Recently in The Passion Of The Left Category

The anti-HRC liberal blogsmearsphere roared it's disapproval on the most inane and silly of grounds, e.g., Robert Scheer argues a better approach is to lecture the world in

a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational [tone] that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. (Robert Scheer, Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran, April 22nd, 2008, www.truthdig.com)

Yes, I'm sure once the Iranians (and any other nation) fully understands that they don't have a "right" to obliterate entire populations, why then the worry, concern, and -- indeed -- the threat will be over.

If Mr. Scheer however, were to consult any history book that happens to be in easy reach, he would learn that human history is full of instances where tyrants, mega-maniacal-maniacs, and other like individuals and groups have tried to obliterate entire populations -- and in many cases, they succeeded.

It's hard to imagine that Mr. Scheer thinks this has happened because these individuals and groups didn't "get" that they just shouldn't be doing things like that because they really don't have the "right," and I really can't imagine that Mr. Scheer believe that if this was pointed out to such individuals and groups, then they would immediately slap their foreheads in sudden realization and immediately call a halt to any obliteration campaigns they've put in motion . . . but, I can't read Mr. Scheer's mind, so I don't know what he thinks . . . or if he's really thinking at all . . .

For example, while Obama-Rome burns, Peggy Noonan (though not a liberal) has nothing more to offer than demanding that world should be more "right-thinking" than what she feels it is:

I also think that if Hillary Clinton wins because of the Wright scandal, it will leave a sad taste in the mouths of many. Mr. Obama reveals many things in his books, speeches and interviews but polarity and a tropism toward the extreme are not among them. What happened with Mr. Wright should not determine the race. Mr. Obama’s stands, his ability to convince us he can make good change, his ability to be “one of us,” that great challenge for a national politician in a varied nation, should determine the race.(Peggy Noonan, Loyal to the Bitterness, WSJ, May 2nd, 2008).

Yeah, should not determine the race, but -- like it or not, it is.

Liberal Values quakes in fear over Hillary becoming Commander In Chief, and (as usual) for all the wrong reasons:

Earlier in the race the Clinton campaign tried to portray Obama as being reckless on foreign policy, even when making proposals which were the same as Clinton has made or which, like pursuing known terrorists into Pakistan, are consistent with current U.S. policy. The Boston Globe discusses how Clinton is really the dangerous one: AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the rhetoric in a campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that, if she were president, she would “totally obliterate” Iran if Iran attacked Israel. (Editorial, The Boston Globe, Hillary Strangelove)

Liberal Values agrees with The Boston Globe that the Saudis are "sound" advisors on this issue (completely missing the obvious: in a war between Iran and Israel, what other public position could Saudi Arabia possibly take?!):

The Saudi paper called Clinton’s nuclear threat “the foreign politics of the madhouse,” saying, “it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations.”

The Saudis are not always sound advisers on American foreign policy. But they understand that Rambo rhetoric like Clinton’s only plays into the hands of Iranian hard-liners who want to plow ahead with efforts to attain a nuclear weapons capability. They argue that Iran must have that capability in order to deter the United States from doing what Clinton threatened to do. (Editorial, The Boston Globe, Hillary Strangelove).

What did HRC threaten to do?

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." (MSNBC, Hillary Clinton says US could `totally obliterate' Iran after nuclear attack on Israel).

The Boston Globe makes a valid point about Iran's rational for pursuing nuclear weapons, but in completely the wrong context, i.e., the last thing the Iranians are arguing is that they intend to attack Israel, and they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a possible U.S. nuclear response. Rather the Iranians are worried about the prospect of the United States forcibly overthrowing them -- and as argued by RAND analysts David Ochmanek and Lowell H. Schwartz. Ochmanek in their monograph, The Challenge of Nuclear-Armed Regional Adversaries released April 15, 2008, North Korean and Iranian leaders have compelling reasons to consider developing nuclear weapons for that very reason.

Now that we've cleaned up the usual intellectual mess and confusion left by Liberal Values, we can get to the real issues.

Probably not -- compared to this, it'll be an exercise in bathos . . .

