Some responses to the news that Bill Clinton will campaign for Joe Lieberman:

Remember that Clinton is part of the DLC movement, which believes that the country has moved right and that a centrist Democratic thrust is necessary to achieve electoral success. That meant compromise with the right. And who else has been more willing to compromise with the right: Lieberman.

And:

It's On Days Like This That [sic] I really think we have to consider a new political party and let the Democratic Party destroy itself.

As for President Clinton, "He questioned why antiwar Democrats are seeking to oust a fellow Democrat, saying that instead of seeking to retire Republicans they were pursuing 'the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life.' "

I agree with President Clinton. The two quotes above highlight the tremendous divide between the disproportionately vocal far left wing of the Democratic Party and the rest of us, who are more or less centrists. Let's face it: the reason the Democratic ticket won in 1992 and 1996 was that the candidates were centrist Democrats. History proves that a "centrist Democratic thrust" is essential to winning the presidency.

The commenter who says that "We have to demonstrate that we can beat the Republicans our way, not the Clinton way. We can rant and rail against the Clintons, the DLC, Lieberman, and the lot, but unless we win elections, it's all academic." demonstrates the essential psychosis of the left wing: They want to win their way or not at all. If the Democratic party follows "their way," it'll be not at all. Again.

Dukakis lost in 1988 by moving left. Kerry lost in 2004 by going [or being] left. Benjamin Franklin said long ago that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." If true, then these left wingers are nuttier than a fruitcake. They don't speak for me or, I believe, for the majority of the Democratic Party.

What was life like in 1906? Check this out:

The average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years.

Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.

A three-minute call from Denver to New York City
cost eleven dollars.

There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S., and only 144 miles
of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more
heavily populated than California.

With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st
most populous state in the Union.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower!

The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents per hour.

The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year .

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,
a dentist $2,500 per year, a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. took place at HOME .

Ninety percent of all U.S. doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which
were condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used
borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
entering into their country for any reason.

Five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars.
Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and
Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.

The population of Las Vegas, Nevada, was only 30!!!!

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea
hadn't been invented yet.

There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

Two out of every 10 U.S. adults couldn't read or write.

Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.
Eighteen percent of households in the U.S. had at least
one full-time servant or domestic help.

There were about 230 reported murders in the ENTIRE ! U.S.A. !

Remarks by Rabbi Marvin Hier of Los Angeles:

Let us be very clear, this is not a conflict over borders, not about 1967 or 1948. This is about enemies who have one purpose in mind, a Middle East that is Judenrein, free of Jews.

For years, the critics of Israel opined that when Israel pulls out of Lebanon and Gaza, when it allows the Palestinians to write their history, to define their own destiny, when they are empowered to rebuild their own economy, then they will devote their energies to peace.

Well, Israel pulled out of Lebanon, after guarantees by the international community that the Lebanese government would exercise jurisdiction over its territory and control Hezbollah. But it didn’t and look what happened? An unprovoked terrorist attack and the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers.

In the South, Prime Minister Sharon withdrew from Gaza in a bold attempt to jumpstart the peace process. What was the Palestinian response? They went to the polls and elected Hamas, a terrorist government whose undisputed leader Khaled Meshaal lives in Damascus. Almost immediately, Hamas began firing more then 1,000 rockets at the city of Sderot which is not disputed territory, but an uncontested part of Israel.

Day after day, month after month, the rockets fell, but the world watched and did nothing. Hamas felt emboldened and dug a tunnel into Israel, kidnapping Corporal Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier and holding him hostage, but again, the world took no concrete action.

Hier's point illustrates the Bizarro world in which we live: for years, Israel has been importuned to get out of "occupied territory." Now, to the West, "occupied territory" means the West Bank and Gaza. To the Arabs, "occupied territory means all of Israel. Thus, the Arab call to relinquish "occupied teritory" means, to them, the abandonment of the State of Israel completely.

Many people, including me, were apprehensive at the Sharon government's bold move to unilaterally pull back from Gaza. The naysayers foretold that the Arabs simply would fire rockets, unimpeded, from the Gaza territory into Israel. The Israeli government and people nevertheless took a chance in good faith that the "Palestineans," essentially having been ceded the land they had wanted, would leave Israel alone. Alas, the naysayers were right, the "Palestineans" continue to kill innocent civilians to gain more territory.

This continued use of terror killings over the past year appears to have escaped the notice of the world community. Continued Arab violence, both in Gaza and in northern Israel, undersocres the fact that the Arabs want Israel destroyed. Nothing less. Israel has no choice but to do all in its power to destroy the destroyers before it's too late.

This Comments thing is interesting, for a change if nothing else. One commenter believes that a blog is not a blog without Comments enabled. Instapundit doesn't have comments, so I'm not sure I agree. We'll see how this [not so] grand experiment goes, though.

On the John Edwards post from a couple of days ago, one commenter said this: "Rove actually said following the 2004 election that Edwards was the Dem he feared the most. He lucked out and got Kerry. He won't be as lucky in 2008." That's quite interesting, except I don't believe Rove "lucked out." They wanted to run against Kerry, and look who they ran against.

As to the tried and true bromides that Edwards couldn't even win his own state, we don't really know that, because with Kerry and his baggage in the mix, there's no way to accurately extrapolate what would have happened with an Edwards/Mr. X ticket. And, if the ticket had been switched to put Edwards in the number 1 slot, I think it at least possible that he would have taken at least one southern state, which has for years been the Democrats' achilles heel. If anything, 2004 suggests that the significance of where the VP candidate is from is overstated.