Dems getting Clinton fatigue

It is becoming clear that the longer Hillary Clinton stays in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination the more harm she stands to cause the Party.

A recent poll in the Boston Globe shows that as many as 28 percent of Clinton voters would go to McCain and 19 percent of Obama voters (if somehow he were to lose out on the nomination.)

What we have is a serious case of fatigue in the Democratic Party coupled with a fair amount of emnity between supporters of Clinton and Obama.

The Democrats, despite churning out new voters by the hundreds of thousands, can't win for losing. This should be their election to lose and, dog gone it, they're going to lose it.

The Clintons aren't loyal Democrats, as many are prone to believe. They are power brokers in the most cutthroat sense of the term. They will stay in this race until the bitter end--and it will be bitter, to be sure.

Hillary cannot win, that much is clear. But what she can do is try and try again.

In much the same way as Mike Tyson in his prime was one punch away from a title, the Clintons are only one smear away from the nomination--or so they think.

If the Jeremiah Wright controversy wasn't enough to sink Obama's ship, what will?

Here is the report from the Boston Globe...

Where does your candidate stand on Iraq?

On the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, our three remaining presidential hopefuls made use of the opportunity to discuss their respective plans?

Here is the story from ABC News...

Pay particular attention to this:

McCain, who once was an ardent critic of the Bush administration's initial handling of the war, now talks about maintaining during his would-be presidency, a continued military presence in Iraq in an effort to bring security and stability to the region and allow the fracturous Iraqi government room to come to a political accommodation.

That is shorthand for this: A war without end.

America in 2017

This afternoon I read an AP report that referenced a study by two IVY League economists (one of which wrote a book I read in grad school) that painted a fairly bleak picture of the future costs of war.

The latest study put the cost of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at 2.7 trillion dollars by 2017. Another recent study put out by the Congressional Budget Office, ostensibly non-partisan, pegged our best-case scenario at 1.7 trillion by 2017.

Here's a friendly reminder from yours truly: 1.7 trillion is one thousand and seven hundred billion dollars.

Taken by itself, the Iraq War has been costlier than every war in American history, save for one: World War II.

Today the San Francisco Chronicle published the costs of war, itemized:

Costs of the war

-- $435 million: Cost of Iraq war each day.

-- $526 billion: Cost of combat operations to date.

-- $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion: Estimated Afghanistan and Iraq combat costs through 2017.

-- $590 billion: Future costs of disability benefits and health care for Iraq war veterans.

-- $615 billion: Cost of interest on money borrowed to pay for the war.

-- $280 billion: Cost of replacing equipment and restoring U.S. military to prewar strength.

-- $16,500: Cost of the war to each U.S. family of four from 2003-2008.

-- $36,900: Cost of the war to each family if the war continues for 10 years.

-- $274 billion: Cost of increased oil prices related to the Iraq war, 2003-2008.

The interest due on the trillions the war has and will continue to cost us will be in the hundreds of billions.

All that to say this: It was a mistake to go into Iraq and it is a mistake to stay.

As scary as this sounds, voting for a Democrat for president might be the only thing that can save our economy.

A vote for John McCain is a vote for the status quo, and that is costing us dearly.

The funniest commerical of all-time...

Skittles will be my candy of choice until the day I die, thanks to this little gem...