It has been determined by experts and analysts that the Democratic National Convention in Denver could become an internecine struggle that could ultimately injure the party and destroy its chances of winning the general election in November. Those determinations come from looking at the numbers. The numbers come from the each candidate's delegates acquired thus far and the number of delegates left to be won in the remaining Democratic caucuses and primaries. The only way either of the remaining two candidates, Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton, can get enough delegates to win is to decisively defeat their opponent in almost all of the upcoming elections. The problem with that is that these candidates are nearly equal in the polls for several of these elections.

And then there is the problem with the superdelegates.

Superdelegates are a Democratic Party invention that have played basically an honorary role at the conventions since their introduction in 1972. But this year those 796 superdelegates could decide who the Democratic nominee will be - and that is the problem.

The Democrats have been criticized by Republicans, fellow Democrats, and political experts as having instituted a non-democratic process in their nominating procedure, since the superdelegates get to vote simply because of appointment and position. They are not representative of the voters who vote in the caucuses and primaries to elect delegates to go to the national convention. And, by Democratic Party rule, they are technically unpledged delegates that can vote for anyone they choose, including candidates no longer in the race.

At present, Senator Hillary Clinton has a little over half the delegates needed to win the nomination (2025). This number includes both pledged delegates (won in primaries and caucuses) and pledged superdelegates. Senator Barack Obama is trailing, but by a mere one hundred delegates. Over half of the states have had their primary elections, including the two states with the largest delegations (California and New York). Although there are some big states left (Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia), there is no way that the representative way most states break down their delegate apportionment is going to give the Democrats a clear winner before the National Convention in Denver.

Some have suggested that there may be wrangling over the two states stripped of their delegates, Michigan and Florida (for moving their primaries to earlier dates, against party mandates). And one can see why the Clinton camp would want those delegates to be included, considering that the senator from New York won both states by a considerable margin. But one can see the argument the Obama camp would have for disallowing those delegates as well - since the voters knew that they weren't electing delegates to the national convention, there is the question of the number that did not bother to vote, thereby skewing the delegate count.

There are more than a few who believe the superdelegate vote might not only be necessary to decide who the Democratic nominee will be (which was why they were introduced in the first place - to decide undecided nominations in the party's best interest) but that it will hurt the Democratic Party, especially this campaign season. With the superdelegate vote going one way or the other to decide, many voters may become disaffected and disillusioned, believing that they voted for nothing, that perhaps the voting might be rigged through unseen political machinations and backroom dealing. Ultimately, Democrats are afraid that if the nomination cannot be handled on the floor of the convention, the superdelegate vote that would give one of the candidates the nomination will result in Democratic voters becoming bitter and/or disillusioned and not voting in the general election.

Other experts and party representatives fear an ugly battle on the floor of the convention. A prolonged battle over who becomes the Democratic nominee could affect voter turnout in November, not to mention driving Independent voters and disappointed voters away.

Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist, told CNN that the convention should not be settled by superdelegates. Brazile, a superdelegate herself, stated, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. There's no reason why we should decide."

Speculation as to how all the uncommitted superdelegates and the unawarded delegates awaiting primaries and caucuses might vote or not vote has become a hot and, for some, worrisome topic. The bottom line remains: not one delegate at the Democratic National Convention, pledged or unpledged, has to vote for a certain candidate. Essentially, a convention floor battle could potentially result in the nomination of John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, or any other Democrat. Although this might be welcome news to these once presidential hopefuls, presenting a fractured and internally warring party to the world at the Democratic National Convention is something no Democrat wants going into the national election.

Sources:

"Election Center 2008: Primaries & Caucuses," CNNPolitics.com

Dave Helling, "Superdelegates could hold key in Democratic nomination," KansasCity.com

        

The reverend James Dobson, leader of the influential Colorado-based evangelical organization Focus on the Family, endorsed former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee Thursday, February 8.  Dobson had made it clear that he would not vote for Arizona senator John McCain because of his voting record on family and conservative issues.  Dobson said he was making the statement as a private citizen and had not endorsed a single candidate because he did not wish to make a choice between Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. 
  