It's about time -- in fact, it was long past time:

Obama strongly denounces former pastor

It was remarkable how liberals and the Left generally missed the necessity of doing this (they miss a lot, but this should have been obvious), e.g.,

Liberal Values completely missed the political time bomb by seeing the Obama and Wright relationship as one distastefully based on religion rather than a reflection of Obama's character and judgment, which is where the real issues and questions lay:

Obama’s infusion of religion in politics was one major reason why he was not my first choice from the start . . . [however] I’ve been able to support Obama despite his mingling of religion in a political campaign to a degree far more that I would like due to his strong support for separation of church and state. (Liberal Values, Obama Responds to Controversy over Wright).

In response to the release of the initial Wright video, Obama gave a great speech, and it satisfied a lot of people, mostly liberals, e.g., Liberal Values's Obama's Speech, Charles Murry from The Corner, and, of course, Andrew Sullivan, however, it shouldn't have -- because it was a cop-out. It showed a lack of true leadership, true responsibility, and experience.

Five years ago, few predicted that the Iraq war would turn out this way (except for the thinkers at my favorite think tank: Cato called it all correctly even before the invasion)

The war's supporters, like Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, issued endless false assurances to the American people before the war that 'we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.' Senator Hillary Clinton could not be bothered to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before voting to send U.S. troops into battle.

With the Ship Of State feeling more like the Titanic, no wonder people are grabbing onto Obama not realizing he's a leaky and unsteady lifeboat:

First, the fact is -- the Democratic party let us down. I've never voted Democrat before, but I did durning the midterm elections because I was troubled by the growth in government spending and -- frankly -- pissed off and fed up with the Iraq war. John Kerry and the Democratic party talked a good game and seem to be a light at the end of a very long and very dark tunnel.

Libertarian conservatives are, quite frankly, terrified of the centralized government's growing power and reach, a power and reach that Liberals and the Left either seem not to worry about or -- worse -- outright encourage.

They seem to have a view that some "special" people are so good, so wise -- like a perfect idealized fantasy parent figure --  that no amount of State Power is too much as long as their "hearts" (i.e., their values, their "liberal values") are in the right place and their "minds" (their ability to predict and control the physical external world) are a cut of above the rest. While some liberals debate strategy, as long as these "special people" are pursuing "The Common Good," the ends will ever justify the means, i.e., an ever growing government (E.g., The Liberal Values blog is perversely content to see government grow albeit at a slower pace all the while inexcusably oblivious to the negative relationship between the size of government and economic freedom, human rights, civil liberties, & prosperity: the neocons learned all too well from their distant & estranged left brethren).

The left blogsmear (sorry --sphere) has been holding a funeral for Samantha Power: Obama Adviser Critical of Clinton Resigns.

"Critical" is a bit of an understatement: while it's debatable just how far HRC will go to win the nomination, it's perfectly clear how far some Obama supporters will go to tear down a member of their own party. To wit: Liberal Values thinks Samantha Power's only sin was that she spoke "The Truth" out loud and Kyle E. Moore's Comments From The Left Field backs him up.

Unfortuately, they're missing an important angle:

Thank God for true independents, like me. Partisan Obama fetishizers (like Liberal Values) can't seem to see more than 2 inches and 5 minutes in front of themselves.

Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller fame) was told by a couple of blue state liberal guys he knew that if Obama becomes president, some "redneck" will try to shoot him, and they were pretty damn sure this would happen.

I had to laugh. I mean, how do these guys know this? Why are they so sure? Do they have some sort of "information" about a specific "hit" if he becomes president?

Maybe Penn should have immediately called the FBI and said "yeah, a couple of guys here, right now, standing 10 feet away from me, are convinced some redneck guy is going to "cap" Obama if he becomes the next president of the United States. Maybe you should talk to them."

I'm betting if Penn responding that way, they would have immediately backed off from their claim, but instead Penn uncovers what was really motivating this "certainty," and he videos a position/response to this, on liberals, on the Messianic religious fervor they bring to just about any discussion of any issue, but . . . I'll let Penn take from here:

What Penn experienced, of course, is . . .