President Bush chides Democrats for their unconditional surrender stance on the war in Iraq, comparing it to the appeasement of the Nazis. Obama strikes back, calling Bush’s comment the “politics of fear.”

How… trite.

George W. Bush is right

Speaking before the Knesset, Bush said that “some people” believe the United States “should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”

“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Understandably, Barack Obama doesn’t like his policies being aptly compared to one of the largest strategic blunders in world history. But then, the truth often hurts. If Obama has a better description of his Iraq withdrawal plan, based in reality and not fueled by hopeful irrationality, I would sure like to hear it. The sadness is that there is no other accurate description of it. One certainly cannot say he strongly opposes the terrorist forces in Iraq while advocating that we cease confronting them. Instead, he wants to “talk” with those who are uninterested in reason. With Obama, it’s as if that “positive parenting” nonsense would become our foreign policy.

Anyhow, not to say Obama supports Hamas, but there are certainly good reasons Hamas supports him.

Technorati tags: barack obama, road to the white house, politics, Iraq, Del.icio.us tags: barack obama, road to the white house, politics, Iraq, LiveJournal tags: barack obama, road to the white house, politics, Iraq

UPDATE More Democrats act indignant

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation” at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.

…

As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

Both are peculiar things to say, especially from leaders of the legislature, which remains significantly less popular than the president. If anyone knows what it means to be “beneath the dignity of the office”, it would be Nancy Pelosi, the most incompetent House speaker in recent memory, whose recent field trip to Syria makes her seem more than just a little bit ridiculous. Second to all that, I am sure that Congressman Emanuel realizes that the president is the commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. Encouraging one of our staunchest allies of his commitment to the region, and his hatred of appeasement, can only be a good thing. If that makes you feel bad, tough luck.

All the same, I find this amusing. When wimps are called out for being wimps, they get mad. Certainly they can find a way to channel that rage, and in the process, stop being wimps. These Democrats are rightly noted for their appeasement tendencies and they feign the most comical of outrage. You wanted to leave Iraq yesterday? That is called surrender. Or the redeployment of courage, or whatever euphemism you can concoct to hide the bitter tasting truth that today’s Democrats haven’t the stomach to fight for much of anything.

Related posts: Should We Kick West Virginia Out of the Union?, Taxing Crazy, Not-So-Great Expectations, Rosalind, Oh Rosalind, Obama, Testy - Hillary, Feisty

That seems to be the sentiment of the media powers-that-be. Silly, sure. However, it shows you just how sincere the liberal wing of the Democrat Party actually is. We want to help you, you poor, stupid, uneducated, and (gasp) white people. But really, stand aside - let us get to the business of helping you without your input. Don’t you know it’s time to give in, and promote a man unqualified for the presidency because we said so?

Hillary Clinton is winning West Virginia because Barack Obama is unpalpable to its citizenry. He is a metrosexual socialist, and that doesn’t play with real Americans. That’s right - real Americans. Not the fair-weather Americans willing to toss their country into the deep just to be “cool”, who aren’t proud of their country until something truly self-interested happens in a campaign cycle that has the side-effect of disempowering individual liberty. Because, well - West Virginians (and many in the South, by presumption) are too ill-informed to realize the brilliance of Barack Obama.

Brilliant, hell.

The point is, whatever racist bigots may unfortunately exist, the reasons for opposing Obama are not racially based. His judgment is thoroughly suspect, and his ideology belongs more in Havana and Caracas, than Washington, DC. He chose to rise to prominence in Illinois by exploiting racial undertones, and willfully and joyfully embracing an anti-Semite reverse-racist “man of God” as his mentor. He now advances himself by saying nothing more than the bare minimum, employing substance only when required, and reluctantly even at that.

Obama will lose West Virginia tonight. He will lose it in November. And consequently, he will lose the presidency. We as a country, as lost as I sometimes think we might be, are not going to elect someone whose entire public career is Exhibit A in the Left’s case affronting the very spirit of the United States Constitution.

Related posts: Taxing Crazy, Not-So-Great Expectations, Rosalind, Oh Rosalind, Obama, Testy - Hillary, Feisty

The Democrats’ utterly ridiculous nomination campaign seems to be (about) wrapped up.

Hillary can still cause trouble - and I hope she does. But the fact of the matter is, unless Obama is caught with a communist gay goat, Hillary Clinton has lost the nomination.