That changed early Thursday when Mitt Romney announced the suspending of his candidacy yesterday, stating that the longer he stayed in the race, the better the chances the Democratic nominee would have to win the general election in November.

Considering that he had won less than half the delegates McCain had, it is possible that that was his reason. But it is doubtful.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee destroyed Mitt Romney's chances at becoming the nominee. There were several instances. His surprise win in Iowa. Huckabee's strong showing in South Carolina, where he received twice the votes Romney did, but only 3% less than McCain, who won (Romney finished a disappointing fourth, with 15% of the vote). The McCain contingent's strategy move in West Virginia that gave Huckabee the win there early on Super Tuesday. Then, Huckabee winning Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and Arkansas.

No, Romney more than likely saw the writing on the wall. The next two Republican primaries are in Kansas and Arkansas, which Huckabee has a chance of sweeping, considering their large evangelical populations. And although Huckabee has less delegates than Romney, trailing McCain by five hundred, Huckabee has a chance of getting the Romney delegates, due to the acrimony between the Romney and McCain camps, and winning more delegates in the upcoming primaries, giving McCain a run for his money in the last stretch of the primaries.

Dobson stated that he would vote for Huckabee because of the former governor's "unwavering positions on the social issue, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life..." He went on to say that he believed Huckabee was the "best remaining choice for President of the United States."

Dobson's endorsement changes the voting equation. Knowing that his opinion counts immensely among the millions of evangelical voters in America, his endorsement, along with Romney's absence, will more than likely give Mike Huckabee a better chance to win the Republican base voters and perhaps most of the remaining primaries. These two factors could also put him in a position to win the Republican nomination for president.

Sources:

Fin Gomez, "Influential Social Conservative, James Dobson, Endorses Huckabee For President," FoxNews.com

"Election Center 2008: Primaries & Caucuses," CNNPolitics.com

        

At the Repbublican Debate Thursday night, January 31, the four remaining candidates sat at a table.  Two of them answered questions and debated issues almost the entire debate.  Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is currently third in most polls, spoke a few times.  Ron Paul, the libertarian Texas congressman, spoke even less.

Sadly, the CNN-televised debate from the Ronald Reagan Library in California was a two-person affair.  The more colorful candidates still in the race barely were allowed time to respond or comment on anything.  Most of the debate centered on the differences in the platforms of Arizona Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.  That, and the relative nonissue of whether or not Mitt Romney actually said that he wanted "timetables" or not for the possible withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.   An inordinate amount of time was spent going back and forth on this nonissue.

Who cares?  The semantics of Romney's statement do not matter.

What matters are the overall policy issues that these men will attempt to implement and maintain while in office.  All four of them.  

Huckabee and Paul deserve to be heard as long as they are still in the running.  Marginalizing their candidacy by generally ignoring them and pandering to sensationalism and controversy by allowing Romney and McCain to childishly engage in a "you said" "no, I didn't" argument was beneath the journalistic excellence CNN has built its reputation upon.  If I wanted to watch this kind of infantile, confrontational dialogue, I would simply have turned on FoxNews (anytime).

So, now that CNN and most of the popular media have decided that the Republicans are down to two candidates, it is up to the voting public to follow through and do what they did in Iowa -- vote for Mike Huckabee.  Or Ron Paul, because the point is not that Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul are better choices for president, but that they do deserve consideration.

And it isn’t as if we have not seen this before already.  On the Democratic side, every candidate but Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, and former senator John Edwards was virtually ignored.  

When the electorate allow the media to drive the scope of our elections, we lose most of the power of our vote.   When we allow the media to funnel our votes through sensationalism, we allow them to trivialize our vote.  When we allow the media to marginalize certain candidates and focus on certain others, we allow them to take away our vote. 

        

Former senator John Edwards announced from New Orleans Wednesday, January 30, that he was “suspending” his candidacy for the nomination of the Democratic Party for president.  From the same place that he had announced his candidacy, in New Orleans’ Katrina-devastated 9^th Ward, Edwards disappointedly told a small crowd that it was time to step aside and let history be made by the Democratic Party.  He did not endorse either Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton, but he admitted that he had spoke with both candidates earlier, apprising them of his intentions, and getting from them their word that they would do as much as possible for the poor, the key issue in Edwards’ campaign.

