Really it seems like the biggest Dem losers are for BO. But over and over we see the Clinton’s help out people like Andrews and then they are stabbed in the back. The Clinton’s mistake is trying to raise those who would not reach the level they have now without Clinton help. Raising these folks up beyond thier true levels doesn’t inspire loyalty as one would think. I believe in time it makes them angry. Because the help shows them up in a way. I do know the Dems with clout who are supporting Hill , got where they are on thier own….which is the only ones you can count on.I think Hill has learned that lesson.

That and his obvious error in declaring both primaries today will go to his sham, um candidate.

He is to Indiana what Bob Casey was to PA.

That dog can’t hunt anymore. Casey lost a hell of a lot of support over his stance, and just like Richardson it backfired on him.

Andew isn’t a big dog, he’s just a wee little pup who still wets the newspapers in mom’s kitchen.

Am I bitter? A tad, perhaps.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Make that four narratives.

Romey’s possible ticket placement would mean a Cheney still directs foreign policy via the OVP, daughter Elizabeth, a State apparatachik from father’s days of stovepiping intelligence from the Near East.

The three larger competing narratives are based in historical wings of modern foreign policy.

Albright policy would direct Clinton, high level engagement across the board, coupled with muscular EU directives and overlapping humanitarian missions.

Baker policy could again emerge for McCain were he to disavow the Cheney wing of policy, something he probably lacks true cahones to do. Forcing our allies to buy into payments for the war as a way to actually boost our client state status and influence through them. This would mean Saudi Arabia and Israel gaining hugely plausible ground once again in shaping the new Iraq.

More than likely the GOP continues China’s bidding there, and thus abates conflict with Iran. This would depend on the extent to which we gain in a Yukos bid. Russia has more long term oil, but delaying its arrival to market boosts domestic oil interests and their ability to spike the price upwards.

That is one area where the Baker and Albright policies could actually match, triangulation vis a vis Putin via Chinese strategic influence in other spheres. Albright leaning more to Russian influence vs. China’s women rights and human rights issues, Baker siding with the money that propels certain vested interests from the Mid East.

Then there’s Brzezinski policy fueling the Obama race. Outright confrontation of perceived foes, muscular subversion of opponents via counterintelligence and low level conflict. His former efforts against Russia return, on steroids, we build some new kind of MEK/Mujahadeen to undo the old one we previously built, then faced as a foe, in the mid East. We’ll do it in a way that probably escalates a conventional arms race. This will parallel a wider nuclear one, that will of course end up having several countries wanting the influence of larger super powers introduced to new levels in their region as insurance against old regional rivals with their new arms, as the cold war localizes to smaller geographical sectors.

Most people assume that would be all right, but we could well see the same thing occur in our hemisphere to newly accelerated levels.

Albright policy would probably Balkanize Iraq to hedge surrounding countries to greater levels. Syria, Turkey, Iran all would face serious challenge from an emerging Kurdistan, each being distracted from their ongoing rivalries with Israel or combined EU interests. One pushed closer to NATO to try and contain Putin and other items at the crossroads.

Syria and Iran would have borders with a rival that cold greatly challenge their stability enough we could plausbily engage them to greater levels. That is something Brzez would probably agree with as well and he appears to have already briefed his favorite candidate in that direction.

Baker will follow the money in any instance, in reality all will, but he will to the greatest extent. He’s the one who sees the greatest private fiscal relevance to policy, Albright perhaps even more so though she sees the greatest political relevance to any directives.

Brzezinski simply sees it for what it is, looks to play the underlying strains of cultures and political consequence forward to create change or even anarchy, without any true substansive ability to shape its political result.

All three are catalysts, some are more likely to blow up the lab in making their experiement. Thus America has become a Frankenstein of policy directives and action. “It’s alive,” so far as being a hideous anthropomorphic killer patched together with three major ideas across the past three decades lends itself to upholding quaint agreements forged from the heat and fire of previous great generational conflicts. Thus our creation is stitched together as a beast, one that shaped our continents and planet’s political map within the world community.

The beast will struggle to recognize its humanity at its greatest moments. The chance it is able to do so and be part of a larger community remains to be seen, we’ve been fighting them more than they have us. Memo to America, we’re part of the world village also, let’s work with them to our gain.