death grip, and they applauded as he flaunted laws and used deceit and the power of his office to foil those who sought to uphold the rule of law.

Those same people aren't so gleeful now, as they see the heavy hand of the Clintons try to, as they see it, manipulate the nomination process in favor of Hillary. No matter than Clinton would be the better candidate (I didn't say "good"), they see the Clinton campaign not in political terms, but in racial terms, and the victim of Hillary's racism as not just Barack Obama, but all liberal people of color.

And it's important to say "liberal," because black Republicans feel neither victimized nor insulted. At least they haven't said so, and that's because blacks attain their standing in the Republican Party based more on ability than color.

Republicans welcome blacks into their fold, but not because, as some may think, they are pandering, but because Republicans are pleased when each black individual sheds the yoke of race and embraces individuality.

Back on the Democratic side, Barack Obama whines about the allegedly racist comments of Geraldine Ferrare while at the same time attending and contributing to a church for twenty years pastored by a overt racist who specifically urges his flock to vote Obama because white America is bad.

As Obama decries Ferraro whose comments, by the way, were not the least bit racist, he not only fails to denounce Reverend Jeremiah Wright, he has him as a campaign advisor, and those blacks the reverend exhorts to support Obama have been voting for him nine to one, and no one will call that racist.

Yet not only would Obama not be a candidate were he not somewhat black, but blacks are voting for him because he is. What a lovely quilt the Dems have patched together.

Perhaps this is ultimately why more blacks haven't migrated to the Republican camp - they likely, hopefully, won't be able to maintain their group identity and won't be catered to as a block.

That's the very kind of thing that is good for America.

Meanwhile, I urge you to just sit back and enjoy this election season's featured presentation titled: Eliot Comes To Harlot.

-----

Update: O'Reilly had more tape of this so-called reverend tonight, and it was far more shocking than the initial clips I saw. Wright even blames the government, presumably our government, for creating AIDS.

Catch the replay. Obama has plenty of explaining to do about why he's been a loyal follower of this guy for decades - something he won't be able to do satisfactorily. I mean, can you think of any suitable justification?

What A Stunning Accomplishment

In a very warm concession speech tonight, Mike Huckabee finally made me a kingmaker.

OK, he didn't, but he proved me right about "No one named Huckabee is going to be President," and he vindicated me as one of McCain's earliest lukewarm supporters.

But suddenly, the focus is on John McCain, and his is an utterly amazing achievement. It was all over for him more times than I can remember, and yet he kept on (just as Hillary is doing, I might add), and here he is now, the Republican nominee.

This is the very sort of thing that only happens in America

Congratulations,Senator, I wish I liked you more. But I respect you a lot. If ever someone deserved the nomination, you're that man.

You can't make it up, but what's always interesting to me is that liberals, as we've seen right here on Vox, never never tire of having their intelligence insulted by their counterparts on the national scene. i mean, have you ever had a liberal tell you he's embarrassed by Ted Kennedy? Or Robert Byrd? Or Howard Dean? Or...

John Kerry, the current American record holder for Stupid Stuff, and he's adding to his record:

The junior idiot from Massachusetts, as you may know, is an Obama supporter, and he labeled Hillary's 3am ad a a "fear tactic." To clarify, Kirsten Powers, a Democrat operative, said the ad was the sort of thing Republicans run, but she said that as a positive for Hillary, adding that the ad didn't hurt her and may have helped her.

Kerry elaborated, saying that Clinton had never faced such a crisis.

OK so far?

Kerry continues. He told Wolf Blitzer: "The fact is that she had a red phone moment, as Barack Obama said... Her red phone moment was on the war in Iraq, and she chose the Bush course, the wrong course."

I know I don't need to go on, but I will for the benefit of any liberals who may read this.

John Kerry has made a career of choosing the "wrong course," and since he's nothing if not consistent, which way do you think he voted on Iraq? That's right, he and Hillary up in a tree...