Several hours later, former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani also bowed out of the race at a press conference at the Ronald Reagan Library, site of the Republican debate held later in the day between the remaining four Republican candidates.  In a much-publicized press conference, Giuliani, with John McCain at his side, announced his withdrawal and his endorsement of the Arizona senator for the Republican Party’s choice for president.

The withdrawal of Rudy Giuliani was expected.  Having bet his entire candidacy on a first-place finish in the Florida Primary, his disappointing third-place finish was a sure indicator for most political analysts that he would step aside.

Edwards’ removal of himself, however, came as a bit of a shock to everyone.  Stating as late as Tuesday that he was in the race until the end, his announcement early Wednesday was so unexpected, it has led many to believe that the decision was not solely based on the former senator’s distant third-place finishes in South Carolina or Florida.  Many speculate that it may have had a lot to do with his wife, Elizabeth, who was diagnosed with cancer (the day John Kerry conceded defeat to George W. Bush) in 2004.

This leaves the Republicans with four men standing: Arizona senator John McCain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Texas representative Ron Paul.  The Democrats are left with two candidates:  New York senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois senator Barack Obama.  With Super Tuesday looming, the race just got a little tighter on both sides of the political fence.

Does the departure of Edwards and Giuliani benefit or hurt any of the other candidates?  Doubtful.  Edwards’ supporters were primarily blue collar white males.  Clinton may have a slight edge over Obama, unless Edwards actually endorses Obama over Clinton.  As for Giuliani, his open endorsement of McCain certainly did not hurt the Arizona senator.  Representing the left side of the GOP as both these men do, Giuliani’s supporters would more than likely have drifted toward McCain without the endorsement, considering the similarity in both men’s ideologies. 

One thing is certain, the absence of these two men loosed quite a few voters back into the pool of voters for Super Tuesday.


Sources:

Nedra Pickler and Becky Bohrer, "Edwards Drops Presidential Bid," KansasCity.com

Jonathan D. Salant, "Giuliani Abandons Presidential Race, Endorses McCain," Bloomberg.com

        

Arizona senator John McCain edged out former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the Republican Florida Primary on Tuesday, January 29, by nearly 100,000 votes, 36% to 31%. The Republican Florida Primary was a winner-take-all affair, giving McCain 57 delegates, the lead in total delegates, and a tremendous momentum boost going into Super Tuesday next week, when nearly two dozen primaries will be held. McCain's victory is a testament to hard work and perseverance, because back in mid-December, according to a Rasmussen poll of Florida voters, McCain rested at a dismal 6% and was 17% behind Mitt Romney.

Ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani finished a disappointing third, far behind the frontrunners, pulling in only 15% of the vote. Consider this as opposed to August of last year, when Giuliani (again according to a Rasmussen poll) was enjoying a 15 percent lead over Mitt Romney and a 23 point lead over a lagging McCain.

Giuliani had made no attempt to hide the fact that he was placing heavy emphasis on the Florida Primary, wanting to use Florida as a jumping off platform for a run at the presidential nomination. But his narrow focus on Florida (and a few other states with large delegate counts) seemed to dismiss the smaller states' primaries and caucuses that led up to it.

Many political analysts and experts are expecting Rudy Giuliani to announce his withdrawal from the Republican race shortly, if not within the next few days. John King, political reporter for CNN, announced late Tuesday night that sources in the Giuliani camp have informed news organizations that Mayor Giuliani would announce his withdrawal from the Republican race and would endorse Senator John McCain's candidacy for president on Wednesday, January 30.

So what does this mean going forward for McCain, Romney, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Texas representative Ron Paul? It probably means that McCain and Romney will starts attacking each other again, something that the two have become accustomed to of late. Huckabee, who won the Iowa Caucus, pulled down 14% of the vote in Florida and will remain to be a thorn in Romney's side, draining away Christian voters from Romney. As glowing as McCain's remarks about Huckabee and Giuliani have been, it would not be a great leap to think that one of the two might become McCain's running mate if he gets the official nod. And Ron Paul? Ron Paul simply keeps his candidacy alive.

