America Rising - a great video!

This video has been doing the rounds for a few months now, but I thought it might be worth reposting.  The video is called "America Rising" and is in the form of a message from people who voted for Obama and the Democrats in 09 and now feel betrayed.  It's one of the most exciting political videos I have seen, and shows perfectly the drama and the passion of American Politics - we need some of that in Britain!

International Relations and "hurtful" remarks

David Cameron is currently on the next stage of  his international tourm and has ruffled some feathers with his views on various issues.  I don't agree with everything Cameron has said (describing Gaza as a prison camp was a little bit.....incorrect for my tastes!) but I do appreciate a leader being honest with what he believes.  Brown never seemed to have an opinion on anything, so it is nice to hear actual opinions and policies from the Prime Minister.

Arguably his most controversial comments were when he stated that it was unacceptable for Pakistan to allow terrorist training camps to flourish within Pakistan, therefore promoting terrorism throughout the world.  Now, as far as I am concerned, these comments are either right or wrong.  Pakistan is either allowing terrorist training camps to flourish within its borders, and as a result should clamp down on it - or it is not allowing them to flourish, and therefore should refute Mr Cameron's remarks.  The statement is either a truthful one, and must therefore be accepted, or it is false and must be refuted.

Yet, this question is not the one being asked, or answered at all in the resulting discussion about the comments.  The discussion is less on whether or not the comments were right, but whether or not they were 'hurtful' or 'offensive'.  Take Pakistan's High Commissioner who said that people in Pakistan were "really hurt" by Cameron's comments and called for him to 'make amends'.

Now, whether or not the remarks are 'hurtful' are irrelevant - the question should be whether or not they are true.  Only on something small, like whether or not you enjoyed a meal, does one sacrifice truth for someone's feelings.  But on an issue as large as international terrorism, feelings are irrelevant, the question is only one of truth.  If Pakistan are indeed allowing terrorism to flourish, as appears to be the case, then Cameron is well within his rights and responsibilities to say so in strong terms to the Pakistani goevernment.  It would be irresponsible not to.

The High Commissioner should be saying either "Yes we need to do more" or "No, Mr Cameron's comments are innacurate, we are doing enough etec."  But to say they are hurtful really misses the point, but it touches on a side of politics that has tainted a lot of political debate.  It is really a left-wing influence that has tainted the mainstream of thought and discussion.

The influence is one of an essentially relativistic brand.  For many on the left, a thing does not have an intrinsic, objective moral value - it is entirely subjective.  Therefore, many issues come down to either intentions or feelings, not right or wrong.  So often on political issues, you hear about 'compassion' 'hurtfulness', 'understanding' etc instead of getting things done, and whether measure are right or wrong, working or failing, true or false.  This is because it is the land of the subjective intention that the left work in.

From this understanding of truth, Cameron hurt people's feelings - therefore he shouldn't have said what he said.  However, for those of us in America and Britain who want to stop terrorist attacks, the real question is "Was David Cameron right?" - the answer is not yet conclusive, but it is that question that is the judge of the rightness of his comments, not whether or not it offended or 'hurt' people.

As a result, if David Cameron does believe that Pakistan is not doing enough in its responsibilities, then it is his duty to say so in the strongest terms - and he should be commended, not criticised, for doing so.

Sarah Palin winds up the left (again)!

I am still not 100% on whether or not Sarah Palin is the way forward for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination.  Don't get me wrong, I think she will be a strong contender and would support her if she was nominated.  In the same way that I love Rush Limbaugh but wouldn't be completely confident about his chances in the elections, I feel the same way about Palin - she is one of my favourite conservatives figures, but I am not quite there for giving her my thumbs up for 2012.

However, President or not, there is no denying that Sarah Palin still has enormous power, over both conservatives and the liberal left.  The high pitch squeakings from the left about how 'stupid' she is proves this every day.  The more they dismiss her as irrelevant, the more she becomes relevant as they constantly talk about her every activity.  Remember, it was Palin who changed the entire spectrum of the healthcare debate with a quick facebook message that mentioned "death panels."  This brought the healthcare debate into the mass public arena, and the death panels label stuck.  Although the Democrat's managed to eventually pass the healthcare bill, it has been tainted, and is vastly unpopular.  Obama's lot never recovered from that debate-changing facebook message - something so simply did so much!

