Ah pdq, still your delightful self :"Any Jew who votes for Obama should have his foreskin surgically restored, without anesthesia."

Would you mind explaining why you advocate torture for any Jewish citizen who votes for Obama? Since that's what you're doing.

Can you spell    C-R- A- S- S       B- I-G-O -T?   I knew you could.


You bid fair to get the Martin Gibson treatment--you are doing a sterling job of earning that status.   But don't worry, I'm not about to contact Joe about it--just as I did not with "Martin". I figure we can just talk it out.   And we'll just let you speak for yourself. You are so good at it.

And please, feel free to tell me to "Go To Hell" in a PM again. Though I have to admit I didn't read the PM. I felt your viewpoint was aptly conveyed by the title. It did seem a bit of an overreaction to my pointing out that nobody was accusing your hero Mr. Bush of being responsible for lax security at an Obama rally.

Nor did I open the second one. So I'm afraid we'll never know what you wanted a second opinion on. Too bad. I'm sorry to say that reading PM's from you is just not a high priority. I slightly suspect it's not worth my time. Do you think I have a basis for feeling that way?

Actually even better than a PM would be to say what you want to here in the open, instead of in a craven weasely way--now there's a formulation---behind the scenes.

You know, Ron Thomasson of Dry Branch Fire Squad, in addition to playing and singing good solid traditional bluegrass, has a wicked sense of humor. He used to say: "We believe in aggressive ignorance in bluegrass music." Now I really like traditional bluegrass a lot. And I play and sing it. But sometimes I think that, referring to some bluegrass fans at least, he had a point.




Now to the topic.   I'd say that rather than 1924, the Democrats have a choice:   either 1932 or 1968.   With Obama there is a very good chance for a major re-alignment--to the benefit of the Democrats. Lots of new blood, and a "big tent" approach which could mean long-term Democratic success.

However Hillary is steering the party straight towards 1968. Recall how many of the insurgents that year wound up backing the standard-bearer. The loyalty of the Obama new voters is to him and what he stands for--not to any generic Democrat. Whereas the strongest Hillary supporters have other considerations--especially the need to avoid a Republican president--with the resulting chance to pick Supreme Court justices.

So her supporters will definitely support Obama.   But she cannot count on his supporters to support her--especially after the despicable campaign she is now running.