Greetings to those from blogcritics and/or American Realistan who came here to read that which blogcritics frows upon, and maybe comment.

I've caught myself riffing on a tune that took me a while to recall where it came from. I kept hearing "Hillary won't go... Hillary won't go... Hilly won't go ..."

Then it came to me, and I looked it up. The following lyrics were adapted from Sweet's Little Willie. If you don't know the tune, you can find an odd cover of it here. [mp3]

She had it all - beauty, brains, and a body to die for. She almost did.

All the guys wanted her. One took her.

She had always been the one in control. It only took a disdainful look or a sharp word to keep the boys in their place. She didn't recognize that the word "NO!" was considered by this "man" merely to be a challenge to be conquered, a cape waved in the eyes of His Raging Bull. "Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!"

What His words didn't defeat, His violence did. Battered into submission, she was His for the taking. Every port in His storm.

It took months for the physical hurts to heal. The emotional ones never did. What hurt most was the echo of His words. "You know you wanted this."

No. She did not. Not like this. Not then, not now, and not ever again. She'll never forget, thus she'll never forgive.

She first heard The Heroine while the bruises faded and her vitality slowly returned. "I am strong!" crowed The Heroine. "I am invincible!" she boasted. "I am Woman!"

One day, The Heroine was going to arrive for a visit. "Lesbian!" she proudly announced at the top, to assert that she had no use for men. "Former President of NOW!" listed to assert feminine political dominance. "Voted for George W. Bush!" to proclaim that she was no wussy liberal.

You had to hear her previously to know that she was a staunch supporter of the NRA, and thus was likely to carry lethal insurance should all other defenses fail.

Vowing to be like The Heroine, Katy Fisch found her mission: to rescue those just like she had been from the evil beast that He is and ever will be. She would be the Her-oshima Bomb should He dare to do to another what He did to her.

That Bomb would be sheathed in the trappings of a co-ed, but camouflage is necessary to entice Him into range. He would be the one left battered into submission through the application of the martial arts, with her taunts ringing in His ears - if they weren't instead from the explosion of the gun she carried in case He wouldn't go down easy.

Katy Fisch marked her territory, putting up displays attesting to the great evil He does. It didn't matter that the authorities had taken every imaginable precaution to prevent Him from acting - He had to know that He was the one in danger here.

These displays served an additional purpose: attracting the attention of others who might be, or who had been, violated as she had herself. These lost and tormented souls would then know that they weren't alone and defenseless. They would then know she was there to lead and protect them from Him as no one had been for her.

Katy Fisch was now in her element. The top predator in the food chain, the big fish in the little pond. This is where she would find her own next conquest, her next deceived and dominated sex object. She would frighten the innocent, warning about Him, when all the while she was the one to be warned against. You always hurt the one you love!

Yes, she was now just like Him. She had violently lost her innocence and sought to relive that stolen time again and again. She could only do so by taking it away from some ingenue who still had it. She wasn't going to use violence to achieve her ends. She would instead use the education she had, putting her knowledge to uses never intended. She would use words as weapons. "You know you want this."

And afterwards, should something bad happen to the formerly innocent, her education would provide the cover story, a vital item necessary so that she could get away with her transgression. Just as He got away with His. It's only fair. That's how the game is played - is it not? And, she always plays to win.

What a dish, that Katy Fisch! Best when served cold.

Ice cold.

Honest and aware people should always note the feedback they generate from those around them. It's how we make those social corrections necessary to achieve desired goals without causing new problems. Few go to the extent I do to see what the rest of the world is saying about America, and generally, the picture of We, the People isn't too shabby.

But the image of our so-called leaders leaves a lot to be desired. This does, of course, reflect upon we voters as making poor choices, but assuming that no lasting harm is done, we seem to be getting a generous helping of benefit of the doubt anyway.

For instance, Alan Cochrane of London's Daily Telegraph reports that he finds Americans are hospitable, but seldom gullible. But then Gabor Steingart, writing for Germany's Der Spiegel, observes Seventeen percent of Americans consider themselves part of the 1 percent of American society deemed rich.