The Democrats also held their Florida primary on Tuesday, but there were no delegates involved since the Democratic National Committee had stripped the state of its delegates for allocating delegates outside the DNC approved timeframe. Senator Hillary Clinton won the purely symbolic race, 50% to 33% over Barack Obama. Former senator John Edwards came in third with 14% of the vote.

And they are all -- Republicans and Democrats -- headed to California and Super Tuesday.

Sources:

"Florida Republican Primary," RealClearPolitics.com

"Election Center 2008: Primaries and Caucuses," CNNPolitics.com

"Sources: Giuliani Will Endorse McCain," CNN.com

        

What a difference a few months make.  On the campaign trail, you could actually say weeks or even days make a difference. A year ago it would have been safe to say that the general election was going to be a voting slugfest to the final count between ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. According to recent polls, the senator is losing ground and the ex-mayor may not win even one primary.

It does not look good for Rudy Giuliani in the Florida Primary. According to a Rasmussen Poll taken in mid-July last year, Guiliani was 9 percentage points ahead of both Arizona senator John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (22, 13, 13). Three weeks later, the ex-mayor would enjoy his largest lead in the Florida polls, surging well ahead of Mitt Romney and watching as John McCain reached almost his lowest point in the polls (30, 15, 7, respectively). By December, as the media touted of the important upcoming Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, Giuliani, who decided not to campaign in either state, began to slip, falling behind Romney, 23% -19$ (McCain would be at his lowest in mid-December, with only 6%). But by January 9, Rasmussen would poll a resurgent Senator McCain, fresh from a win in New Hampshire, one percentage point ahead of his two closest rivals. Today, Rasmussen has McCain and Romney in a dead heat for the Florida Republican vote with 31 % of the Republican Primary vote and Rudy Giuliani a distant third with 16%.

How in the world did that happen? Several factors seem to have come together to give McCain his momentum, Romney his steady growing numbers, and Giuliani his consistently falling points. One was that Giuliani came off as arrogant when he decided not to campaign in the smaller primary and caucus states, focusing on Florida and states with high delegate counts. As a result, he finished poorly in the contests leading up to Florida. McCain just steadily plugged his message. Romney did the same. Occasionally McCain and Romney would take time to take shots at each other and now seem to do it as a matter of course.

Another factor was former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s surprising win in the Republican Iowa Caucus.  It brought another element into the Republican fray that had seemed to lie dormant until Iowa - the Christian factor. Huckabee is an evangelical and a former minister. Giuliani is pro choice when it comes to abortion, sees nothing wrong with domestic partnerships, and was responsible for major New York City anti-firearms legislation while he was mayor -- and these get him in trouble with evangelicals in particular, conservatives in general.

And then there is the factor of Giuliani's bad press in the last few months. His fallout with his alleged estranged son. His daughter posting her support for Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, on a website. His three highly publicized marriages and two divorces have tarnished him slightly. And the neverending onslaught from pundits, comedians, reporters and tabloids on his personal life and his constant use of September 11 (he was major of New York City on that fateful day, his strong response leading to the nickname "America's mayor") as a political pitch has been troublesome.

Giuliani was open about his strategy to win the Republican nomination for president. He stated a month ago that he would concentrate on the larger states and bet his chances on Florida. Even when he began slipping in the polls - and three of his opponents began to rise dramatically - he made only token appearances in the other primary and caucus states, if at all. And this may have been a mistake. Many saw his focus on the "big picture" of the general election as a blatant dismissal of the smaller states and their delegates - and it showed at the voting polls. Giuliani finished behind most of the Republican field in South Carolina, Nevada, and Michigan.

Florida has become an all or nothing gamble for Rudy Giuliani. By no means does a losss in Florida mean that Giuliani has to drop out of contention, but a third-place finish would be damaging to his chances for nomination. By ignoring the other states running up to the Florida Primary, however, he may find that betting the White House to win on a race in Florida may not have been the best strategy.