Now the adults can discuss things. And in a frank discussion, real matters of global import must be discussed. Is Obama ready for this discussion?

Well, decidedly, no. Since Barack Obama has decided to equate the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the office of the President of the United States, its president has stated that (well, since denying the Holocaust in 2005) Israel is “a stinking corpse.”

His desire to sit down with anyone, anywhere, and “talk” brings memories of the initial John Kennedy / Nikita Krushchev meeting in Vienna, where Kennedy was kicked around and viewed as weak by the Soviet premier. This perceived weakness empowered Krushchev, and directly resulted in the Soviets’ gambit in the Cuban Missile Crisis. What is most puzzling is that Obama has learned nothing from history, and apparently understands little about the inherent value of a diplomatic meeting at the highest levels when a president of the United States is involved. As far as Obama seems concerned, the president is a pedestrian commoner, fit to mingle with the nuttiest, most oppressive authoritarian governments. Let’s just talk, and understand.

How utterly stupid.

This has been done, and it does not work. The same liberal press that derided George W. Bush for looking into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and seeing his soul ought to be dicing and mincing Obama’s foreign policy intentions into the proper insignificant, trifling little bits they so deserve. Unsurprisingly, that is not the case. He gets a pass - and it’s not because he’s otherwise qualified.

Always, no matter the time in history or the year of election, foreign policy is the most important public policy factor in a presidential election (but not always the most important politically, unfortunately). It’s the sort of thing serious thinking people ought to agree on. Domestic policy lies irrelevant if national security is left unchecked. The left chides Bush for being diplomatically inept. Whether you agree with Bush’s actions, at least Bush was able to justify and confirm his diplomatic posture through the use of force. If we get Barack Obama, not only will he be diplomatically inept, he will refuse to use force (remember, he has already taken the nuclear option completely off the table), which further marginalizes his diplomatic advances, and has the added bonus of diminishing the stature of the United States in the process.

I don’t want our country to necessarily be liked. I am perfectly fine with being feared and respected - being “liked” is a high school emotion. With an Obama presidency, we will be hated not for our arrogance, but for our weakness, and the world would suffer because of it. The Bush presidency has deposed two of the planet’s most awful regimes, both in one term. Given odds, I would take the under on two terms of Obama.

Perhaps Obama should check out Ahmadinejad’s blog.

An interesting bit of info hit my Inbox this afternoon via Web Pro News. New York has declared war on e-commerce, and Amazon is hitting back

Amazon.com is suing the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (DTF) over a new state law that requires Internet retailers to collect sales tax on purchases shipped to state residents.

Amazon has argued that since it does not have a physical presence in the state that it should not be required to collect taxes on shipments going to New York. “Amazon has no physical presence in New York,” according to the suit. “It does not own, lease, or otherwise occupy any physical property in the state, and none of its employees works or resides in the state.”

In addition Amazon says the New York law is unconstitutional based on a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that claims states are prohibited from requiring out of state retailers to collect sales tax unless the company has a physical presence in the state.

In the Quill v. North Dakota case, the Supreme Court re-established the rule that a state could not impose sales tax collection on a business unless the company had employees or property in the state.

New York defends the law by arguing that the Amazon Associates program, which allows Web site publishers to receive commissions by promoting Amazon items through their sites make Amazon liable to collect taxes on its behalf for those affiliates who live in New York.

I’d think that if New York could legally screw anyone, it would be the Amazon affiliates. That, however, is too difficult a task. The affiliates are hard to track, and most make supplemental income at best (or typically, not even that). The commerce clause be damned, then. That’s not where the deep pockets are.

Amazon is likely to prevail, but not before the grace period for registration passes, leaving them (potentially) on the hook for back due taxes and penalties if they do in fact end up losing the fight. These kinds of attempts at taxation are akin to imposing tariffs between and among the states. One of the central and most overlooked reasons the United States has been such a successful country is that the fifty states are the largest free-trade zone in history. Regional comparative advantage, the free flow of capital and the unrestrained flow of labor is built-in to the domestic American economy on an unparalleled scale.

New York is hurting the rest of us by doing this. The Department of Justice should step in and put the impetuous Empire State in her place.

