This time around the democratic party cannot blame republicans if they lose.

And i think the dems deserve to lose primarily because:

1. Hillary would rather burn down the democratic party than lose the nomination.

She would run on the republican ticket if she thought she could win the presidency.

For her winning the presidency is more important than anything, and that means injuring the party.

2. Obama is too nice to hillary. As he rightly said, if the republicans attacked he would hit hard, but still he thinks of the good of the party rather than himself like hillary does.

3. Republicans have solidified behind McCain even though they know he represents 4 more years of bush regime, and they have a very slim chance of winning this election on merit.

What the republicans will do next is to sabotage the democrats, fracture them deeply using cross-voting, and basically present to the citizens that dems are fractured themselves and hence cannot rule the country.

They will present McCain as a person with solid experience and maturity (after all he is a senile old man) and 'real concern' for the poor. McCain will add a couple of HUGE tax breaks for the middle class as tax refunds, reduce the price of gas by 20% and he would win.

While these two dems candidates would still be fighting when McCain is laughing at them from the whitehouse.

To Maureen Powell who said Obama is the worst thing that happened to Democratic party:

So you saying millions of citizens who contributed and still are contributing to him are fools?

Or should obama like Clinton get the money from RIAA, MPAA, Exxon, Blue Cross, etc.?

McCain is a senile old fool who can't even remember his own name at times.

And at 3 AM he would be too far asleep to take the phone call.

Hillary is a republican in disguise who did not know the affair her husband was having right under her very nose. And she claims she knows everything...

Obama may not have experience, but hillary's experience isn't so great either.

And JF Kennedy too did not have much experience.

Dewey had lotsa experience, the press adored him and one even printed the famous headline: Dewey Defeats Truman.

Fact is Obama represents small people like you and me.

Which rankles the corporates a lot.

And which explains your posting.

The soldiers who shot unarmed non-combatants are the ones who bear the full brunt of law.

I always thought the chain of command starts from top. So if the local screws up, the top guy gets the sack. That was how the Wehrmacht and Soviet Army operated. So the top guys were disciplined enough not to let their subordinates run loose.

Here it seems to the opposite. The subordinates take the flak for the top command's failure. The refusal of the soldier to implicate his boss shows his discipline and obedience.

And instead of letting him go and punishing his superiors, the Army punished this poor guy who was just a tool.

The Army was based on the teaching that you watch your friend's back more than watching your own.

The Army in Iraq seems to be more like: The Top Brass watches its own back, while the soldiers watch their Top Brass back.

Unless the top brass comes clean and resigns enmasse, this system will not go.

Supporting troops does not mean instant rescues, or more coffee. It means the superiors taking the flak for the stupid orders they give.

Ideally the commander should resign and court-martialled.

But then we never indicted Rumsfeld, so there's no question of indicting the top brass.

The Idea of subjugating an entire country, enslaving its millions and draining a country of its entire resources to feed the profits of few multi-billion dollar rich men have failed spectacularly.

It succeeded in Phillipines in 1880s, in Indonesia in 1970s and 80s, Saudi Arabia even now, but failed in Iraq.

For the people in Iraq who face a literally life & death scenario each day, struggle to feed their family, and watch their children's future wither away, it is indeed a HUGE improvement.

After all they should be happy that their doors are not kicked in at nights, their families and wives being dragged out by soldiers at random, and living entirely in fear of when their lives would be forfeit.

They should be happy that they are not Vietnam in 1970s.

Am lucky to have an understanding better-half as wife.

I play about 3-5 hours a day. But i do make sure i do all my share of household tasks and generally tuck in my kid by 11 PM (Yes, that's my duty). We have agreed mutually that i will not spend more than 5 hours max per day, not shirk from my duties (although i can be late), and she in turn agreed to not disturb me during this time plus we do share on-game exploits, victories and defeats together (Like the time i lost an online player battle in CoH because my time was up). We do goto movies atleast once a month, spend atleast every alternate Friday outside and enjoy.

Every guy needs some space especially after marriage: The child in us never leaves us. In your case (generally all women), you grow up mentally and tend to think of such games as childhood. So as you have done, leave him some leverage and if he still refuses to budge from the game and shirks from housework, then time to teach him seriously about it.