In the last year she has made no major political moves, yet everything she has touched has turned to gold.  Almost every political candidate she has supported has won, every speech has a packed attendence, every cause she has backed has been popular, her book was a massive best seller, and her Twitter and Facebook accounts can change the political debate with one simple post.

This was shown last week with the 'refudiate' story.  If you have somehow missed this story, Sarah was writing a 'tweet' on the mosque being built very near to Ground Zero (and what an insensitive move such a building would be), and it appears that she hit the wrong button on her blackberry or whatever, and spelt 'repudiate' incorrectly.  She then followed it up with a tweet joking that Shakespeare made up words as well.

Well, if you had been on Twitter that day (as i was) and listened to the mainstream media covering the story, you would think that Sarah had tested a nuclear missile!  It quickly became the top trended topic on Twitter, with manic, screaming updates from various lefties, not only at her spelling mistake and how she was 'seriously' comparing herself to Shakespeare (they can't take a joke, can they?) but also at her "racism" towards Muslims for daring to say that building a mosque right near the site of a site of Islamic terrorism probably isn't the best way forward.

All it actually proved was that with a flick of her finger, Palin once again changed the debate, and got under the skin of the left at the same time.  The "Ground Zero Mosque" was barely mentioned before this week, now it is one of the top news stories.  Once again, the left are crying racism and intolerance, but their anger is fuelled not by Palin's stance on the issue, but by the fact that she is completely in touch with the vast majority of Americans - who question why, out of all the places to build mosques, they have to build one next to the spot of 9-11.   In addition, the venom and sheer hatred levelled at her for simply misspelling a word shows the world not only how venomous and hateful these people are, but also just how much they fear her ability and power.

The truth of the matter is that whether or not Palin runs for the Presidency or not, she is going to be an enormous, and highly influential political figure for many years to come.  Try as they might - the left are unable to 'refudiate' her!

Shirley Sherrod and the Left's discovery of "Context"

"Context, Context, Context!"  The Left wing news media today is like a child who has discovered a new rattle, and now won't stop shaking it!

As I hinted at the other day in my blog post on this subject, Shirley Sherrod is someone that can't decide what is more important - blacks standing up to whites, or the poor standing up to the rich.  Now it turns out that when you listen to her full speech, the story of her blatant discrimination against a white farmer is told in the context of her "revelation" that actually divisive race politics isn't as important as divisive class warfare.  So what she eventually "learns" is that the blacks and the whites should put their differences aside in order to fight the rich people - even using the phrase "rich versus poor" at one point.  Oh, well, that's much better then...

I will agree that the context adds something to the situation as presented the other day, and I will even go so far as to say the clip we were presented with is quite misleading - but this does not make Shirley Sherrod innocent.  Her discovery that dividing people by race isn't as important as dividing people by class and by wealth isn't exactly a conversion of soul like the alcoholic who discovers he no longer needs drink because he has found Jesus or whatever.  This is simply the replacement of one kind of hate for another.  So, excuse me if I don't cry a river for Shirley Sherrod.

Also, let's remember that Sherrod was fired, not by Fox News (who were actually the first to get her on their news channel on Megyn Kelly's show in order to hear her side of the story), but by the White House, who crapped themselves at the first sign of trouble and threw her under the bus.  It is this that makes this story a bit different.

Context is something we often find lacking in news stories, usually by stories reported by the left-wing media. For instance, Rush Limbaugh was smeared as a racist for calling Obama "Barack the Magic Negro" when he was actually parodying an LA Times article that uses that phrase.  In that case, as in many other Limbaugh stories (even the other day when he called George Steinbrenner a "cracker" only in the context of the New Black Panthers it was Limbaugh who was reported as the bigot) context is all important, and the mainstream media often "forget" it when it suits their agenda.  When the context is revealed, they are barely bothered to correct themselves (unlike what Fox has done, who immediately made an effort to seek context to the clip and to get both sides of the story).  Only with the Sherrod case have the MSM suddenly become interested in the "context" of the situation, and "responsible journalism" - funny that!

This double standard is made clearer by the fact that when Limbaugh, or Beck, or Sarah Palin or any right-winger is falsely accused of something by the mainstream media, their employers or fellow right-wingers usually find the context, present it to the public, and stand by the personality in question.  What is interesting here is how the NAACP and the White House threw this woman under the bus without even asking her for her story!  Even Fox had the courtesy to ask for her side!  With friends like that, who needs enemies?