Technorati tags: economics, politics Del.icio.us tags: economics, politics LiveJournal tags: economics, politics

Related posts: Rosalind, Oh Rosalind, Obama, Testy - Hillary, Feisty

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has already begun the spin cycle, declaring as the polls open this morning that they expect to get decimated in North Carolina. From Drudge

Hillary Clinton’s inner circle now fears a stinging defeat is likely in North Carolina.

“Look, we worked hard and gave it our best shot, but the demographics, well, they are what they are,” a top campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT as voting began Tuesday morning.

The campaign now believes a 15 point loss, or more, would not be surprising. Her team will work hard throughout the day to lower all expectations in North Carolina.

The campaign hopes media attention will stay fixated on the competition in Indiana, where 72 delegates are on the line, and Clinton internals show a victory!

So, if she loses by only five in North Carolina, her case regarding electability remains strong (which I think it was, anyway, lowered expectations or no).

Technorati tags: hillary clinton, democrats, road to the white house, Del.icio.us tags: hillary clinton, democrats, road to the white house, LiveJournal tags: hillary clinton, democrats, road to the white house

This post is the result of my observations over the last month.

Barack Obama has had trouble in his quest to, well - be a politician. As in, not in the negative qualities we always project upon our pols, but in the everyday, rough and tumble aspects of public service. When he was politically spawned under the North Star at the Democrat convention in 2004, he was beyond reproach. During most of the campaign, and his legendary string of eleven primary victories, he was beyond reproach. An entire cable news network panted after him on a nightly basis.

Now, things are different. And they are largely different because Obama wasn’t ready for the sure-fall. He’s more Buffalo Bills than New England Patriots.

The Jeremiah Wright controversy is all his, and grows with every Robin Williams-like appearance his mentor makes. The total disregard he demonstrated about rural values, and the simultaneous dismissal of certain valued constitutional rights, is an ongoing liability. Even worse, whenever he is asked entirely relevant questions regarding these self-made issues, he gets perturbed. It’s as if, in running for the highest office in the land, anything that has veered off-script that may indicate his true views is beyond comment. That is, to twist the magic carpet he rode in on, truely hopeful.

Hillary Clinton is the tortoise. She has plodded along, but she has been there before. She is the beneficiary of Obama’s arrogance. None of Obama’s troubles have directly stemmed from the Clinton campaign. In fact, despite her husband’s apparent onsetting dementia, Hillary is still afloat. What was initially her biggest asset has turned into a straight-up liability, and she is still on the cusp of swaying the super delegates (see also the endorsement of North Carolina’s governor today). She had no money, she was in dire straights, and now she’s back.

Obama wasn’t ready for this. He faked it for awhile, but he isn’t prepared for this sort of campaign. If he does end up in the general, I hope all my liberal friends can make peace with the phrase “President McCain.”

Technorati tags: hillary clinton, democrats, barack obama, road to the white house, politics

Del.icio.us tags: hillary clinton, democrats, barack obama, road to the white house, politics

LiveJournal tags: hillary clinton, democrats, barack obama, road to the white house, politics

Jeremiah Wright’s rambling screed yesterday in front of the NAACP can’t be good for Obama. Jim Henson himself would be proud, and maybe a little jealous, of the array of voices he has mastered. Wright does a mean Kennedy. He’s operatic, too.

Sadly for Obama, Wright spent a great portion of his remarks making excuses for the academic failure of black children in urban schools, focusing on the legitimization of ebonics and the differences in learning styles, as if that somehow explains high illegitimacy rates, fatherless homes, gang appeal, and a victim mentality. Yeah, it’s just that they’re different, and the white man doesn’t understand.

Barack Obama has lost the reigns on his mentor. Throwing the pastor under the bus seems to have rankled the relationship. Wright has scheduled a bona fide speaking tour, and is set for the National Press Club today. Presumably the message will be the same. Anyhow, it is clear that Jeremiah Wright no longer has a vested interest in a Barack Obama presidency.

Never has ten points loomed larger than its number than it does right now for Hillary Clinton. The New York Times (who, one may remember, endorsed Ms. Clinton earlier on) is pissy this morning. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann did everything last night but strike up a Hillary pinata and then burn her in effigy.

She is clearly going to lose North Carolina. However, outside of that and Oregon, she ought to be able to do well with the states that are left (Indiana, West Virginia Kentucky, Montana and South Dakota). She will go out on a winning streak. And if you count the Florida popular vote, which is a colorable proposition, Hillary and Obama are separated by approximately 200,000 votes.