In fact, some Americans are so self-absorbed and deluded, as newly-elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has learned, that you can't tell a wannabee Texan from Connecticut that there is anything bigger than Texas. Comparing the land areas of both nations' second largest states, Texas [with a land area of 261,797 sq. miles]would almost fit inside Queensland [715,309 sq. miles] almost three times.

The fact that the so-called leader of the Free World is suffering such educational exhaustion isn't lost on most of the world, especially now that US plans for Iraq have been seriously stemmed by the Iranian intervention in the Basra Crisis. Veteran Indian Foreign Service diplomat M K Bhadrakumar observed in The Asia Times:

Both Maliki and Bush look very foolish. Out of the dramatic developments of the past week, several questions arise, the principal being that the Bush administration's triumphalism over the so-called Iraq "surge" strategy has become irredeemably farcical, and, two, US doublespeak has become badly exposed.

"It was almost unbelievable that Washington was so dense as to imagine that cleaning up its reputation was as easy as selling a soft drink. It is this sort of bone-headedness that has put the US in its present rut in the Middle East."

Maybe in the twilight of his presidency, George W. Bush is realizing the degree to which the Israelis have played his administration for a sucker. It is the Americans who are being made to look weak and foolish in this process.

Meanwhile, the Israelis are showing no gratitude for the decades of financial and military support given by the United States to keep the nation of Israel viable. Their sneering characterization of the Bush administration says it all:

No wonder that America wants to change the rules. That's what losers do, they change the rules and declare: New game.

If only the Congress had such gonads!

The military power of the United States has been squandered by the fools on Capitol Hill, and you don't have to take my word for it. Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen announced in a statement given at a Pentagon briefing that too many troops are tied down in Iraq to send needed reinforcements to Afghanistan this year, while other senior Army and Marine Corps officers admitted that staffing Iraq and Afghanistan have put unsustainable levels of stress on U.S. ground forces and has put their readiness to fight other conflicts at the lowest level in years. It is such a drain on American military readiness that General William Odom told The Senate Foreign Relations Committee On Iraq that rapid withdrawal is the only solution:

We have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.

Dominique Moisi, a senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations, can see reality much better than George Bush can. Writing in Maylasia's New Straits Times, Moisi notes:

In the immediate aftermath of World War Two, most Europeans viewed the United States as both its defender against the Soviet Union's expansionist aims and the key external actor for their deeply wounded continent's moral and economic reconstruction.

This is no longer the case. The collapse of the USSR, America's self-inflicted wounds -- particularly in Iraq -- and the spectacular rise of Asia have changed European perceptions of the US. America is no longer the protector or model that it used to be, nor is it alone in terms of influence and power.

France's Le Figaro sees this situation as a golden opportunity, provided by the incompetence of George W. Bush:

During the Bush years, the Americans witnessed a double decline of wealth and the international reputation of their country, without precedent in history. At the time when America prepares to turn its back on President Bush, will Europe know to propose a new era of Euro-atlantic relations?

Across the Rhine, Stefan Kornelius of Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung comments on how Europe has already turned its collective back on George W. Bush:

President Bush’s demand for a rapid assimilation of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO has failed. Bush was driven by the simple, egotistical desire to make one last attempt to deliver his message of democracy and freedom to the world. Bush did this in a confrontational and undiplomatic manner... He was prepared to deceive important allies, but now must feel beaten.

At some point, practical matters must intrude into the lofty realm of geopolitics. It's all well and fine to discuss the finer points or international strategy and diplomatic maneuvering, but when push comes to shove, will the buses run on time?

Aluko-Olokun of Nigeria attended the 52nd Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York this last March. Her experience shouts out, "No! They Don't!"

I bought a Greyhound ticket to Detroit, Michigan to visit a friend. I was booked to travel from 10.15pm on Friday. By 9.00pm I was on the queue, [there were] whispers that the bus will be delayed. It was not until about 11.00pm that a lady came to explain that there was no bus going to Cleveland until 3.00am. They were sorry and offered all passengers waiting a meal ticket worth $6.50.

At 3.00am, no bus came.

At 7.00 there was no information.

The next bus [to Detroit via Cleveland] is scheduled for 5pm, and the only bus at 8.30am is for Pittsburg. I just agreed to board the bus and leave where I was to prepare for the longest journey I have ever made in my life.

After eight years of the "leadership" of George W. Bush, I feel the same way.