This story has not, as so many on the left are trying to spin it, been an embarrasment for Fox.  Instead it has been a humiliation for the White House, and shown a glaring double standard in the MSM, who are suddenly concerned with "context", when usually they couldn't give two hoots for context.  Maybe next time they report a smear against a right-winger, they will pause to discover the "context."  I doubt it though...

Cameron shines!

Yesterday was a day to hold one's breath if you care about Anglo-American relations.  David Cameron went into the lion's den, not only having to face the most anti-British President in American history, but also having a whole bunch of Senators, such as the infamous Senator Schumer D-NY, baying for blood.

Cameron however, was excellent.  The main issue of the day seemed to be the release of the Lockerbie bomber, which Obama seems to have turned hardline on (despite continually sucking up to Libya himself and being informed of the situation throughout.)  Cameron had to form a balance.  He was one of the fiercest critics of the release of the bomber, and there was no reason why he should have to go and defend the indefensible.  However, he also had to make sure it didn't become an Obama-esque apology tour, where he grovelled before the President and the Senators asking for forgiveness.

Cameron hit the note perfectly.  I'm not always Cameron's biggest fan, but yesterday was a day in which he really shined.  He was clear in his condemnation of the decision, stating

"I don't need an inquiry to tell me what was a bad decision. It was a bad decision,"

On the same token, he would not be pushed into a grovelling apology by the President, or his loony bunch of anti-BP Senators, by making it quite clear that it was the Scottish Government that made the decision, and  that it was right for that decision to be made by them.  


This is important. There was definitely an attempt to make decisions for Britain by the authoritarian Dems, and Cameron pushed them back.  "I wish they had made a different decision, but it was still their decision to make, so back off" was the obvious message from Cameron - and it was the right message to send.

Cameron was at his best at the press conference.  Obama blathered on for ages and ages, looking stern-faced and tired as well as being very boring.  Cameron, on the other hand, lent casually against the podium while still looking like a statesman, continually called Obama "Barack" (I bet that didn't go down well!), and joked about how drinking some beer he had been given by the Americans was so good, he even cheered for the Germans in the World Cup!  With one of his trademark smiles, the gathered media was laughing away with him, while Obama stood there wishing he had Gordon Brown stood next to him instead of this cheeky new upstart!

This tour could be a massive PR coup for us Brits.  Obama is trying to stir-up an anti-British attitude, but Cameron is cutting through it like a knife through butter.  If he can get himself onto the mainstream news networks for an interview or two, it will repair a great deal of damage that has been done by the Obama administration.

Obama's Deadly Anti-British Agenda

Today, David Cameron and Barack Obama will meet to discuss various issues, including Afghanistan, Libya and the BP Oil Spill.  Obama is not known for being particularly pro-British (in fact, quite the opposite), and his administration has decimated the Special Relationship in less than two years.  This meeting is therefore crucial for the future of Anglo-American relations if such a relationship is to be salvaged.  My latest article in The American Thinker deals with this meeting within the context of Obama's anti-British prejudices.

It shows how Obama's anti-British agenda is deeply rooted - possibly stemming from his youth - and has infiltrated not just his own attitudes towards the British, but also the policies of the entire Obama administration.  Yet not only does this denigration of the Special Relationship hurt the British, it also has the potential to hurt the American public - by damaging the united stance against terrorism, and possibly limiting the British contribution to future American led conflicts.  Such an outcome would be a disaster for the Americans and for the British.  It must not be allowed to happen, and it is for this reason that this week's meeting is so important.

The article can be read here.

The NAACP and Diane Abbott

Well, well, well - things aren't going particularly well for the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) this week!  Their accusation that the vastly popular Tea Party movement has "racist elements" has backfired spectacularly, with even Joe "Plugs" Biden throwing them under the bus.

With no real evidence to support them, the NAACP's condemnation has been shown for what it is - a partisan example of race-baiting from a group not afraid to play the race card whenever it suits their liberal needs.  We have seen this plenty of times in the Obama administration, the most notable example was when Obama played the race card against the "stupid" Officer Crowley who dared to arrest Skip Gates (who was dragged away screaming racism).  It turned out that Crowley was 100% right to do what he did, the President was embarrassed and had to concoct the infamous "Beer Summit."

People are sick of the race card being played, and recognise that it is against everything the Civil Rights movement stood for - that one would be judged by one's character not by one's skin colour.  Therefore there has been a significant backlash against the NAACP, and the spotlight has been shone on this movement.  This in turn has led to the discovery of this little clip of a speech by Shirley Sherrod (Georgia Director of Rural Development), who openly admits to discriminating against a farmer because he was white.

It isn't just that she discriminated against a farmer that is offensive - it is how she sees the world.  Not only does she talk about "rich versus poor" as if they are enemies (who implicitly can't change sides), but also talks in a "them versus us" mentality about white people.  So, she talks about sending the "white" farmer to a "white" lawyer as sending him "to his own kind" - those are her words.

This language is disgusting, make no mistake.  It is not just "Ohh well, if a white person said it then they would be accused of racism."  If a white person said this, it would be racist just as it is racist when Shirley Sherrod says it.  This is genuine, real racism, and this woman should be fired and condemned by both the federal government, and by the NAACP.  Yet it taps into a mentality.  This isn't a blog post, this is a speech at an NAACP event that is met by applause and laughter.  How many at the NAACP agree with her?

We are seeing this in Britain too.  Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott has a long history of playing the race card. She has made a big deal of being the only black candidate for Labour, talking about how people could never have imagined a black person becoming President of the USA. Therefore it shows that maybe "People can change here in Britain too."  The implication is clear, Abbott doesn't get in, then it's because Britian is racist.  Sound familiar America?

This baiting goes back all the way to 1996 when she expressed concern at "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" who were unsuitable to be nurses as they "may have never met a black person before" and for saying that "West Indian mothers will go to the wall for the children", a comment which she has been challenged on recently by BBC's Andrew Neil - the clip is here.

It is time on both sides of the Atlantic that we fight this new form of racism.  There are a lot of vested interests who have a lot to gain from keeping the race business open.  Abbott for instance is a left wing nutcase with very few achievements, and must now that playing the race and female card is the only way she has a chance of a sniff at the leadership.  But such behaviour by Abbott and by members of the NAACP is not just offensive, it is damaging to society.  To pit people against one another, whether it be rich versus poor or black versus white is low and shameful, and it is for those of us who want to move past the issue of race to fight against such low tricks.

Cameron's Big Society - Britain finally discusses the role of the State.

I can't say I'm 100% sold on David Cameron's "Big Society", which will be announced this week - mainly because it is very difficult to get to grips with what it actually is.  Its main thrust appears to be the removal of the State from local communities, so that local groups can run services and projects instead of the State imposing itself upon everyone.

Some have accused it of being just a woolly project - certainly "Big Society" does sound like a bit of classic DaveGuff.  Yet I cannot help but be a little encouraged by what I have been hearing.  The idea is that the State is rolled back, and money from dormant bank accounts will be used to fund community based projects, such as volunteer work and charities.  Communities can even work to decide what their local bus timetables should be.

It sounds a little idealistic at times, and I always shiver in fear when I hear the classic left wing luvvie phrase - "communities."  However, it brings into the open this debate that America has been having for years - what role does the State play?  In Britain under the Labour Government the answer had been clear - it plays every role it wants to play.  Under Cameron however, the perception that the State must have a hand in anything that wants to survive is being challenged - and this can only be a good thing.

It reinvigorates the old Milton Friedman slogan that would later be picked up on by Margaret Thatcher - "Government does not have responsibilities, people have responsibilities."  Charities and voluntary groups should not be taken over by government.  We have seen what happen when then do - charities become political agitator groups for left wing causes, and volunteer work transforms into bloated public sector bureaucracies.

The reaction from Labour suggests that Cameron is definitely onto a good thing.  Leadership candidate Ed Miliband stamped his foot at the idea, saying, "Charities can help build thriving communities by working in partnership with government...it is the vulnerable who will suffer."  Partnership with government?  I'm sorry Ed, but the reality for too long has been that a charity "in partnership with government" simply becomes a front for higher taxes and greater government interference.  Notice also the scaremongering parade of bleeding stumps - "If we don't have the State involved in everything, then people might die!"

Whether or not the "Big Society" is a success, it is definitely the beginning of a debate that we have been too silent about in Britain for too long - that of the role of the State.  The last Prime Minister to raise the issue was Margaret Thatcher, and when we look to our American cousins, we see that that debate is always at the top of the agenda.  It is time it is at the top of our political agenda too - the Big Society just might put it there...

HuffPo - "Spend, Baby, Spend!!"