Now what makes this story even better is, as related by James Taranto, a Gloria Steinem has a quote about Kerry too, and it was a little different from her recent comment on John McCain.

Steinem from 2004: "I'm supporting Kerry... As a man who knows what war is like, he has tended to be more restrained in his willingness to wage it."

Bear in mind that Steinem said that -after- Kerry's Iraq vote, and in fact, after Iraq "went terribly wrong."

And the guy who knows what war is like, thought it was the right thing for him to vote "yea" on Iraq, but regards it as a big mistake for Hillary? I'd love to hear that explanation.... "I voted FOR the war before I decided against it?"

I'm kidding about wanting to hear from Kerry... just seeing him makes me think Hillary's almost human by comparison.

Whether the lights are on or off, is anybody home?

It should be billed as the Battle of the Lightweights, although Hillary Clinton is clearly right at the top of their weight class, and the question should be, not if Barack Obama is fit to answer that hypothetical 3am phone call (it could come at 3;10), but whether he can rise above the ranks of amateur. He's clearly the least qualified candidate ever to make a serious run for the Presidency in modern history (mine), and that means he's the least qualified ever, because no one as inexperienced as he would have even dared run in earlier times.

Of course, that says even more about the electorate than it does the candidate.

But the cracks are stating to show.

In an Ohio debate, Obama vowed to change NAFTA. Later, it was alleged that he had pre-qualified his remarks with Canadian officials when a CTV report said Obama told the officials well ahead of time that it would be just "campaign rhetoric." Obama denied doing such a thing.

Except that he did.

It turns out that some Canadians do something that's a bit old-fashioned - they take notes and write memos. Now the Obama campaign is saying that Canadians misinterpreted what they were told.

What happened to that grand eloquence?

And today, the Canadian Prime Minister, whose name is being withheld pending official lookup, told Parliament directly that Obama is sending mixed signals.

So clearly, they were told something. And we can assume that it wasn't "I'm going to scrap NAFTA forthwith so get used to it," because, well, that would be real news in Canada's capital, Snowville, Ont. (I think).

So from there, it hardly matters what was said (except to Canadians), because at the very least, it was ambiguous, and intentionally so. Is this the sort of new diplomacy Obama is going to bring to the Presidency?

And lest you think that's only one minor mistake, consider the following from the Associated press:

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.

Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.

Rockefeller called Obama "brilliant" and "well grounded" and prepared to take the reins as commander in chief.

Just one slight problem with that brilliant preparedness, Jay, and it's a problem which the AP's Tom Raum outrageously failed to report: Rockefeller not only voted FOR the authorization of force, he urged his colleagues to do so in a speech.

Now it's true that Rockefeller urged that war be the last resort after all other avenues have failed, but that's a judgment call on the part of the President, and there can be no doubt that Jay Rocking authorized force.

And there's a new Clinton ad which alleges that Obama, as chairman of a Senate subcommittee set up to monitor al-Qaida activities in Afghanistan has never convened it - because he's too busy campaigning, and Obama appears to confirm it.

There's something about Barry

Finally, the new buzzwords in the Clinton camp are "buyer's remorse." Those words will become a battle cry if Hillary manages to win both Ohio and Texas. I'm not sure her double victory would be a good thing because it would certainly restore a lot of her footing, but the thrill of contemplating what would happen next is alluring.

Now I leave you with this question: Has Gloria Steinem always been insane?

I've been thinking about Obama's response to John McCain that al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq before Bush and McCain invaded, and the more I do, the more juvenile and dangerous it seems. Now Angelina Jolie, writing in the Washington Post has done a great service while at the same time proving that not all liberals are blinded by ideology.

Jolie: "Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?"

Obama can. He's said so - that even genocide wouldn't deter him from his cut and run strategy. Can the United States afford to gamble that Obama will know the right thing to do and actually do it? He was looking to the past to save him from McCain's sarcasm because his initial faux pas was so glaring. More important, he was desperate to avoid having to deal with the implications of saying that he'd pull the troops and send them back in if and when it became necessary.

