"Yes, I think it's very interesting. If you stand for core Democratic principles (e.g., universal health care), you're not likely to draw Republicans. "Obama Republicans" is another way of saying: my guy is a squishy centrist who doesn't believe anything. I'm sure you're not saying that."

I swear that I addressed this to AJCalhoun. Is your name ajcalhoun? No, it is not.

I'm glad to hear that you found some of the information helpful. I understand your concerns about what the Republicans do to "good men." I guess I would counter that Obama seems to have weathered a lot of the accusations that Hillary's campaign has thrown at him ("cocaine, madrassas, slum-lords, jesse jackson, inexperience, all talk and no substance") and still come out ahead. I trust that having seen the disasters that were the Gore 2000 campaign and the Kerry 2004 campaign, Obama's strategists and advisors are preparing for the worst. I also take it as a good sign that Obama has new faces and new strategists working with him, while Hillary is relying on people who helped get her husband elected. Finally, Obama promised to run a clean campaign until he gets the nomination. I think the gloves will be off when it's just him and McCain.

But again, no one has a crystal ball. We all have to go with our own best choices.

Happy voting!

While I was a stauch supporter of Bill Clinton back when that was happening, I don't think I see much of a "Republicans for Clinton" ouvre this time. They really seem to loathe her to a perplexing degee. I honestly don't understand this.

But no, I don't see that happening. Not this time around. Well, except possibly for Ann Coulter, but she'll do anything for attention.

With apologies to Barry Goldwater, Extremism in any form is worse than any vice. You're right -- we're looking from man to pig, pig to man, and as Orwell observed, the differences have all but disappeared. This always happens when people go to extremes. It's the one place they can all hang out together.

Thank you very much, for your congenial response. It is much appreciated. I'm never ashamed of what I am, but I do attempt to continue to grow and improve. We do what we can.

Speaking of Yeats and "the center of interest", looking at this thread I am reminded of something my old friend, the late John Fahey, wrote, with apologies to Yeats: "The center of interest will not hold."

Mine's pretty well worn through. You've provided some small comfort in this craziness. You have a great day your own self!

You've been a pleasure actually. There's no avoiding now that liberalism has been near entirely bastardized to mean nothing more than static leftwing extremism much in the same way the neocons stole conservatism from Webster, Roosevelt and Eisenhower and turned it into a five-headed monster of corruption and extremism.

The political spectrum is in fact circular.

IF the neolibs are successful with Rove in promoting their featherweight of choice to our candidacy, we both know John McCain will win in a landslide. If Hillary wins we both know that Rove will lead the neolibs into rebellion and cripple her. I would leave anyway if they have this much power, but it will be the end of the Democratic Party regardless.

The internet was truly the worst thing to have ever happened to the Democratic Party. It allowed the fringe to think they were a majority and push out the vital center. Unlike the right who did the same in the 70's and 80's, there is no large base of electoral votes in social liberalism.

But whatever it is, it's not social liberalism anymore either. I don't know what it is. It's every bit as intolerant and ripe with bigotry as the Dixiecrats ever were.

I agree too, time to get on with the day.

Please don't attempt to talk down to me. I wasn't "trying" to say anything. I said it! What's more I'm perfectly aware of your equivpcation. So "The Good Soldier", as you put it, is blameless because he was "only obeying orders". I suppose you've an extensive knowledge of the Nuremburg Trials when Nazi official after Nazi official in the dock mumbled that he was "only obeying orders". Your reference to "the Good Soldier" reminded me of the novel and I became quite angry. Your exculpation of Colin Powell is gross. He came to the UN with a pack of lies or misinformation - since you're so good at double-talk you're bound to find the suitably insipid word. This was the neocon's war and Powell was a "patsy' (I'm allowed to use that word, I suppose, considering where I'm from), a stooge or a wicked manipulator. You can soft-soap it as much as you like but I think he has a big responsibility to the people who were virtually massacred in London on 7th July almost three years ago and also those whose lives were destroyed forever in Madrid. For your information, a Polish baby who was only 8 months old was killed in the Madrid bombing. In future, your highedt-ranked military officer will have to be given a lie-detector test before he urges people to put the lives of their young on the battlefront. As for Obama, "marahalling" global support, he can take a good run against the wind for himself and even the word "marshalling" tells us all we need to know about who/what thinks it's giving the orders. You should read Robert Graves book about World War 1. It's called "Goodbye to all that". In my little patch on planet Earth, it's now 10:30 p.m. so I have no intention of staying up half the night responding to your propagand on behalf of former General Colin Powell. I notice that Xrandudu Hutman has "done a runner". I suppose you decided to come on instead of him as he was tying himself up in knots. Unfortunately, you really haven't done any better; as Macbeth said "Murder will out".