A bizarre piece in the Huffington Post today by Christopher Hayes, who attempts to compare the recent emphasis on cutting the deficit to the build up to the Iraq War.  It is a long article and I don't really want to deal with the comparison between calls to cut the deficit and Iraq, but instead I wanted to look at his rationale for increasing spending.  You see, for Hayes, the real problem is that the Obama administration hasn't spend enough, and therefore all those people who are calling for deficit reduction (including Obama) have it all wrong.  Let's take a look at his line of argument, my emphasis in bold and comments in orange.

"If you've been paying attention this past decade [Nice start - the implication is that if you do not agree with what is coming up, you simply haven't been paying attention.], it won't surprise you to learn that the country's policy elites are in the midst of a destructive, well-nigh unhinged discussion about the future of the nation. But even by the degraded standards of the Washington establishment, the growing panic over government debt is shocking.[Notice how the "panic" and the dicussion over government debt is the thing that is shocking to Hayes, not the actual debt itself.]

First, the facts. [playing hard and loose with the word "facts" there, Chris] Nearly the entire deficit for this year [Obama's deficit then] and those projected into the near and medium terms [again, Obama's] are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, [correct] the Bush tax cuts [incorrect - tax cuts stimulate growth and private sector job creation - therefore increasing tax revenue and decreasing spending] and the recession. [More specifically, TARP and the Stimulus Package.  He also fails to mention the trillion dollar healthcare package.] The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars, [Agreed, but it isn't that simple] allow the tax cuts to expire [wait for it...] and restore robust growth. [So, in one sentence, our writer contradicts himself. He wants to increase taxes to businesses and corporations, and at the same time restore growth! But tax hikes stamp out growth! If you want to restore robust growth, extend the tax cuts!] Our long-term structural deficits will require us to control healthcare inflation the way countries with single-payer systems do. [Excuse me? Perhaps Mr Hayes isn't aware that here in my country of Great Britain, we have healthcare costs that are almost the same percentage of GDP as America's, and we have had single payer since the 1940's! Trust me, there are many supporters of the NHS in Britain, but none of them will put forward as an argument for it, "Well, it's cheap!" because it isn't!]

But right now we face a joblessness crisis that threatens to pitch us into a long, ugly period of low growth, the kind of lost decade that will cause tremendous misery, degrade the nation's human capital, undermine an entire cohort of young workers for years and blow a hole in the government's bank sheet. [A crisis that was supposed to have ended last year, but has in fact got worse thanks to the Tax and Spend policies of the Obama administration.] The best chance we have to stave off this scenario is more government spending to nurse the economy back to health. [But America has been doing that ever since Obama took office, spending is at a stunning high! And it hasn't worked!] The economy may be alive, but that doesn't mean it's healthy. [Yes, the American economy is very sick. It has a decimated private sector and a spiralling deficit! Spending makes both of those things worse] There's a reason you keep taking antibiotics even after you start to feel better.

And yet: the drumbeat of deficit hysterics thumping in self-righteous panic grows louder by the day. [Good!] Judging by its schedule and online video, this year's Aspen Ideas Festival was an open-air orgy of anti-deficit moaning. The festival is a good window into elite preoccupations,[Hang on...I thought according to the HuffPo, low spending advocates were Hillbilly tea partying morons? It was Obama and co that were the glorious educated ones! Now that more and more economists are screaming about the deficit, its now an "elite" thing to notice that the US is drowning in debt?] and that its opening forum featured ominous warnings of future bankruptcy from Niall Ferguson, Mort Zuckerman and David Gergen does not bode well. Nor does the fact that there was a panel called "America's Looming Fiscal Emergency: How to Balance the Books." This attitude isn't confined to pundits. The heads of Obama's fiscal commission have called projected deficits a "cancer." [What does this tell you Chris? You have 'elites' on the right and left warning about the debt, you have the right wingers warning about the debt, and you have the left-wing Obama administration warning about the debt! Maybe there is a danger involving the debt?"]"

Articles like this always amaze me, they aren't a surprise, but they do amaze me.  One would think that when spending gets to this level, it is a question not of whether or not to deal with the debt and the deficit, but how.  Even the Obama administration (an administration that certainly loves throwing around a trillion dollars here and there) won't dare spend any more.  Yet here is the Huffington Puffington telling us the only way out is to spend even more!

What is amazing is that the author recognises that we need to get growth in the private sector, yet is advocating spending that has to be covered, at least in part, by higher taxes from the private sector!  How will that help growth Mr Hayes?