Sources:

"Florida Republican Primary," RealClearPolitics.com

"Election Center 2008: Primaries and Caucuses," CNNPolitics.com

"Rudy Giuliani On The Issues," OntheIssues.org

 

        

Senator Barack Obama is proving a bit of a problem for the Clinton political machine. The woman (and heir apparent -- or so some thought) that seemed so invincible just a few short months ago has been defeated in Iowa, barely won New Hampshire, comfortably won Michigan (no delegates) and Nevada, and was soundly thrashed in South Carolina. Is this to be an expected pattern throughout the course of the primaries? Can the Obama campaign carry on a series of worrisome wins to build enough momentum to stop Senator Hillary Clinton from becoming the Democrats next presidential nominee and instead replace her with the junior Senator from Illinois?

Perhaps.

Invoking the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr., Barack Obama is calling for a change. Not just a change of allegiance and vote. But a change to help alter the course of the United States. In his speeches, he tells people that there is no room for divisions among Americans, that color is not an issue. He calls for solidarity, he calls for strength, he calls for hope, and he calls for your vote.

But is hope enough? Do the people of the United States have enough trust left within their hearts to follow a man they barely know? Can the cult of personality that has become part of the message of the Barack Obama campaign sway enough people to gain him enough delegates to see him nominated as the Democratic candidate for the presidency? Or are the people of the United States so hardened to political maneuverings over the past few decades, so jaded by the corruption and scandal of the past couple administrations, so dampened by the disappointment and frustration that they have become too cynical to let that flame of hope ignite?

Surprisingly, it is beginning to look as if hope just might be enough.  The Obama campaign has taken on a life of its own. Led by a figure that doesn't seem to let the adverse deter him, he has risen above the pettiness of the racial questioning and the attempts to draw him into a mud-slinging competiton, whether it be media driven or part of his opponents' strategy. He has managed to keep anything said about his fellow Democrats low-key, nothing to be considered disrespectful or overly contentious. He has defended himself with grace and even tones.

And he is winning over a vast majority of the undecided and the directionless.

Not since the Kennedys in the 1960s has the United States seen such enthusiastic support for a candidate, such a groundswell of popular movement. Not since Bobby Kennedy has there been a young candidate who has captured the imagination of the American people and kept it focused. Not since John and Bobby Kennedy have so many Americans actually believed the words of a candidate and been inspired enough to become politically active. Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, wrote a glowing endorsement of the Senator from Illinois in the New York Times. "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president - not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

Senator Barack Obama believes he can be that president as well. In a couple of days -- after the dust of Super Tuesday has settled -- we will know whether or not his message has gotten through...


Source:

Caroline Kennedy, "A President Like My Father," NYTimes.com

        

Polls, depending upon which ones you look at, are showing Senator Barack Obama ahead of Senator Hillary Clinton by as many as 9 or 10 to 16 percentage points in South Carolina just hours before the polls open in that state's Democratic Primary. But the polls have been wrong before. They were wrong in Iowa. They were really wrong in New Hampshire.

The polls put Barack Obama well ahead. Why, when just a few short months ago, Hillary Clinton led the polls? Simply because Obama has gained the confidence of the African-American electorate, something he did not have a few months ago. And some feel confident he could become the next president, also something they did not believe a few months ago. But that is what a victory in Iowa and an extremely strong showing in New Hampshire will get you - confidence.

John Edwards is a distant third but has picked up ground in the last week, rising as much as 9 percent, which still puts him behind Clinton by at least 11 %. According to a Mason-Dixon Poll, Obama leads with 38 %, Clinton with 30 %, and Edwards with 19 %. Reuters/C-Span/Zogby has it 38, 25, 21 - in the same order. The latter gives Edwards more leverage and puts him and Clinton in a virtual tie. If Edwards pulls off a second-place finish, there could still be a chance for him to capture the nomination. But he has to do well in South Carolina, or so say the analysts.

I disagree. John Edwards could lose South Carolina and on Super Tuesday, February 5, do well enough in those elections to put himself in the lead (or a really close second) in this race. As long as he remains in the race, Edwards has a shot. Admittedly, it is a long shot, but with Clinton and Obama sniping at each other, Edwards has become the voice of reason in the Democratic Party. As he told David Letterman the other night, he now represents the "grown up" part of the Democratic Party. And he could be right. Saturday's primary will be a good indicator.

