It must be devastating for Hillary Rhodam Clinton to see her chances of becoming the democratic nominee fade into oblivion. It has to be beyond infuriating to have the media - that once so blindly worshipped and adored her mischievous better half - turn on her and declare with such confidence that the die is cast, and hers is now an unstoppable plunge into defeat, no less to a country that, as far as she is concerned, has not yet had the final word. 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Buyer’s remorse was beginning to afflict supporters of Barack Obama before Tuesday’s primary election returns showed he had delivered a knockout punch against Hillary Clinton. The young orator who had seemed so fantastic beginning with his 2007 Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech in Iowa disappointed even his own advisers over the past two weeks, and old party hands mourned that they were stuck with a flawed candidate.

Is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ever on the right side of any issue? On one issue out of a bundle we might find ourselves in agreement. As for most, forget it.

As long-time readers know, I have expected Hillary Clinton to succeed George W. Bush on the Cherry Blossom Throne since 2003. But while almost everything has gone precisely as my history-driven theory had it, from John Kerry’s defeat in 2004 to the crash-and-burn of the “permanent majority party” idea that was so bandied about by Republican triumphalists during Bush 43’s first term, there is a major obstacle that remains to her prophesied ascension.

"Never, never, never, never give up.” --Winston Churchill Hubris is a Greek word for excessive insolent pride. Once upon a time it described the epic (albeit usually earned) arrogance of warrior kings and battle tested Generals. Leonides of Sparta who stood with his 300 against the vastness of Xerxes Persian army at Thermopylae, Ulysses, Odysseus, and Agamemnon were all men of monumental egos. However, unlike contemporary trash talkers, they walked the walk along with talking the talk.

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: “We the people.” “We the people” tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us.  – President Reagan’s Farewell Address, Jan. 11, 1989

As November’s election nears, some otherwise right-thinking conservatives and Christians, unhappy with GOP presidential candidate John McCain, have concluded America would actually be better off in the long run with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House for the next four years.

Hoosiers have supported the Republican in 10 consecutive presidential elections and 16 of the 17 that followed FDR’s first re-election bid in 1936.

I’ve been thinking about the 1800 presidential election a lot lately.  Partly because a book on the subject has been lingering in my consciousness, but mostly because its example has served as a rebuttal whenever someone says this year’s election could become the most contentious in American history.  People who say things like that ought first be able to name twenty presidents, and probably even their opponents, before waxing philosophic on the tone of modern elections.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between the sheer length of the American political process and the probity with which important issues are discussed, while the mainstream media abdicate their responsibility by focusing on the “horse race” aspects of the campaigns instead of pointing out what kind of governance this all will lead to.

Just when it looked like Obama might actually survive the firestorm surrounding his connection to the racist pastor Wright, the good Reverend comes out of hiding to pour more fuel on the fire. The good Reverend is becoming about as helpful to Obama as Bill is to Hillary… With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Nothing is more fraudulent than calls for a “dialogue on race.” Those who issue such calls are usually quick to cry “racism” at any frank criticism. They are almost invariably seeking a monologue on race, to which others are supposed to listen. - Thomas Sowell

If you interview someone for a job, you’ll expect him to tell you what you want to hear. There’ll be a façade, and his darker side will remain well-hidden. Now, let’s say a requirement for the job is that the applicant likes children, and he does his best Captain Kangaroo. But then you find out he has a job history of indifference to and perhaps even abuse of them and that, during unguarded moments, he has expressed disdain for them. What will you believe, what he tries to sell you or history and hair-down revelations? 

As a conservative who has written in strong support of John McCain and who will cast a ballot for him on November 4th, I think the GOP nominee has erred in picking a fight with the North Carolina Republican Party.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to deflect a question about his relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers by saying that he “engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8-years-old” and that he was now a professor and a neighbor. The real issue is whether Obama shares Ayers’ communist views. Obama admitted to exchanging ideas with Ayers on an irregular basis but did not say what those ideas were. But we know that Ayers, rather than just being a 1960s “radical,” was a member of a Marxist-Leninist communist group.