The popular vote only gets one so far. Even if Obama keeps the popular vote lead, anything can happen with the super delegates. That’s what they exist for, anyway - the argument they should follow the popular vote is a silly one. The whole purpose of the Democrats’ super delegate system is to not follow the popular vote. It is designed to save the Democrat Party from the irrational exuberance of its base. As Democrats generally tend to be more emotional creatures, I give the 1968 era Democrat leadership kudos for their foresight.

Here is what Hillary’s campaign is doing right now. She has done all the opposition research on Obama. Her campaign knows as much as the Republican National Committee about his past and his skeletons. In the Democrat primary, there are a lot of attacks she cannot make, that the Republicans rightly will. The super delegates are the adults of the party. She is shopping this opposition research with the super delegates right now, attempting to sway all but the most enamored Obama supporters by convincing them that Obama will be shredded in the general election. But that argument can only be made if she is keeping things close.

The end is in sight. If she beats expectations in North Carolina, and wins the states she should win, carrying that momentum through Oregon, she can make her plan work. No longer is it just a numbers game.

I had no idea that Abercrombie & Fitch was so supportive of Barack Obama’s candidacy…

Over dinner, Sarah predicted Hillary by 6, and I predicted Hillary by 9. I think 9 is the more interesting number - it’s not quite double digits, but it’s enough to be considered a “convincing” margin of victory. A spread of 6 is a de facto win for Obama. Right now, at the time of this posting, the returns have Hillary by 8. I am anxiously awaiting the late night spin cycles.

If this keeps this up, she’ll be well fueled to continue the march to Waterloo … er, the convention. And don’t believe she won’t. If we’ve learned anything about the Clinton machine, we know it doesn’t give two spits in a bucket for the well-being of the Democrat Party. If there is a scintilla chance of her winning the nomination, she’s going to burn the whole house down doing it.

Ahem, two words: Operation Chaos.

UPDATE With 42% in, Hillary is up by ten. Her internals showing 12 may have been more accurate than anyone gave her credit for. Of course, it would be helpful if we knew what parts of the commonwealth had already reported.

I just received this text alert from the Barack Obama campaign

PA is voting for Barack today, South Carolina is next! Reply to this msg TVL & NAME if you can get to SC between now & the 5/6 primary

I heard about possible redo’s in Michigan and Florida, but not yet in South Carolina. Anyhow, all you South Carolina volunteers - get on down there, and quick!

And they say Republicans are the ones who play tricks like this.

UPDATE Heh. As I hit “publish”, a correction arrived.

ten paces then draw

The Democrat Party, mired in division, is set for another iceberg collision in Pennsylvania tomorrow. Hillary Clinton is expected to win, and win in a convincing enough fashion to keep the lights on.

The laughable part of all this is how “divided” the Republicans were supposed to be. Since that mantra ceased being conventional knowledge, Obama and Clinton have shown what true division can be. The polls show that a significant number of Hillary’s supporters will not be good soldiers and support Obama. If Barack Obama cannot even unite his party, how does anyone sensibly believe he can unite the country?

The fact is, he can’t. The divisions wrought in the Democrats’ primary are merely the surface of Obama’s capacity for disunification. His uniting powers are great - if you already support him. As for who he really is, what he really stands for, and what he wants to do, he ought to unify as many people as George McGovern - minus, of course, the Hillary troops who go AWOL.

That’s just it, actually. “Unity” is Democrat-speak code for “agreeing with me”. If you disagree, you are a threat to unity. Ergo, disunity is bad. Ergo, we all should agree.

Well, I don’t want to agree with you guys. Ever.

In my view, having developed a traditional liberal and modern conservative philosophy, disunity is a mark of good governance. It means we don’t get much done. When it comes to government frolicking in the lives of men, that is a good thing. Unless you are a liberal, or a socialist, or Barack Obama.

Besides, the level of “disunity” we see in 2008 is minor in a historical context. The country was relatively fragmented when the Constitution was adopted. The Founders’ genius was in making unity a rare commodity, and pinning at our political framework’s core the adversarial system. Rightly in a democratic republic, everything should be hard. And it worked well, until the Supreme Court betrayed a century of jurisprudence in the 1930s, and then executed its own version of the Third Punic War on the Constitution in the 1960s and 1970s.

