You've probably noticed that I haven't been posting as often for the last couple of weeks - I've been busy...

When John McCain declared that it would be just fine with him if American troops were to remain in Iraq for 100 years, I decided that if he were to win the Republican nomination for President, I would somehow dedicate myself to helping ensure his defeat.

I didn't want to turn PurpleMinded into an anti-McCain site, so I chose to construct a new website as a means to publicize and expose the fear-mongering tactics employed by the McCain campaign.

I contacted a friend, Mike Dater, who is a talented political cartoonist and a regular contributor to PurpleMinded, and asked him to come up with something I could use on the website, and for t-shirts and bumper stickers and so on. He came up with the Scare Talk Express, as well as the What's in a Name? text that leads off the site. With that inspirational springboard, the rest was easy.

There's nothing fair and balanced about ScareTalkExpress.com. Its mission is to unabashedly present a sobering view of John McCain as a warmonger, who shamelessly preys on the public's fears in his say-whatever-it-takes battle to win the White House.

Sadly, I can remember kind of liking John McCain at one time. Back in 2000. Back then he was rightly called a maverick and a straight talker - both qualities I applaud in a politician. But over these last few years, in preparation for this campaign, he's bartered away his character and credibility a bit at a time. First to the Religious Right. More recently, in a stunning reversal of principle, he voted against a ban on waterboarding. Apparently now he's also just fine with torture. It's clear that McCain will do-whatever-it-takes to curry favor with the GOP base.

There was a time when Senator McCain would have stood by his convictions, even if it appeared to be detrimental to his own interests. Even as recently as last year's contentious immigration debate. But that time has passed.

If all he'd done was to turn himself into just another typical, self-serving politician, I'd simply mourn the fall of this once revered man. But when he went so far as to throw the 100 more years of war on the table, I had to take up arms and actively oppose him.

As a liberal, I would have been content to sit on the sidelines and support the Democratic nominee. I really don't care for the poisonous partisanship that has taken over the political process and precludes civil debate. But I'm afraid. I fear we could elect another "war president", and I feel like I've been drafted, and compelled to fight.

May 1, 2003. A Navy jet makes a dramatic tailhook landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln somewhere off the coast of San Diego. The jet has been dressed up with new decals identifying it as Navy 1; "George W. Bush Commander-in-Chief is painted beneath the cockpit window.

The war in Iraq is over.

The Commander-in-Chief dressed up for the occasion too. Wearing a dark green flight suit and carrying a helmet under his arm, and looking like an extra in Top Gun, George W. Bush gazes up at a giant banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished". He gives a big thumbs up sign.

Later that evening, the President gives a speech from the nuclear-powered aircraft carriers flight deck announcing, that major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

That was almost five years ago.

But as far as Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, was concerned - nothing had ended. The following September, he said, "The American defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan has become just a question of time€¦ The Americans are between two fires. If they remain [in Iraq] they will bleed to death, and if they withdraw they will have lost everything.

Weve been bleeding in Iraq ever since. So have the Iraqis.

Nearly 4,000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq; more than 29,000 wounded.

Over a million Iraqis have died since the invasion.

And the U.S. economy has been fatally wounded as well

Nineteen young men armed with $3 box cutters started a war that has the U.S. spending $3,000,000,000 per week in Iraq.

Our current economic woes are inextricably linked to the war in Iraq. And its not just the huge sums of money weve spent -much of which we've had to borrow because of irresponsible tax cuts. (Historically taxes have been increased to pay for wars.) It's also about oil. It plays a big role in our current economic misery. Theres no denying that one of the reasons we chose to go to war was to protect our oil interests in the Middle East. Oil was under $30 a barrel when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier. Today its over $100 a barrel, and climbing.

Admittedly, this is a gross over-simplification of the economics of the situation, yet the result of our actions is clear. Financial ruin threatens us every bit maybe more so than Al Qaeda. Our financial future has been put in jeopardy because of the hubris of our leaders George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Were it not for their maniacal rush to war to depose Saddam Hussein, we would likely be in a far better place today.

This fall well have an opportunity to choose a different destiny. Americans will have a clear choice: John McCain will keep us on our present course Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will point us in a new direction. I would think that would a simple decision for most voters.

