Senator Obama has the nomination; but let's face it , Senator Clinton had 50% of the Democrats' votes.

 In order to make sure some of the votes, in question, do not go to Senator McCain ( some polls indicates that up to 30% of Hillary's electorate could defect to  McCain) she needs to be on the ticket.

I wouldn't believe it if I didn't read it with my own eyes. The anti-war editorial board of The Washington Post published an editorial today warning against relying on the kind of "over the horizon" strategy Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama advocate for fighting the war on Islamic terrorists.

The reviews are in after Hillary's two-part interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, and she seems to be getting better notices from the right than she does from the left. Conservatives did not smile upon Hillary's appearance on "The Factor" because they thought she hurt herself. To the contrary, they thought Hillary acquitted herself fairly well. (Though there were dissenters on the right, who aimed their fire at O'Reilly.)

But Abe Greenwald at Commentary's excellent Contentions Blog focused particular attention to Hillary's statements on "The O'Reilly Factor" about Iraq. Hillary said:

 Obama learned Tuesday that he can no longer wave his fingers, say "this is not the issue you're looking for," and move along. The Force is no longer with him. The electorate is like, well, Jabba the Hutt, laughing uproariously about how that "old Jedi mind trick" won't work on him.

The Jedi mind trick won't work because of the various contradictions in the way Obama has handled his pastor disaster.

If you are what you eat -- a dubious proposition -- then does what you eat say something about how you will vote? More important, does your choice of adult beverage have some political significance?