Democrats, in order to win the general election, have to start thinking with their heads instead of with their hearts. A woman or an African-American in the White House sounds great and would be a great thing to see, but it probably will not happen if John McCain is the Republicans choice. John Edwards is probably the only Democrat who can beat McCain in the general election (that is assuming that McCain wins the Republican nomination and, given the mood of the country, if the Republicans want to win in the fall, he will be their candidate). Clinton cannot beat McCain because she galvanizes Republicans. Too many of them simply hate her (and her husband). In fact, the only two choices the Democrats have now are Barack Obama and John Edwards. Barack Obama will also galvanize the Republicans, but for different reasons. One of them is race (and I'm not talking about voting against him because he's black, although that, unfortunately, will be a factor for some). Take a look at the CNN exit polls for South Carolina. There isn't even a 1 % showing for African-Americans or Latinos voting in the Republican Primary. There are considerably more white eleigible voters registered to vote all across the United States. If McCain gets the Republican nomination, not only will he get almost all of the registered Republicans, he'll also get most of the moderate and conservative Democrats as well if Clinton or Obama is nominated. Independents will split.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cannot beat those numbers.

But Edwards can.

        

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the Michigan Primary tonight with 39% of the vote.  Senator John McCain came in second with a 30% showing.  Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee came in third with 16% of the vote. 

With Wyoming, that gives Romney two states that he has won.  Many pundits and analysts were stating that Michigan was a make-or-break state of Romney, but, given that it is his home state (where his family's name still carries a lot of nostalgic weight), this may be a false positive for the campaign.  South Carolina should give us a more true picture of how the Republican voters really feel about Romney.  If he is a viable candidate, this pro-Bush, pro-military state should give Romney at least a second place finish behind Huckabee.  Huckabee stands to gain from South Carolina's predominant evangelical voters.  It could go down to the wire. 

Ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani came in a distant 6th place behind Ron Paul and Fred Thompson.  Giuliani did not campaign much in Michigan, basing his nomination strategy on winning Florida and a few other states in primaries to be held on Super Tuesday in February.  Whether or not this is a wise move on his part remains to be seen. 

According to CNN, Mitt Romney not only had the advantage of being in his home state (he was born in Michigan) but received most of the female vote and the vote of those most loyal to president Bush.

And that last little tidbit should tell us something.  Do we really want a president (Romney) that people still loyal to the worst president this country has ever seen (Bush) are voting for?  It is something to think about... 

        

Depending upon whom you listen to or read, president Bush is in the Middle East for the first time (in his presidency) working on a peaceful settlement to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Well, sort of. Many believe he is attempting to find his legacy there. Some think he already has...

Then there are those who believe he is there to drum up support for attacking Iran. This faction believes that he's attempting to get the good will of all these Middle Eastern nations he is visiting so attacking Iran won't hurt the U.S. economically. And by "economically," of course, the meaning is "a diminishment of oil supply."

The third faction believes Bush is simply there to sell arms to Middle Eastern countries.
Help stabilize the region, as it were. (Stabilizing the most volatile region on the planet by an infusion of war materiel just sounds counter-intuitive, does it not?) And that may be the plan. He's announced a $30 billion package to Israel. He also announced a $20 billion package to Saudi Arabia. Other arms packages are sure to come as he makes his way through his 8-day tour.

This writer proposes a fourth faction. How about all three of the other schools of thought combined? Why not? He's already there. Might as well kill three birds with one trip in installments. Pitch the Palestinian-Israeli peace deal. Push the as-you-guys-all-know-Iran-is-part-of-the-"Axis-of-Ev il"-so-attacking-them-is-a-good-thing argument. Make a few billion dollars in arms deals. Who would have thought that Dubya the Dimwit was a multi-tasker?

Let's just hope the moron doesn't get us involved in another war while he's touring. While in Israel, Bush visited the Palestinians. He joked that he didn't have a problem getting his 45-car entourage through the Israeli checkpoints (those same hated checkpoints maintain a chokehold on Palestinian movement within the region). Thank heavens he is taking his one-man act back to Crawford, Texas, in a year.

Of course, the faction this writer sides with also believes that that isn't soon enough...