Okay, I'm convinced by all the posts that I've made a serious mistake.  I don't know how to remove this Diary entry (any thoughts?), but I can at least edit it out of existence.  

So, I offer my apologies from all you folks who clearly have the same goal as I do.

Am I at 300 characters yet??

Will Democrats EVER get fed up over the Clintons' compulsive lying?  Here's former President Clinton, doing what he does best.

Monday, April 21, 2008.

WHYY's Susan Phillips:  Also, one more question, I heard a story on Morning Edition this morning which talked aobut how Philadelphia's black political leaders came out early in support of Senator Clinton, bbut several have switched, and one was quoted as saying the turning point for her was during the South Carolina primary when you referenced Jesse Jackson and what she interpretted as marginalizing Obama as the black candidate.  Do you think that was a mistake, and would you do that again?

President Clinton:  No.  I think that they placed the race card on me.  And we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along.

Audio below the fold.

Obama's victory last night validated the Des Moines Register/Selzer poll that many, including those in the Clinton and Edwards campaigns, had criticized as employing a wildly optimistic turnout model.  As it happened, the DMR poll's assumption that about 200,000 Iowans would caucus for the Democrats was not nearly optimistic enough.  The actual turnout -- 239,000 -- was unprecedented.

All polling organizations utilize turnout assumptions based upon prior elections.  If Iowa is any indication of the sentiments of the nation, and I believe it is, then existing assumptions by pollsters have greatly underestimated both actual turnout and the number of younger voters in prior polls.  In so doing, the pollsters have greatly underestimated existing support for Obama, wholly apart from the bump he will get from his Iowa victory.

This conclusion, if correct, bodes extremely well for Obama and suggests a healthy margin of victory for Obama in New Hampshire.

Tomorrow I'll awake in Pennsylvania at the usual time, perform those morning chores that are my responsibility, go to and mostly do my job (while checking the political news a bit more than usual), and then come home and turn on the television to see what happens in Iowa.  

Last year, for the first time in my 49 years of life, I contributed money to a political campaign -- that of Senator Barack Obama.  Later I'll be able to help the Obama campaign in other ways, too.

But tomorrow it's out of my hands.  Like millions of Americans who are elsewhere, I'll be counting on -- and cheering on -- those thousands of Obama volunteers in Iowa.  

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, aka Ringo Starr, and President George W. Bush got into a bit of a tiff yesterday.  Mixing his metaphors, Ahmadinejad claimed Iraq is "a huge power vacuum" and that Iran is prepared to "fill the gap".  He also claimed to make fantastic soups and stews.  Bush responded proportionately by raising the specter of  "nuclear holocaust".  Thanks for the reassurance, George.

Larry Craig's claim that "I am not gay" reminds me of this classic from The Onion.  And in case you forgot, we are reminded from a 1999 Craig interview that Bill Clinton was a "nasty, naughty boy":

Senator Obama just had an outstanding week, particularly on foreign policy and education.  On Tuesday, Obama’s excellent policy message on Cuban policy -- Our Main Goal: Freedom in Cuba – was published in the Miami herald.  There, in the context of Cuba, Obama gave substance to and fleshed out his statements in the July 24 South Carolina debates that he would be willing to meet with leaders of such "rogue" nations as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela.  

I pause here to note that the current Democratic frontrunner took Obama to the woodshed for his South Carolina comments, calling Obama "naïve" and "inexperienced".  Early press and punditry jumped on Clinton’s theme and Obama at first received some criticism.  But the American people after some reflection didn’t see it that way.  Fully 55% of Democrats agreed with Obama’s position, compared to Clinton’s 22%.  

My diary yesterday criticized Clinton's call for the replacement of Nouri al Maliki as the prime minister of Iraq without her having the slightest idea as to who would fill the resulting power vacuum.  Senator Obama, taking a different and better approach than I did, addressed the issue thusly:

I think this is a distraction — this whole notion of 'is Maliki the right guy?'" Obama told CNN's Don Lemon. "We can replace Maliki with four, five other guys, but if the underlying political dynamic is not changing, then we will not see progress in Iraq.

Three days ago in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Clinton told veterans that Bush's new military tactics "were working".  Clinton had previously opposed Bush's so-called "surge".  While she later sought to clarify her unfortunate remarks, by then the damage was done.  Both the MSM and right-wing pundits used her statements as propoganda in support of continuation and escalation of the war in Iraq.

The winner of the Republican nomination for President has not yet announced and he will be ... Newt Gingrich.  Here's why:

First, it's no secret that the current slate of Republican candidates are lackluster.  As distasteful as it may be, let me step into the shoes of a conservative Republican to evaluate the choices: