I've never actually won a war.  In fact, I've never even been in the military. Or studied military history or strategy. Or watched many war movies.

But I'm pretty sure I know at least as much as John McCain (and in my opinion a lot more) about how to win wars.  

Because you win wars the same way you win anything else.

A couple of weeks ago, I received an invitation to the Bat Mtizvah celebration of one of my former students, to be held at 10:30 yesterday morning (Pacific time). I happily accepted the invitation; Rachel is a young woman I had a strong bond with, because in many ways she reminds me of myself at that age -- and besides, I'd never been to a Bat (or Bar) Mitzvah.

I didn't realize at that time how serendipitous the timing of that event would prove to be for me. Follow me below the fold to share the very inspirational morning I experienced.

As some of you know, during the last few primaries, we conducted several DKos Food Bombs as a way of supporting Obama's ground troops.

I had the privilege of buying Chinese dinner for 20+ folks in the Lafayette, IN office the night before the IN primary. When I called them to find out what kind of food I should send, I ended up talking with a woman whose name I don't recall (Raj, if you're out there, maybe you know?) It was fun chatting with someone so far away yet united in the cause.

She was astounded that someone all the way in Seattle would buy dinner for perfect strangers, "just because." So I told her about DKos and what we were doing, and she thought that was great.

A little later, she asked me what one word I most associate with Obama. I answered "Integrity." She told me they had a running poll going at their office, with each person coming up with one word. They had the list posted on the side of a filing cabinet (hey, no plush office when it's funded by volunteers!), and she found the list enjoyable and fascinating.

She suggested I run a similar poll here. I thought it sounded interesting. So, here goes --

Ed Rollins, on Morning Joe, spent several minutes yammering dismissively about Obama, his implicit message being that Obama is nothing out of the ordinary.

"Obama needs to explain what he means by change, yadda, yadda, yadda, the change is just getting the current administration out of the White House, yadda, yadda, yadda, Obama is just like Carter at this point in his campaign, was supposed to be something different and was way ahead of Ford in the polls, yadda, yadda, yadda effin' yadda."

Well, Ed, I understand that as a confirmed Republican who has worked on the campaigns of Reagan, Katherine Harris, and Huckabee among others, you may have trouble discerning the nuances of a Democratic primary. And I understand that your preferred campaign style, which bears such a resemblance to Clnton's style, could further cloud your ability to appreciate what Obama represents. And who knows what long-term effects your early boxing career may have had.

But Ed, I gotta disagree when you suck up to Joe by repeating the Scarborough/Buchanan talking point that Obama "needs to explain what kind of change he's talking about."

All of you who were so sure she would be gracious in defeat? Those who scolded me, and others of like mind, for not embracing Hillary in a warm fuzzy Hug of Unity -- do you get it yet?

What makes a candidate "unelectable"?

Well, there's the old saying about getting caught with "a dead girl or a live boy."

Using the "N-word" in the presence of reporters would probably do it. (Although apparently calling one's wife a c*** in the presence of reporters isn't sufficient.)

For months, we here on DKos have pooh-poohed concerns about Clinton's suggestions that Obama is unelectable. After all, we know he will never do anything heinous enough to turn the electorate against him, and even the attack most likely to render him unelectable -- the Rev. Wright brouhaha -- didn't knock him out.

As for Clinton's other arguments about his unelectability, we have comforted ourselves with the obvious truth that the superdelegates aren't stupid enought to buy them. The "popular vote" argument, for instance: The Supers understand as well as we do that you can't count the overall popular vote when some states are caucus states, and it makes no sense to count voters in Puerto Rico who don't vote in the general, etc.

Ah, my fellow Kossacks. How blind we have been. How badly we have underestimated her. How silly not to have realized that, if the Clintons decide a candidate is unelectable, unelectable he will indeed be.

I've read several really good diaries here about McCain's opposition to the new GI Bill.  However, there are still a couple of crucial flaws in McCain's position that haven't been addressed:

1. McCain's flawed analysis of the impact of the GI Bill on retention and recruiting. The correct analysis leads to a startling conclusion that completely negates McCain's primary reason for opposing the bill.

2. McCain's "changing of the goalposts" regarding the historical purpose of the GI Bill, without admitting that he is doing so.

Today on Countdown, in reference to Sen. Clinton's "assassination" comment, KO asked [paraphrasing], "Regardless of her intent, how do you salvage a political career after a comment like that?"

My first thought was the same as that expressed by Doug Brinkley, to whom the question was addressed:

How do you salvage a political career? You don't.

But on further reflection, I wish to amend that answer.

It's been so upbeat lately. An Obama nomination has begun to appear inevitable. It's been nice to feel a little more confident and relaxed.

Still, there's been a little voice inside telling me Clinton is cagey, we shouldn't trust her current happy-happy-nice-nice. But then my brain would tell the little voice, "Dude - chill! Doesn't matter what she does; if he gets enough superD votes, she can't harm him. It'll be over the 1st week in June, even if Hills doesn't admit it. OK, on May 31 the Rules Committee may give her half the delegates, but so what? Obama can get enough superD's to beat the new magic number!"

But this week, as she's harping on FL and MI, I've been getting a creepy feeling. My Hill-dar has been beeping like mad, telling me SOMETHING's up.