Its been the big question. What will the Clinton campaign decide? Theyre trailing badly, and desperately need to do something to turn things around. Will they go negative?

We expected to learn the answer last night in the debate held in Texas.

From RJ Eskow, on Huffington Post: "For most of the debate it seemed as if two Senator Clintons were taking turns on the stage. One, the statesmanlike leader, wanted to rise above petty divisions. The other, the one who thinks that going negative is the fun part, wanted to keep taking shots. But the nights only boos (that I heard) came when she overplayed her weak plagiarism hand and delivered an obviously pre-scripted line about change you can xerox.

"It was like watching behavior modification take place in real-time. She was punished for going negative and rewarded for being uplifting, and you could watch her moving toward the light as the night wore on. As a result, when the debate ended she had the best moment of her entire campaign. Thats when she said she was honored to be sharing the debate stage with Sen. Obama and spoke about her own motivation for public service, illustrating her remarks with an anecdote about wounded soldiers."

It appears that the answer to the big question was no.

Thats good news for Democratic Party. If its true.

I just have this little teeny wonderment nibbling away at the back of my mind.

Heres whats bothering me. Theres one more big debate left on the schedule: this coming Tuesday night in Ohio. Now if I were planning to go nuclear negative, Id want to time my strike so that my opponent would have little time to recover. Thats a time-honored strategy, dropping negative ads in the days right before an election when theres no time to respond. So, if Im going negative on Obama, I dont want to do it last night when theres another debate in just a couple days where he can set things right. Id wait until Tuesday?¦ Maximum impact. No time, or another debate right away in which to fight back.

I don't think thats what shes planning. Call me naïve, but I think lasts night performance was genuine. Not a rope-a-dope.

Hillary is a very smart woman, with a great future - even if she fails to win the nomination. I cant see her destroying her legacy, whats left of Bills, and the real opportunity that the Democratic Party has to recapture effective control of our government.

Consider this. What if Obama were to lose to McCain, sunk by the swift boats that are already be fueled up by the GOP admiralty? Ah! I told you so, shed say. Shed be a dead lock for the 2012 nomination.

If the primaries in Texas and Ohio dont go her way, Ill predict that she will suspend her campaign.

Unless last night was simply a ploy.

Im still fuming about Tuesday nights attack by Chris Matthews on an Obama supporter. If you missed it, you can watch a clip on YouTube.

Let me provide some context. Obama has just won the Wisconsin primary by a large margin. Theres a big rally down in Houston, and Obama supporter Texas State Senator Kirk Watson is only too happy to appear on MSNBCs coverage of the primary and Obamas victory speech.

Matthew decides to play Hardball. He starts, innocently enough, asking if the Senator was an Obama supporter. Yes, he answered proudly. Matthews then demanded that he name a single legislative accomplishment by Barack Obama. Watson was like a deer in the headlines. He froze. He mumbled. Then he retreated to the familar politicians trick of ignoring the question, and simply saying what he wanted. But Matthews wouldnt let him get away with it, barking - Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. Youve supported him for president, youre on national television, name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obamas, sir.

It went on far too long. It was brutal. (Of course, I suppose that depends on your choice of candidates Hillary supporters had to love it.)

Okay. Rewind back to the very beginning of the broadcast. Intro Its MSNBCs coverage of the Presidential primaries€¦with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews€¦ Keith speaks first, and is obviously the lead man tonight. Matthews has a scowl on his face, and is obviously in a sour mood as he sits watching Keith continue with the opening dialogue.

The soaring popularity of Keith Olbermanns show, Countdown, has propelled the former sports analyst past Matthews in the MSNBC hierarchy of talent. And its been interesting to watch how Matthews has responded. At first, it seemed to really energize him. Over time he had lost his edge, and had morphed into a compliant, complicit media type - but for the past year or so, hes been back to being much more of a hardballer, returning to the style that made him famous.

But Ive noticed that he rarely picks on anyone powerful. When Matthews wants to play Hardball, he invariably beats up a little guy. Like a state senator. Never a U.S. Senator.

Tuesday nights performance was disgusting. When he asked the question the first time and got no answer, he made his point. But it was obvious that he enjoyed bullying the man, who was clearly unarmed in the battle of wits.