Obama’s rhetoric betrays his world view, and his view of the Constitution’s irrelevance. We know of his prior writings, his actions, and his voluntary associations, all of which tell a man more than his scripted words. I do hope Hillary continues to give him a run for his money - that is, all of it.

I smell Jihad Jimmy

Maybe that rabbit knew something the rest of us didn’t back in 1979.

Of course, I was a wee one, and knew nothing of ferocious rabbits until watching Watership Down sometime later. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was a feral rabbit savant. It is clear now the rabbit knew something about President Carter none of the rest of us did. Some animals smell fear - the swamp rabbit smelled a human skunk.

But now, In 2008, Carter has moved on from whacking rabbits with paddles to the warm embrace of universally recognized terrorists

Carter, Meshaal and lower-level officials had a closed-door meeting that lasted more than an hour and a half.

The ex-president’s visits with top Hamas officials this week have drawn condemnation from the U.S. and Israeli governments. They said Carter is engaging in diplomacy with a group they consider a terrorist organization.

This comes on the heels of Carter’s moment of silence at Yasser Arafat’s grave (you know, the guy who invented airplane hijacking as a terrorist weapon)

Israel into the sea? Jews are monkeys? I’m just trying to understand

The only rational explanation is that Jimmy Carter is mentally ill, struck with some peculiar type of Palestinian-based Stockholm Syndrome. Next thing you know he’ll be hobnobbing with domestic terrorists and running as a write-in for president in November (watch out Obama - that’s your base he’s eying!).

UPDATE For the pope - not a rabbit, it’s only a beaver.

I truly expected Hillary Clinton to take the gloves off last night. Maybe her Democrat-loyal heart isn’t as small and black as I originally thought.

Notwithstanding her politness, Barack Obama looked as uncomfortable as I have yet seen him. And this discomfort, standing, yet essentially shuffling in place, arose due to some truly relevant questions that his Democrat opponents haven’t had the strategic fortitude to bring up.

Predictably missing the point, MSNBC’s Democrat super flak Keith Olbermann, better suited as ESPN Sportscenter anchor than political commentator, blames the messenger

The real story of his debate may not be found where they found the answers, but where one of the moderators found his questions: Sean Hannity of Fox News, and separately a local New York right wing radio host [presumably Steve Malzberg], each insisting during interviews this week with George Stephanopoulos of ABC that he ask Senator Obama about his tenuous past link to 60s and 70s terrorist radical William Ayers. Tonight, Stephanopoulos did that.

Yeah, um, okay. He shouldn’t have been the first one. The problem was in Obama’s answer, where he admits to not consulting with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers on a “regular basis”.

So, it’s just occasionally. Every now and then. Not enough to worry about. From The Washington Post’s blog

The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.

How this is not a legitimate question only Keith can answer. It certainly was, and is, and will continue to be all the way to November, along with the never ending saga of Jeremiah Wright, and the outright socialist / Marxist public comments of Michelle Obama. This is not guilt by association - this is confirming proof of Barack Obama’s utter and complete lack of judgment.

UPDATE Bill Hobbs has more

Hillary Clinton follows up by filling in the blanks on the relationship between Obama and Ayers, and this article in The Politico makes clear that Obama and the unrepentant terrorist are not just casual neighbors, but political pals.

Hot Air says the article is “Proof that Obama’s not above schmoozing bomb-tossing commies — excuse me, reformed bomb-tossing commies - to advance his political career.”

If you read this blog at all, it is clear where I ideologically stand. I’m a conservative before I’m a partisan, though partisanship certainly has its place.

In this spirit, I myself am reading through various collections of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. The guy is obviously reprehensible, but I’m curious as to what else he’s peddling.

So I go to Amazon.com, and look for some paperback compilations. I don’t figure I need brand new books, because I’m probably just going to read everything once and be done with it. Among the books I bought is What Makes You Strong? Sermons of Joy and Strength. My initial guess was hate, having grown up watching Star Wars and realizing that the dark side is empowered by hate and greed. But still, I’m willing to put on the lawyer hat and remain open minded.

I get the book today and start thumbing through it (I think it was $5.00 used on Amazon), and guess what? I got a bonus!

Not an Auto Pen

Though my name isn’t “Tommi”, I shall treasure it always.

