Once Obama is elected, he and the Democrats will still have to govern. That's not going to be easy, given the problems the country faces. Once the Democrats are in charge, they're going to be held responsible by the electorate for what happens in the economy, internationally, etc. (or for what doesn't). That's going to be a lot harder than just being the "loyal opposition," and being able to blame everything on George Bush and the GOP.

Much of the electorate expects that the governing will be done on something of a bi-partisan basis. That's why all the talk about "bringing us together" and of some Republicans being included in Obama's cabinet (Powel and others). Any public political "lynching" by Democrats of Liberman will go strongly against that perception of bi-partisanship.

Remember the Democratic controlled Congrees right now has even lower approval ratings than George Bush. Unless you want the new Democratic era to very short lived, the Democratic congressional leadership better play it cool on Liberman and any other scores they might want to settle from the Bush years (impeachment, various investigations, etc.).

Why is this even in the "War Room"? Let the police do their investigation, and then we'll likely know what happened. Either she's a nut, or some criminal who assaulted her is. Either way, what does this really have to do with either Obama or McCain? There are crazies everywhere these days, and some support each of these two candidates. So who cares whose side the nut in this particular case turns out to be on.

You might want to wait until after the election before sounding the death knell of the right. In fact, you might want to wait to see how the left makes out in actually running the country bfore making such a pronouncement.

A more proper nautical analogy is that the good ship USA is in dire straits right now, and if the new captain doesn't do a lot better than the old captain, there's going to be a major disaster and/or another mutiny. Irrespective of whether he navigates from the left or the right. I personally hope he does do better, for the sake of us all. But we're in uncharted waters right now, folks, so its no time to make believe one side or the other has all the answers. These stormy seas are just as unforgiving for liberals and conservatives alike, and we'll all drown together if we're not careful.

Now that these unfortunate citizens are supporting (being used?) by one of the campaigns, I'm sure the MSM will go after them like sharks to try to discredit their stories, just like with the infamous "Joe The Plumber" character. It's likely their goverment tax files, child support accounts, unemployment records, etc., will be examined to try to destroy their credibility. Oh, that's right - I forgot - Only the Republicans do that sort of thing. These people are supporting the Democratic side. Whew, I feel so much better now!

This type of claim is, of course, nuts. But if the MSM had done its job properly, and investigated Obama's life critically and in detail (like they did Palin), this type of nonsense would get no traction except among the real nut cases. But since the MSM chose to tread very lightly, for whatever reason, a perceived lack of information about Obama's earlier life has been created. A vacuum which, of course, the fringe bloggers are now going to be happy to fill with all sorts of bizzare and wonderful theories. So the MSM is partly the culprit here, in my opinion.

Those of you who are younger won't remember this, but for many years we saw ourselves as locked in a worldwide battle with evil communism and/or socialism. Remember the USSR was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Most of the other communist countries used socialist in their names as well; they even had some sort of scientific dogma wherein they described communism as an ideal which they were tring to achieve, but were only "socialist" in the meantime.

So for most of my generation, socialist became (and remains) synonomous with communist, irrespective of the true academic definitions of each and their differences. So, actually, I think McCain has sadly reverted back to this type of 1950's name calling, rather than any coded racial slurs.

The Bushies have apparently been working on this security pact for a year. With the election over, I expect they're trying to appear to wrap this Iraq business up a bit, being worried now about their "legacy" and all that. Sorry, I just don't buy that the Iranians are so happy about Obama's election that they are suddenly all hugs and kisses (and singing Kumbaya) with us in Iraq, especially since Obama has pretty much backtracked off those earlier statements about talking with Iran directly. Also, why do you think we (or the Iranians for that matter) will honor this or any other agreement if something changes, and we feel our national security is threatened?

Obama will be in charge soon enough, and then he'll rightfully be getting all the the credit or blame as to what happens in Iraq, with Iran, and with so many other issues. But trying to claim this proves Obama's diplomatic approach (which is what, by the way?) is already paying dividends in Iraq stretches credibility at best.

I don't care if Obama was born on Mars if he'll make a good president, and can help solve all the problems the U.S. faces. And neither does most of the rest of the nation. The voters wanted to give Obama a chance, and he'll be getting it. The Supreme Court is nothing if not political (as evidenced by the "Bush Is The Winner" decision in 2000). So this whole case will go nowhere, in my humble opinion. Why? Because the people rightfully want it that way. This whole thing is just a distraction, to be ignored.