How is it possible that Angelina Jolie understands what Obama can't?

The thing that has long troubled me about Obama is not his lack of experience or his liberalism or his possible allegiances to the wrong people, all of which is terrible enough. But it's his immaturity that is so very ominous since it may portend a boy-President making critical decisions for the greatest country on Earth at a time that, it could be argued, is as precarious as any in our history.

A recent poll had 84% of respondents saying that they did not think Obama was too young to be President. What amazed me is that someone would ask that. They didn't for Kennedy or even Clinton. There's something about Barry. He seems much younger than his years, and not in a good way.

Obama's reply to McCain not only focused on his weaknesses, it magnified them by several orders of magnitude. Suddenly, the thing that every rational person feared about him was there on display. He really is clueless - his intelligence can't cover for his naiveté. He's a dangerous man, and now that danger is multi-faceted.

This serves as a wake up call for those on the right who say they can't support McCain, or worse, would consider voting for Obama. Things may be bad, but they can get a lot worse, and if you helped make an Obama Presidency possible and things went inevitably downhill, how could you live with yourself?

I know conservatives will continue to mutter about how un-conservative McCain is, and that's fine. It should actually help McCain. But when push comes to shove, I hope you'll be pulling that lever for the little old Senator from Arizona who, by the way is younger than his years in that good way and despite his torture wrenched body..

Obamanonsense is a product of loony left hysteria, youthful stupidity and alcoholic stupor. Here's hoping we won't have to rename the Democratic Party, the Democratic Cult.

When the campaign begins in earnest, barring some Invasion of the Body Snatchers action, the general electorate should be far more grounded..America has proven that a black man and a hideous woman can run for President and be taken seriously. There's no need for the country to commit suicide in order to prove it's not bigoted.

Mrs. O. hasn't been proud of her country until now, and Mr. O can't answer questions about the here and now. After the election, the name, Barack Obama, should retain no greater significance than as one of the sounds your parrot makes.

I'll leave with this edited version of what Joseph Farah recently had to say about Obama:

Let's examine some of Obama's key votes:

On May 24, 2007, he voted against continued funding of our troops in Iraq.

On Jan. 11, 2007, he voted against reform on earmarks

On May 17, 2006, he voted against an increase in the amount of fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border...again contradicting the majority of his fellow Democrats.

On Sept. 29, 2005, he opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

On Aug. 3, 2007, he voted against expanding the power of U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on foreign terror suspects.

On April 26, 2007, he voted to set dates for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

On March 29, 2007, he voted to start withdrawing troops from Iraq last summer.

On May 11, 2006, he voted against extending President Bush's tax cuts.

On Jan. 31, 2006, he opposed confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

What is the single, solitary, lone vote Barack Obama regrets?

(That) he tried to save the life of a poor, handicapped woman who was being victimized in the most inhuman way by her estranged husband and a rogue local court.

This should give you some insight into the character of Barack Obama. It should give you a glimpse of his dark soul. It should give you a look into his hardened, politically correct heart. It should give you a picture of what this country has in store for it when he is elected president later this year.

It's not enough that the two candidates for the Democratic nomination would never even be there were it not for the fact that one is black and one is a woman, but now Howard Dean has put his foot back in its customary location -  his mouth.

Dean says the Republican field "looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s."

Interesting. In the 1950's, the Republicans were the party of civil rights, and in the 1850s, the Dems were the party of slavery. The Republicans were founded to combat slavery.

Not to be outdone, Obama has said he'll get tough - with Canada - over NAFTA. WOW! He'll court Iran and Venezuela, but our friendliest ally and one of the only NATO members fighting alongside us in Afghanistan, that one he's gonna rough up a bit.

I've always felt that closer scrutiny would cause Obama to unravel, but now I'm getting a little worried that his unraveling will take place before he's sewn up the nomination.