The Elecion of 2008 was already one for the history books with the first female and former first Lady candidate, the first partly non-while candidate, and the oldest corrupt candidate. Now, thanks to the entry of Ralph Nader into the contest, it's been transmogrified into a four-ring circus.

One has to wonder about why Nader is attempting to run again. Sure, he takes his positions seriously, but the focus is essentially personal. As he announced his candidacy on Meet The Press this morning, I didn't hear a single thing he wants to do FOR this nation. Every point he raised this morning was in opposition to the two major parties and their common corporate economic support system (not that I have a specific problem with exposing that fact).

What Nader should be doing IMHO is to act as an impartial senior statesman, taking on and possibly refuting the wilder claims of all the candidates. He could act in this manner - and not disrupt the already delicate balances between a semi-civilized election and mass chaos - only if he had no partisan axe to grind for himself. His effectiveness in taking up this quest is seriously weakened due to his wanting to be a part of the mess and not a part of the clean-up crew.

Think of how much better people could be informed if Nader was discussing the news instead of making it. Think of the possibilities if Nader were to discuss the numerous fallacies of Hillary's, including claiming that Bush I was responsible for NAFTA and not her husband; of holding Obama's feet to the fire over his plans for the nation so that he stays on track and not get distracted into joining Hillary's food fight; of presenting detailed information concerning the golden chains embodying McCain's slavish connections to the media owners. If Nader were to act in such a manner, without benefit to himself, he would be acting as the crusader he likes to believe he is.

But that isn't going to happen. Not now.

Instead, we will travel back to yesteryear, rehashing the Nader effect on the 2000 and 2004 elections, and whether 2008 will now follow a similar path. We will have to endure his attempts to get the attention of the other candidates - and the media - regarding his take on the issues facing this nation. Nader has some interesting takes on today's issues (Read the transcript!), but he has yet to offer anything resembling a contrete proposal on how he proposes to achieve these lofty goals (he's not alone - it's a common candidate failing!). The position statements offered on Nader's website are seriously sparse, considering that he's starting late and has a long way to go to match the output of the other surviving candidates.

Ralph, you took us twice already. I doubt we are going to flock to you in the numbers you've become accustomed to seeing. Too many of us think we need change, but we aren't willing to accept another pig in a poke. If we were, Hillary would have put Obama to bed already. You (and Obama, since I'm on the topic) need to be more expressive about what you intend to do about all these pressing national problems. Merely laying down platitudes (as Obama tends to do) or pointing out yet again what the problems are doesn't solve anything.

Obama appears to many voters to be coming closest to this desired behavior, even though he hasn't yet convinced me that he deserves the job. He certainly has no one who can push him like you could - IF you weren't in the middle of the muddle. Rethink this, Ralph. Drop out now before you damage what chances the nation has to recover from Bush.

It's an interesting news day in Gotham City this morning, as the major New York dailies are shelling all the camps of the remaining viable presidential candidates.

The New York Times goes into detail as to why the Lincoln Savings debacle makes viable the current scandal over John McCain's relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman even if there was no sexual aspect to it.

Considering how a story about Cindy McCain's drug use coverup was breaking just before this latest tale of misbehavior came out, one has to wonder if this alleged affair isn't just a salacious smoke screen intended to bury a real scandal - the use of political connections to not only squelch a felony drug investigation of Mrs. McCain, but to assassinate the character of the DEA informant who forced her to go public with her abuse problems. Wikipedia has a concise summary with links of the situation here.

Meanwhile Maureen Dowd excoriates Hillary not only for using Obama's speeches as an uncited source for her latest campaign slogans, but also for digging up ammunition for the Republican campaign to use against Obama should she falter in her effort to bend the DNC delegate rules in her favor. As MoDo puts it, "we’re only moments away from Hillary asking Obama: 'Can’t you control your spouse?' " referring to Michelle Obama's recent ill-considered commentary about national pride. This appears certainly to play into the jingoist entrenchment of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Speaking of the VRWC, it appears to have switched sides regarding Hillary. Instead of following MoDo's lead and going after Hillary, both NYT columnist and VRWC card-carrying member David Brooks and The New York Observer ride hard to Hillary's defense. Brooks seems not to have noticed that Obama has won the last eleven Democratic primary events against Hillary, presenting instead the tired broadside that Obama is too young and inexperienced to handle a "seventy-something" Congressional Chair delegation which he implies that la Clinton would have wrapped around her little finger. But, hey, David! Whatever works to keep the weaker of the Democratic candidates - the only one McCain can beat - in the race, right? Who cares if your facts aren't necessarily correct (which they rarely are)?