A few minutes ago, the last piece of the puzzle clicked into place when I read buckeyemike's diary. That diary is correct as far as it goes, but it's only half the story. The "dark genius" only becomes visible when the two halves of the story are viewed together. This is not snark, folks. I think she's preparing to do some major ugly.

This will probably be my least diary-like diary ever, but I feel compelled to take the opportunity to listen to McCain speak when I get the chance (so I'll know what we're up against), and whenever I do, I feel a distinct need to rant afterward.

My rant, below.

Before you read this, please read the well-written and well-documented diary by existenz about the "Huge McCain Blunder." That is a great and informative diary; this one is a humbler follow-up on one particular point that struck me when reading that earlier diary.

I just keep wondering, Is McCain really as clueless as he keeps appearing? How could the man have attained the longevity in office and the respect by people on both sides of the aisle that he has achieved, if he is really as far out of the "reality loop" as he seems to me to be?

I do not by any means claim to be perfect.  In the category of Really Terrible Housekeeper, I am world-class.  Overweight, lousy sleeping habits, smoker, drawing ability limited to stick figures, and most 3-year-olds could navigate the world solo without getting lost as often as I do.

But there is at least one thing that I am really quite good at.  Extraordinarily good, in fact.  And that thing is . . . logic.   Scored in the 99.9% percentile on the LSAT, back in the day when it was much closer to being a test of pure logic than it is today. Nowadays I'm a math teacher, another career venture in which logic comes in handy.

I think it's time to apply some logic to a very annoying phrase I keep hearing.

http://www.dailykos.com/...

I was sitting here puttering at my computer a little while ago, and trying to force myself to get up and grade some papers, so I turned the TV to C-Span, figuring there wouldn't be anything there with a plot that would suck my attention away from my duties.

A few minutes after I tuned in, they started showing McCain's speech at Wake Forest University last week, which I figured was suitably boring, and had the advantage of being too annoying for me to watch or listen to very intently; after several months of Obama's speeches, I can barely tolerate McCain speaking.

But since it was on a subject that I'm familiar with and somewhat interested in, I kept one ear tuned in. One ear was just barely enough; if I'd been paying any less attention, I might have missed John's Big Boo-Boo -- and it really is a big one. Follow below the fold for the latest reason this man should not be elected president.

This is a re-post with a new title, based on this comment from diranuk:

Great Diary

Thanks. And beautifully written too.

I think the title may be the reason it may not have been read, and therefore recommended. The title makes the person reading it infer that you are going to present "more of the same". I saw this title on the recent diaries list, but did not read it, for that reason. I only came here because you linked to it from another diary.

Anyway, thanks for your diary, I wish it were possible somehow to get more people to read it.

Please don't blame diranuk if you read it and don't like it; it is ultimately my overblown ego that is responsible for my trying again after very little traffic the first time around.

Everybody and their sister/brother/mother/uncle/third cousin once removed is writing "open letters" to Senator Clinton these days -- criticizing her campaign, detailing the ways she is harming the party and the Dem chances in November and thereby the country, earnestly pleading with her to step down.  I'm a fervent (obsessive) Obama supporter and almost as fervent a Clinton detractor, and even I am getting tired of these missives.

So why am I writing one more "open letter"?  And more to the point, why have the presumptuousness to publish it here, as though other people might actually have any interest in reading it?

One reason.  Because as much as I cringe to admit it, the embarrassing and painful truth is that I have a lot -- a LOT -- in common with Hillary.  She and I share what I consider key flaws.  I understand her motivations and her dilemmas in ways that I think many other letter-writers do not.   Put simply, although the greatest desire of my heart is to see her out of this race by whatever means possible, I nevertheless feel her pain.

I just heard Tim Russert giving a very intelligent analysis of how tonight's events will change the conversations the Clinton camp will be having with the superD's starting tomorrow.

His main point was that since there no longer appears to be a realistic path to the nomination, there will be stark suspicion that the only reason she is staying in is to try to destroy Obama.

And Keith is talking about how the discussion of the gas tax was good for O b/c it took the focus off Rev Wright, and a few minutes ago I heard wild cheers as a re-energized Obama told the American people he trusts them to be smart, and just now Tom Brokaw told an anecdote suggesting maybe people are living up to that trust.  And I read that even Joe Scabborough says it seems to be over for Hillary.  And OH! MY! GOD! now even Pat Buchanan is talking like she has no case for staying in the race.

I am very afraid.

I started drafting this diary a couple of weeks ago.  My working title was "A Vote for Clinton is a Vote For . . . " because I felt it was important to explain to people that my reluctance to vote for her is based on principles that I believe are strong enough to challenge, and possibly even trump, the reasons to vote for her over McCain.

I never published the diary in that form, because as important as I believe the concepts to be, I was extremely reluctant to post yet another Hillary-bash.  I struggled with how to resolve these competing priorities.

Today's NYT, and one excellent diary by a fellow Kossack, have opened a door for me to present my views in a more constructive light.  

It's true, folks.  I just had to see how he would react now that Obama has answered the question Joe has been asking 24/7 for the past two months.  What to my wondering ears should appear, but Joe Scarborough actually uttering approving words about Barack Hussein Obama.