Barack Obama’s comments at the end of last week epitomize, in a large way, the difference between the conservative mindset and that the liberal movement. In case you missed his behind-closed-doors observation, in speaking about blue collar, rural voters

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

So far, Obama has said “I didn’t say it as well as I should have” and that he “regrets his choice of words”. Nowhere has he said he didn’t mean it. In fact, we now get to see how important he feels religion actually is. It is the “opiate of the masses”. How fitting. I’m sure Michelle is proud. It’s the social gospel - just ask Reverend Wright.

This is among the most offensive attack he could have lodged against nearly half the country. He can kiss Pennsylvania goodbye (Hillary’s ad on the quote was superb, by the way), and if he doesn’t completely self destruct, has seriously wounded himself for the general in Ohio and Michigan, states any Democrat has to win. His opinion is that rural working voters are simpletons who cannot be blamed for holding dear to silly, unimportant things, like Christianity and constitutional rights. And, of course, they are largely bigots, too, merely “acting out” their frustration in all these ways. Contrary to Obama’s head shake inducing assertions otherwise, this is no spin. No one had to spin it. The first rule of interpretation, as the former editor of the Harvard Law Review knows, is to give words their plain meaning. Off-the-cuff is how we learn who people really are. Off-the-cuff in a presupposed private setting is really how we learn who people are.

Too, remember that Obama is brilliant, and eloquent. He chooses his words with great care. His cadence demands it. All he has said is that he is sorry he said it, not that he doesn’t believe it. Some of his biggest donors heard it, and wrote thousands of dollars in checks to his campaign. If they cared, Obama would have prudently clarified his remarks at the time. He did not. The people who support Obama’s candidacy believe this just as much as he does. They are dangerous to this country.

Deep in Obama’s “slip” is the core truth that he believes the federal government should be taking care of everyone. No problem is too small, and no perceived slight is too irrational, for the federal government to insert itself into. He is the new and improved 2008 model of the McGovern / Mondale political tradition. The government is the provider of happiness. The bureaucracy is the clergy and he, Obama, in his narcissistic glory, is the messianic figure. You’re not allowed to cling to anything else.

No, not John McCain, Hillary Clinton.

(Formerly) Highly placed Clinton adviser Mark Penn has resigned because he had previously lobbied for a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Get that - Penn had to resign because of Clinton’s opposition to free trade.

Fearless of being perceived as too dogmatic on the issue, I don’t think anyone who opposes free trade is fit to be president.  The economic reality is that free trade is good for the nation. As critics accurately point out, inefficient and soon-to-obsolete industries suffer, and workers are displaced. Through the wonders of capitalism, the process of creative destruction soon provide livelihoods to those who once worked repairing the economic equivalent of wagon wheels and telegraph machines.  NAFTA shouldn’t be strategically redeployed - it should be extended to the tip of Chile.

Protectionism, in any form, means higher prices and lower economic productivity. And since true wealth is only built through growing productivity, those politicians pandering to workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania are only in the long term hurting those they represent to help.  If the Pandora pronouncements of Obama and Hillary on free trade were remotely accurate, unemployment would have topped ten percent the year after NAFTA was enacted.

There is no room for protectionists in the present debate. That is, unless you really want to mortgage the future.

According to David Axelrod, the American people want a president who gives them the straight, unvarnished truth. This came just after Axelrod began back peddling on Obama’s promise to withdraw all American troops from Iraq within 72 hours of taking office (ed: exaggeration noted), and after denying Obama’s misuse of McCain’s statement about a long term commitment to Iraq. Things seem a bit varnished to this observer.

Posturing for the general election at this point is probably wise strategy, but with a Clinton nipping your heels, a potentially risky one. Obama has yet to have to run on his record because things have been going as planned since Super Tuesday. Mindful of general election considerations, he never had to run any further left than he did (though he certainly could have had he needed to do so). Now he’s trying to re-calibrate his message to something the American people, and not just Democrat sycophants, will accept. Once again, Obama is taking his supporters for dupes.

The latest from Buenos Aires

Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands, which remain in British hands after the 1982 war between the two countries, is “inalienable,” President Cristina Kirchner said Wednesday.

“The sovereign claim to the Malvinas Islands is inalienable,” she said in a speech marking the 26th anniversary of Argentina’s ill-fated invasion of the islands, located 480 kilometers (300 miles) off shore.

Oh yeah - that worked out well the last time.