Hillary will win the democratic nomination and will become #44. She knows this is her year similar to 1976 when a nobody named Carter beat the establishment candidate. The Republicans will assist her by running a nobody candidate in which nobody will care to listen to nobody and focus instead on the CLINTON juggernaut. Iraq will not even be an campaign issue because Bush will compromise with Congress by telling everyone to keep their heads down, and for Godsakes, no more patrols. Hillary will not want to carp on Iraq because it will remind anyone listening of the VOTE. The Democratic consultants and focus groups will see to it that the issues are as bland as possible and keep their candidate out of harm's way (no Bill O'Reilly for our Hillary). Voter turnout will be an unexciting 35% and everything will be very predictable and decidedly bland. Richardson will be on the ticket because he knows how to be bland and predictable, takes orders well and comes from a bland state.

How do I know this? Just follow the money!

Camille Paglia's piece actually reads sort of mainstream in its content and direction unlike most of her colleagues who are trying to out-shrill each other over Iraq, Anne Coulter, etc. She puts on the usual lefty academic airs but when you cut through the elitist prose, the message is simple: keep the message simple, understandable and moderate. Her admonition to the various front-runners not take themselves too seriously, at least not in March 07, is actually something worthwhile particularly with no votes being cast this year. She finds ridicule with the same group who are running away from Fox News based on some principled but misplaced position. Surprisingly, she says that capitalism has a leading role in our society and that lefties also have a role to moderate the sharp edges of capitalism. I could easily hear the same thing from the Pope or a Catholic bishop. That is, Paglia is trying to smooth the ideologic edges and find some common ground with her ideological opposites, but, at the same time, not forfeit certain core values.

Now that the House has decided that the war will end in Sept 2008, do we know which war will actually end on that date? I am afraid to say that the real war will then begin and will continue for another generation and millions will perish.

That is the reason for the genuine hesitancy on the part of most politicians on both sides of the aisle because history will judge their actions not the actions of the nutcases on the left who have no clue past next week.

When the US pulls out (of Iraq and it will), the US will leave behind a broken nation and a doomed society. The US has already handed over western Iraq to al Qaida and by default the rest of the country will fall into the orbit of Iran, probably by proxy. The Kurds who have no natural allies in the area will have to submit to one of the local warlords to remain viable. This is the exact scenario that the US was warned to avoid at all costs but somehow we managed to step very nicely into the trap. Al Qaida will be more than happy to provide the needed spark to start a regional war because that is what they do best. Al Qaida measures their success by the "blood of their martyrs" and the number of dead bodies left in their wake.

The US will have no political desire to intervene either politically or militarily and will likely sit on the sidelines and watch. The irony is that US diplomacy will be seriously weakened because the military option will be then off the table. Maybe the UN can broker a ceasefire or a deal but that will take years and who will speak for al Qaida? The answer is nobody and that is the crux of the matter. We now have a non-state actor effectively calling the shots.

This scenario is deadly serious and is in the back of the minds of responsible people in Washington thus the hesitancy on the part of both parties to avoid acting irresponsibly. The Left is only interested in seeing the US suffer all the political consequences for its "imperialism" and pilloring Bush in every imaginable way, but does this represent the best policy for the US and what about the next president? Usually political parties and their idealogical allies do not act in sync because they have different agendas.

Why is it that when Catholics stick up for their beliefs and demand public respect for their sacred symbols, they get hammered by the liberal media, particularly the secular lefty types like Joan Walsh? When other religious groups have had their symbols and traditions trampled on, the liberal media works overtime and somebody is usually heading off to rehab, but when Catholic traditions are involved, everybody gets a pass. Joan Walsh should issue an apology for her trivialization of the crucifixion of Christ and her obvious contempt for those who stand up for their traditions and beliefs.