The Private sector is in a bunker at the moment - it has holed itself up not moving, waiting for the worst to pass so it can come out again.  You fire another stimulus into the mix, and businesses will know that tax hikes are on the way, and will therefore stay exactly where they are - in the bunker, not employing and not growing.

The Parade of Bleeding Stumps

Here in Great Britain, there has been  an Emergency Budget announced in order to cut public spending, which has been met with outrage from the British left.  In America, there are similar calls to cut public spending.  In my latest article in The American Thinker, I examine the implications that such calls have for the left and their strategy in preparation for the American November elections.

The article can be found here.

Hillary Clinton for 2012?

Pete Du Pont has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal about the prospects for Hillary Clinton's bid to be the Democrat Presidential candidate in 2012.

Du Pont notes that Obama is fast becoming a liability for the Democrat Party, with a growing perception that he is a socialist (55% of likely voters describe him as one.) No longer an opinion of "extreme" conservatives and tea-partiers, this has quickly become a mainstream opinion in America. Wisely, Americans don't really go for socialism, and this could spell disaster for the Democrats - both for this November, and in 2012.

Yet, despite Obama's raging unpopularity, the Republican's haven't really caught up as much as they'd have liked. While there is definitely an anti-Democrat and anti-Obama sentiment in the States, that

movement has not yet translated into a pro-Republican movement. This would open up the possibility whereby if the Dem's could dump the unpopular policies on Obama, and then throw him under the metaphorical bus, 2012 could still be a winner for the Democrats. All they need is a centrist leader to show how far they have moved away from the extremist policies of Obama.

Enter Mrs Clinton.

It is widely known that the Clinton's and Obama do not get along, with the sour battles of 2008 still very much in the mind of many voters. Although they have kissed and made up, no-one really believes them! Many commentators have noted that both Hillary and Bill have been noticeable by their absence. The media savvy couple have chosen not to spend too much time cosying up to the radical new President, despite Hillary being Secretary of State. One could easily speculate that this is because a Presidential campaign that distances her from Obama might be in the making.

A campaign from Hillary would essentially be a drive to the centre, attempting to snatch the vote of those who are both disillusioned with the leftist Obama policies but who are not enthralled with voting Republican again so quickly after the Bush years. With the Republican candidate likely to be a lot more conservative than John McCain, Clinton could be expected to dive right into the centre, attempting to catch the moderate vote - consisting of the Blue Dog Democrats, the centrist independents and some of the RINO (Republican in Name Only) voters who may be disillusioned with the party's lurch to the right. Du Pont argues that Mrs Clinton could be expected to run on a low tax ticket that also plans to deal with the deficit while aiding job creation. This seems reasonable, and in Du Pont's words it would create "a broad voter coalition."

I fully agree with the Du Pont article. From a conservative perspective, the best hope at the moment is that Obama remains in power. I think he is incapable of "doing a Bill" and dragging himself to the centre after defeat in the upcoming elections, and I believe he will stay hard left. If this continues, and the Republicans play their cards right, pick the right candidate, and fight on a "low tax, small state versus large tax, large state" ticket, 2012 should be relatively straightforward. Obama fits into the socialist stereotype, and it is one that the Republicans can exploit to their advantage.

Obama can no longer play the "moderate centrist" card that won him the 2008 election. "Hope" and "Change" have been shown to be "Tax" and "Spend." Clinton is not cursed with this, and can pick up on that challenge of being the moderate. She can paint Obama as the radical leftist, and whoever the Republicans pick as the radical right, with Hillary dropping in as the "reasonable" vote in the middle.

2012 is still a fair distance away, but it is important for conservatives to make it clear that what the administration is doing at the moment is not just Obama taking the Democrats for a ride, but that this is a Democrat administration as well as just an Obama administration. It is an administration that Hillary is part of, and it is enacting many of the policies she has argued for. As a result, to place all its failures on Obama's back and then to throw him under the bus would be grossly dishonest - but that is not to say that it will not happen.

Obama could be a real burden for the Democrats by 2012 - he is becoming one already. If Obama and the Democrats are shown to be part of the hard left, then 2012 is the Republican's election on a plate. However, if Clinton can distance herself from it all, and show herself to be the "moderate" as opposed to extreme Obama, then as Du Pont says, "that could turn out to be a slam dunk for her and the disgruntled Democrat Party."

Such a situation would be extremely treacherous for the Republicans, and it is important that it is avoided.