Now interestingly enough, there was also a Clinton supporter being interviewed in the piece. I kept waiting for Matthews to ask her the same question about Hillary. But he never did. I seriously doubt that she would have done any better. She wasnt smart enough to remain silent while her competition was being whipped and self-destructing. Maybe she could have come up with the name of a person whom Hillary got a courthouse or post office named after. Or something about 9/11 assistance. You know the truth is, most of Hillarys legislative accomplishments would hardly be called substantive.

Yeah, but what about Obamas accomplishments?

Here are three substantial examples: The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006; The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act; The 2007 Government Ethics Bill. (Of course, hes written and co-sponsored countless others.)

If youe an Obama supporter, you need to know this in case youre ever confronted by an angry journalist.

Marty Kaplan wrote a brilliant piece a while ago that has stuck in my memory. Talking about the mainstream media:

"Reality isn't real any more; to the press, all the world's a stage. Or rather, all the world's an onstage and a backstage. Candidates don't have beliefs; they have positions. Campaigns don't have meanings; they have narratives. In the postmodern funhouse that imprisons prestige media, the job isn't to cover events, but rather to reveal their theatricality; the trick isn't to find truth, but to disclose "framing"; the task isn't to establish facts, but to transform them into he-said/she-said Mexican standoffs."

One of todays political headlines: "Nasty Clinton-Obama Fight Descends To "Plagiarism" Accusations" brought this to mind.

Desperately searching for anything to help stem Obamas momentum, the Clintons campaign manager Howard Wolfson must have though hed struck gold when he came up with a charge that put into question the acknowledged strength of Obama's candidacy - his oratorical skills. Wolfson accused Obama of plagiarizing Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

Ive read the transcripts. Yep, theres little doubt he borrowed some lines.

Obama, campaigning in Ohio, was forced to respond, admitting that he probably should have given his friend credit. But more importantly, Obama said that Gov. Patrick suggested that he use the lines to respond to Clinton's suggestion that he is more of a talker than a doer.

So, here we are the day before the all-important primaries in Wisconsin and Hawaii and were distracted by this piece of political theatre. The public would be better served if the campaigns and the press would focus on the issues.

Ken Blackwell appeared as a talking head on Hardball with Chris Matthews the other night. He was introduced as a Senior Fellow at the Family Research Council. Of course hes best known as the former Secretary of State of Ohio, where he spent precious little time running the Department of Motor Vehicles and handing out drivers licenses he was far too busy making sure that the states electoral votes would go to George W. Bush in the 2004 election. Thats a polite way of saying he was dedicated to rigging the election.

"Blackwell professed to see no inherent conflict during the 2004 election between simultaneously serving as secretary of state and co-chairman of Bushs Ohio campaign. As the arbiter of election rules, Blackwell issued a series of rulings that limited the use of provisional ballots, a tactic that undermined traditionally Democratic inner-city voters. At one point, until he finally rescinded it, Blackwell tried to maintain the absurd position that only voter-registration forms on heavyweight 80-pound paper would be accepted."
-Walter Shapiro, The Votes Dont Add Up, Salon.com

Actaully, rigging is too polite a term to describe Blackwells blatant attempts to suppress Democratic voter turnout. He was named in more than sixteen lawsuits alleging voter disenfranchisement and conflict of interest. No, stealing is more like it. You could argue that the mans criminal behavior could label him something of a thief, a crook. Call him whatever his actions should hardly merit him a place on television. He epitomizes partisan politics at its very worst disgustingly dishonest and immoral.

But yet here he is, with Chris Matthews gushing over him, referring to him as Mr. Secretary. He even closed out the segment with a chummy, When are you gonna run again, Ken?

Are you kidding me? Run for public office again? After getting thrashed in his bid for Governor in 2006, losing to a Democrat by 24 points in a red state? Unlike the voters in Florida who awarded Katherine Harris a seat in Congress after her efforts on Bushs behalf, Ohioans were outraged. They booted him out of Ohio politics. There was no place for him to go, but to a dubious organization like the FRC.

Lets not let him land on his feet at MSNBC. Sure hes qualified to be a Republican talking head; hes got the resume. But there are plenty of others available. Please contact the network by email. I cant find an email address for Hardball, but we can litter Chris Matthews blog with a blizzard of comments. Or do it the old fashion way - write them a letter, or call them.

NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112
212 315-9016

As the Republicans are fond of saying: we cant reward bad behavior. Take a moment today, and do something to encourage MSNBC to drop Ken Blackwell from its broadcasts.

Why does Mike Huckabee keep fighting in a contest he knows he cannot win, ignoring the growing calls to bow out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination? The conventional wisdom is that he wants the vice-president slot on the ticket in November.

I think its actually something much simpler than that: he wants to finish second.

Wait a minute, you argue, hes already finished second! No, technically he has not. Mitt Romney has won more delegates than Huckabee. Romneys count is 285, to Huckabees 240.

The former Arkansas governor has insisted that he has every right to stay in the race until someone reaches the magic number of 1,191, the total needed to secure the nomination. But thats just a smokescreen, a bit of misdirection. Huckabee knows that it is impossible to overtake John McCain, but he can hang in the race and officially snatch the Silver Medal from Mitt Romney. Thats the prize he seeks.

Both Romney and Huckabee could have presidential aspirations in 2012, and being able to claim an undisputed second place finish in 2008 would be important for either man.

Huckabee wants to become a force in the Republican Party, and hes smart enough to realize that he cant keep on causing problems for McCain without some consequences. Look for him to suspend his campaign as soon as he passes Romney. When he makes that speech, there wont be any mention of Mitt, itll all be about party unity. But dont kid yourself - this has all been about an undisputed second place finish.

You've gotta love it. In the closest Democratic presidential race in memory, Barack Obama wins caucus primaries in four states (and the Virgin Islands) on Saturday and Sunday - by huge margins - and what does the mainstream media write about? Hillary Clinton fires her campaign manager.

Youve got to give the Clintons credit. They are good at this game. The timing of the announcement was perfect, and achieved the desired effect.

I cant wait to see what they come up with tomorrow to try to wipe Obama victories in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. from the headlines.

Last weeks CPAC conference in Washington, D.C., was notable for Mitt Romneys speech as he dropped of out of the presidential race, and for John McCains good-natured groveling before its membership.

A bigger, unreported headline surely ran through the head of the man who introduced John McCain - George Allen Wraps-Up Republican Nomination. The former Virginia Senator could have easily been standing there as the partys presumptive nominee.

It had to be a gut-wrenching moment for Allen, realizing that were it not for his macaca moment, he might very well have been the Republican Partys nominee.

He is exactly the kind of conservative the party faithful wanted. Thats why there was such a clamor for Fred Thompson. The conservative base wanted a true conservative not John McCain. They were even will to take a long look at a nouveau conservative from Massachusetts, and a former Baptist preacher from Arkansas.

George Allen had to be thinking he could have easily handled that bunch.

He was the most conservative, and the most Reaganesque. He was even the most Bush-like, which still counts for something, as 61% of Republicans still approve of the job that outgoing the President is doing.

People used to compare Allen to President Bush all the time, citing that same the easy-going, likeable, cowboy kind of thing. Stylistically and philosophically, he resembled Bush, but still, he had some policy differences, and was always careful to maintain some distance on difficult issues such as the war in Iraq. Though he was comfortable with the Bush comparisons, he actually preferred to think of himself more in the mold of Reagan. And the GOP has been yammering about Reagan all year.

But when George Allen narrowly lost his Senate seat to Democrat Jim Webb in 2006, he also lost the opportunity to compete in a race that would have favored him at every turn. He was exactly what the base wanted.

How painful must it have been for Allen to stand up there last week, assigned to do a verbal extreme makeover on John McCain? To try to make McCain seem more like him.

He could only have been thinking about macaca. And what might have been.

Last night I caught the tail end of a discussion on MSNBC they were talking about who John McCain might choose for his running mate. Condoleezza Rices name came up.

I hadnt given much thought to who might be slotted for the Veep job on the Republican side, but shes certainly an intriguing choice

Readers over at the REAL CLEAR POLITICS blog were asked to come up with a short list for John McCain to consider. They had Condi right up there at the top, along with some other familiar names and a couple of lessers-knowns.

Condoleezza Rice
JC Watts
Sarah Palin
Michael Steele
Colin Powell
Charlie Crist
Bobby Jindal
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
Kay Bailey Hutchison
John Kasich
Newt Gingrich
John Thune
Mike Huckabee
Joe Lieberman
Tom Ridge

Have you got any others to suggest?