With that in mind, the low-brow The New York Observer is attempting to aid and abet the attempted theft of the Democratic nomination by spreading the meme that Obama's successes are due to the Cult-of-Obama. At least The Observer is willing to present a counter-view from Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign manager and former senior adviser to John Edwards’ presidential campaign, who noted that the cult slander is a last ditch attempt to rescue a "last of its kind" campaign, and would result in the loss of millions of Obama votes in the general election, promoting a McCain electoral victory.

That is the point of the exercise to rescue Hillary. McCain - despite all of the rancor he engenders in the so-called conservatives - is seen by the corporatists to be the only one they can trust with power. After Lincoln Savings, he isn't about to rattle his cage lest sensitive information about his real involvement were to emerge. Therefore, Hillary has to be Lame John's opponent.

All of this electoral hoopla is well and fine, but the real devil that requires his due is escaping notice.

Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers, asserts that it would be "Better to go into 2009 without wearing our usual rose-colored glasses" because "Obama and Clinton are centrist Democrats who are beholden to many of the same corporatist forces that pull the strings in Washington and have done so for decades." This can be seen in the desperate attempt by the White House to rescue the Protect America Act. Blogger Mike Kuykendall opines that this effort wasn't intended to protect the nation as Bush bloviated, but was instead intended to protect big American corporations from being found liable for damages in lawsuits. Bush's Supreme's are performing judicial activism in defense of manufacturers of lethal products against those they have harmed, so the strategy isn't limited to the false national defense sector.

Kuykendall continues, pleading: "Can we all get past the fear-driven politics and try to use a little reason in our national discourse?"

Abandon fear-driven power mongering??? You ask much, Mike!

I used to work with former Nazi German citizens. It wasn't hard to bring out the fascist programming in them, especially when they were caught up in an action before they could think. It's amazing how quickly they can still snap out that stiff right arm when they think others are doing so!

It's no different with Bush supporters today. There is NO thought going on between their ears, and they are proud of it. Attempting to reach such people using logic is a waste of effort. After decades of striving gain total control of the American people, do you really think that the corporofascists who back Bush would surrender those hard-won advantages just because they make sense for the survival of the nation? You have a higher opinion of our fellow citizens than I do!

The effort you propose, however, does have value if it is directed at those who are allegedly on our side. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are two specific examples of whom I write. While they aren't lily pure of corporofascist taint, they are at least closer to the ideal than the Republicans are - yet they vote as if they are still in the majority. Despite this obvious bias, there is no good reason why the electorate cannot reclaim them for the benefit of the nation.

Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term and later Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, is willing to cut Reid, Pelosi & Associates more slack than I am. "For one reason or another, they have let the Orwellian-named Protect America Act expire. Perhaps the Democrats have finally caught on that they cannot function as a political party as long as they continue to permit Bush to spy on them."

Male Bovine Excrement, says I. I see this move by Reid, Pelosi & Associates as merely another limp campaign strategy to gain a tenuous political advantage rather than a reasoned defense of the Constitution against the corporofascist excesses of CheneyBush. Without a serious turnover in the makeup of the Congress, the Republicans will continue to run things from the minority side of the aisle. Going along to get along doesn't qualify as change, nor as qualification for higher office.

But what of our current national situation? Is there hope? I don't know. I don't see anyone out there that I would trust with the kind of power Bush has assumed without opposition or consequence. He's established a precedent which is going to require someone of much higher integrity than anyone public today has to reverse it.

It is my firm opinion that we have reached the end of the line for the two-party duopoly if the health of the nation is to be restored. We have reached the condition against which George Washington attempted to warn against. Americans need to abandon party politics and return to an active role in the governance of this nation, but with a new season of Dancing With The Stars about to begin, there is little hope of that.

Far too easy to let the corporate news decide.

Check out my other web pages at American Realistan and Blogcritics.