Mr. Sherer wrote...

She is, in many ways, the glue now keeping the Grand Old Party from further splintering into disarray after the 2006 elections.

"It unifies the party. It motivates a part of the base," explains Grover Norquist, a longtime party activist who runs the group Americans for Tax Reform. "Hillary can be scary."

So, Clinton's a uniter, and not a divider, eh? But if she's uniting the GOP, then that's a bad thing! Let the GOP fracture along their nationalistic, theocratic, and capitalistic faultlines and scatter in the winds of change. Let their brimstone base become demoralized, and not energized against Clinton.

As ever, I'm very suspicious when the GOP trots out their talking points about the Democratic field. How does a highly-unfavorable, Democrat-in-name-only (DINO) like Clinton scare the GOP, exactly?

Maybe it's because they've boned things up so badly, that a DINO suddenly appears threatening. Or maybe they actually want to go up against Clinton, and are coyly playing Br'er Rabbit -- "Oh, please don't throw me in that br'er patch!" -- when really they'd love to go up against her, because she'll motivate their ranks to get out and vote her down.

Perhaps because they've alienated the independents, a motivated brimstone base (and, possibly, a demoralized Democratic base, if enough people don't vote for Clinton because they see her as a DINO) might be what they need to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Are they really that intimidated by her formidable corporate connections? This from the Party of Corporate Connections?? I dunno.

Everything that people like Norquist say about the Democrats should be served up with a salt shaker. I remember them intoning ominously about Kerry before the general election, too, before they tore him apart.

Which candidate would most divide and demoralize the GOP? That's who we want against them.

New Deal Democrat (NDD) raises good points and valid questions; and I would wonder whether Obama's "wobble" (??) in the Beltway punditocracy about actually meeting with leaders the US doesn't like is more reflective of how imperial and out-of-step with the world the Beltway is, versus how "wobbly" Obama is -- although I'm simultaneously supportive of Obama's reasoned approach to the region, and disappointed that he's kind of playing ball with the Beltway at all, given how wrong they are about the region.

One thing from NDD I wanted to comment on...

Will another Saddam-like dictator emerge? Will it become another Afghanistan - a "failed state" that's overrun by fanatics like the Taliban? Or could it, against all odds, become a prosperous Arab democracy? We chose to introduce chaos where there was order (of the admittedly brutal sort)

I'd politely inquire: what is the model prosperous Arab democracy you have in mind?

Israel's the most democratic state in the region; and, with regard to its actual citizens, Israel is far more democratic than the US (aka, "The Homeland" -- I agree that that term irritates more than it inspires). Americans could learn a lot about actual democracy by studying Israel.

But the Israelis are not Arabs -- the Arab states the US considers models of moderation aren't democratic, although many are indeed prosperous.

I mean, are you talking Turkey? Jordan? Egypt? Qatar? Kuwait? That's part of our image problem in the region -- we don't support democracy in the region. If we did, we'd see a far more diverse Middle East than we do, and I suspect we'd find the wind taken out of the Islamists' lateen sails.

All we really support are regimes that give us ready oil, and could give two figs about anything else. The US had no problem with Saddam Hussein for a long time, and certainly has no problem with Saddam-like dictators in the region, so long as they know who's boss (e.g., US).

The failed state surely proves to be a breeding ground for terrorists, the idea of a strong, well-run police state has great appeal to the neoliberal and neoconservative planners of our policy (although they'd call their Third World client states "moderate" and downplay their human rights records, or ignore them outright).

"Prosperous Arab democracy?" That it is Arab is inevitable; that it is prosperous is desirable; but from the perspective of American policy, that it is democratic? Well, two out of three ain't bad, but it plays well at home, so they keep up the fiction. Invariably, we'll sacrifice democracy for the other two, which is what gets us into trouble with the rank-and-file Arabs, and fuels America-hatred in the region.

Nick44, you vegan tease!

"Are vegans pro-Choice or pro-Life?" The answer is yes. :)

Seriously, do vegans have a stance on it? Given the philosophical ground vegans have staked out, I would think they would have to, for the sake of consistency.

Seems tough, given that they see taking animal life as innately bad, then that would point to a pro-Life position -- unless they're not seeing people as animals (and thus exempt from moral consideration), which might give them a comforting, if questionable out (?).

But then the whole overpopulation and environmental burden argument would favor a pro-Choice contraceptive position, or, at the very least, avoiding human reproduction entirely -- but then, what does an accidentally-pregnant vegan do? Perhaps abandon veganism for awhile, only to pick it back up at a more opportune time later? Say, shortly after a clinic visit?

I've known several vegans over the years, and all of them gave it up eventually, whether to have children, or just to enjoy a more diverse diet.