Meanwhile, other black politicians continue to demonstrate that they'd be a better candidate than Obama. They are being pressured to endorse Obama, and they are even receiving threats, but they aren't bending

Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.), a Clinton supporter, said:.

"I’ve gotten threatening mail" of the nature: "Your district went 61-29 Obama and you need to change."

Representative Watson continued: "But I don’t intimidate.... I would lose my seat over my principles."

And Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) is perhaps even more interesting. Also a Clinton backer, he's a superdelegate who says that other black superdelegates are receiving "nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

Now here's the best part:

Cleaver states, "This is the politics of the 1950s."

And coincidentally, the Cleaver name was also prominent in the 1950s, and it was virtually synonymous with principle.

Good luck, Howie, the race you're in puts you at a disadvantage.

And speaking of race, if you're like me, you usually really enjoy Black History Month, but I gotta say, this one's the best ever! If only it didn't have to end tonight, but at least we got an extra day this year. I know that may not seem like much, but every day counts when it comes to Obama's maturity.

Is Obama Unfit To Serve?

From the title, I know many of you will think I'm going to say yes, Barack Hussein Obama is unfit to serve. But it's not as simple as yes or no. The true, nuanced answer is: Obama may be too young to be President.

I know he meets the age requirement constitutionally, but that only pertains to his chronological age, and as I've said many times, most people today are at least a decade less mature than their actual age would normally indicate.

So Obama's new-age age is borderline, and I don't say that just to be provocative. Some things he said last night and today should give anyone pause - anyone that is who has the maturity to take a pause - anyone who is not sleepwalking to the tune of Hope and Change.- catchy, I know, but is it good to dance to? And really, has anyone ever seen a sleepwalker dance?

During last night's "debate," The Chosen One said that as President, he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

For one to utter something that astonishing, he'd either have to grossly ill-informed or he'd have to acknowledge that we've been successful in destroying al-Qaida in Iraq, and since he can't say the latter and he's certainly aware of al-Qaida in Iraq now, he's stuck with his absurdity as an indicator that he's not mature enough to deal with reality.

Today, John McCain was quick to reply in typical Republican fashion - he said that he wanted to inform the freshman Senator that al-Qaida was already in Iraq.

Yes, that's considered tough talk for a Republican.

Not content with his initial stupidity, Obama then shot back with: "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq." That's like SO mature!

Obama then launched into the canned and unproven and unprovable liberal line that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until President Bush made it a rallying point. Uh-huh. Time for my power nap.

In this short example, Obama first demonstrated a fundamental immaturity, and then he followed it with proof positive that he's unfit to be President, and he did it in twenty-five words or less.

What, you don't see it? OK, let's all take Barry's view. He's going to pull the troops and stand by if chaos ensues even if it turns into genocide, and that's not my imagination talking, he has actually said that. Then he would "act" if al-Qaida regrouped in Iraq? Can you imagine the economic and human cost of that scenario?

The war may be expensive now, but if we were to withdraw and then have to go back in, you know it would only be after a major disaster had already taken place in Iraq, and by "disaster," I'm not talking about what liberals call a disaster now, I'm talking the kind of scale that gives "disaster" a good name - massive death in Iraq in the sort of numbers that liberals have already been lying about for five years, where Iran may have established a presence along with al-Qaida, and where the concept of "civil war" seems positively quaint.

Not to mention the rest of the line Obama didn't finish - that the oil, you know, the only reason we went into Iraq in the first place, might have gone up in smoke and the price for what's left of it could leave economies sputtering all over the globe.

Although by then, presumably the Senator will have gained some maturity so it's just the price we'll have to pay for electing the second Democrat Boy-President in a row.

Here's Obama's complete statement: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

Then the sensible and mature course involves staying on the present course because that's the one that has a chance for stability. Anything else Obama would do is irresponsible precisely because it's rooted in the immaturity of hope and change.

Oh and speaking of the Boy-President, some feminist recently enumerated several points on which she said that Barack Obama was more feminist than Hillary. This begs the question: will Obama really be our first woman President?