It won't happen. They weren't at risk of sacrificing their entire existence by using suicide bombers in the Iran-Iraq War, AND they were in an actual war where they were trying to defend themselves (and I suppose viewed that as a legitimate military tactic). Again, you are irresponsibly conflating issues and fearmongering. Deterrance works with Iran and it will continue to work.
If WE attack Iran, for sure, you will see Iranian suicide bombers used against the US military (and probably abroad as well), but you will NOT see the entire country commit suicide by nuking Israel or the US.
This is a weak straw man argument. Al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11, not Iran. The thing about mutal assured destruction (or any military deterrant really - MAD is just the most powerful one) is that it works on nation-states that have actual assets (i.e. land, people, wealth, natural resources, etc) to protect. Deterrance is working on Iran and will continue to work on Iran. Iran will not attack us or Israel under any circumstances (except self-defence), no matter how blustery their rhetoric. The problem with a group like AQ is that they have no real assets or wealth to protect, so the fundamental axiom of MAD or any deterrant (that the nation would never willingly initiate an outcome where they lose these things) is much, much weaker vis-a-vis AQ. Since deterrance can't (and obviously doesn't) work against AQ, we must be proactive in destroying the threat from AQ.
We must be very careful not to comflate these issues. Despite the fact that they speak in the same "death to America" language and pray to the same different God and have the same olive colored skin, Iran and Al Qaeda are entirely different problems for our national security that have entirely different and nearly polar opposite solutions (destroy AQ, deter Iran...).
People can vote for whomever they want. That's the beauty of our country. However, if they decide to vote for a warmongering blowhard Republican because of a petulent hissy fit over their candidate's historic collapse in the primary process, then, yes, we can blame them for it, too.
It's not just to "steal" it. It's a two step procedure - first, tear down Obama and drive up his negatives, and then steal pledged delegates. It's sickening that supposed Democrats would even suggest this strategy against the inevitable Democratic nominee.
Please spare me your faux victim complex. The number of hateful hit pieces on Obama on this site outnumbers the number on Clinton by 10-1 or more. Hopefully, soon, you'll go the way of the dodo (i.e. Universal), too.
There's something screwy about that. Unless the favorable & unfavorable were separate questions (allowing people to answer "yes" to both), Wilson can't be at 53F / 52U. Only in Chicago are the total votes allowed to add up to greater than the number of voters.
This is dead on the money. Bucks County is a near perfect microcosm of the political change going on in suburban Philly over the last 25 years where the Republicans and Democrats are basically slowly switching sides. The historic Democratic strongholds in the 50s - 70s were the unions. Working class, rough around the edges, God-fearing, and socially and militarily pretty conservative - the "Reagan Democrats" or whatever you want to call them. The Republicans (in the Philly suburbs anyway - the Republicans in the Pennsyltucky region are hard core conservatives...) were generally what people used to call "Rockefeller Republicans" - upper middle class, economically moderate-to-conservative, and socially liberal. Over the last couple decades, they've been switching sides as the hard core wingnuts have taken over the GOP and made every election about abortion or gays or crap like that. The more conservative Democrats have been voting and registering Republican, while the moderate Rockefeller Republicans abandoned by the wingnut wing of the GOP have been voting and registering Democrat. These are what I now call "Patrick Murphy Democrats" because they elected him, and he fits this class to a T. The primary contest in this area ia old vs new. What's left of the old working class union base in Southern Bucks that hasn't been hoodwinked into becoming Republican to save America from the gays is Hillary's base, while the newer, upper middle class former Rockefeller Republicans in the Doylestown/Buckingham/New Hope area is Obama's base.
And PMM's region between Pittsburgh & Erie is Murtha's district, and should be HEAVILY pro-Clinton in the Dem primary (although not terribly vote-rich for her). Obama will never gain a foothold there. I work in center city Philly, and I assure you Obama supporters, the situation here is the mirror image of that that she describes in far NW PA, and that's DESPITE Hillary's endorsement by a very popular former mayor who is now governor and the very popular current mayor. The only difference being that there is less love for McCain as a 2nd choice.
Enough for what? For her to continue campaigning? Or for her to make up enough ground to have a realistic chance to be the nominee? The answer to those questions are differnt. She needs like a 25% win to get back in the race for real, but as to whether she should bow out or not, win or lose, that's her decision alone. However, as it becomes more and more apparent that she is just chasing windmills, I really hope she'll consider toning down her attacks on Obama. And, in fact, we're seeing this now already with her running the 3AM ad against McCain. That's like free GE spending for Obama on Clinton's dime, and good strategy for the party as a whole. If that is how she will continue to conduct her campaign, she can take it all the way to the end of the primary season for all I care. Her running GOP-style attacks against the eventual Democratic nominee is a bad thing for the party. Her staying on the ballot to drum up interest in every state and to use her primary campaign funds to attack the GOP GE candidate is a good thing for the party.