who does john mccain want to run against in november?

here is a story i found on the drudge report today:

MCCAIN: 'HILLARY CAN STILL PULL IT OFF';
SENATOR PREFERS CLINTON CONTEST
Mon Apr 14 2008 10:46:19 ET

**Exclusive**

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has confided to his inner circle that Hillary Clinton may yet be the Democratic nominee, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, a development the senator from Arizona would personally welcome!

"Look, I know something about long odds, they had me written off last summer," McCain explained over the weekend, according to a top source.

McCain would prefer to go up against Clinton in the general election, insiders reveal.

He has instructed his campaign staff to "chill out" on countering Hillary Clinton's torrent of claims and promises as primary voting comes to an end over the next 6 weeks.

McCain made the tactical decision to downplay Clinton's tale of Bosnia sniper fire, leaving some McCain staffers frustrated and perplexed.

Instead, the critical focus has been on Barack Obama. McCain's official website features 14 press releases taking on Obama since the first of the year, only 3 for the former first lady.

Developing...

now normally i would completely disregard any drudge report exclusive story as probably being bullshit, especially since matt drudge is a conservative and probably wants john mccain to win. but, in this case, the story SEEMS like it might be true, so i’ll just post it here on this blog that nobody reads, so that after it is taken down from drudgereport.com, you can still find it here, and judge for yourself whether it is bullshit. never forget that matt druge was the one who first broke the story about monica lewinsky, and bill clinton would never have been impeached unless matt drudge (or someone else) had broken that story. and earlier in this campaign, the clinton campaign was actively courting matt drudge and regularly leaking things to him on purpose, until a new york times story revealed this to the public. as soon as matt drudge found out that this story was being published in the new york times, he went into damage control mode and started doing more attacks against hillary clinton, in order to quash the rumors that he was helping her out. more recently, matt drudge posted a picture of barack obama dressed in a traditional african costume standing next to a village chieftan in africa, and claimed this was a leak from the hillary clinton campaign to him. was hillary clinton really behind that leak to drudge, or is drudge still trying to prove he is not in cahoots with the clinton campaign? does drudge really want john mccain to win? does he even care which democrat gets the nomination? nobody knows... matt drudge is inscrutable. but what we do know is, most of his viewers are fellow conservatives who support the republican party. is he trying to send them some kind of coded message, like that they should attack barack obama more and hillary clinton less, and to ease up on things like the bosnia sniper fire story and instead concentrate on jeremiah wright, tony rezko, and the “bitter” comments that barack obama made about white working-class voters? you know, like the coded messages osama bin laden sends to his followers? matt drudge is certainly a very strange person. but that reminds me...

i am a white working-class voter. and i AM bitter. VERY bitter. barack obama was right about me, except i don’t cling to guns or religion like many other white working-class voters do. i cling to pacifist nonviolence and atheism instead. but i do think that guns and religion can comfort people. you can use a gun to defend yourself; for instance if you refuse to pay any taxes and are worried that i.r.s. agents will come get you, you can booby-trap your lawn with land mines and have a house filled with machine guns and ammo, waiting for them to come get you. or if your life just plain sucks, and you have lots of problems and are just not happy, like if you are dirt poor, if you cannot afford medical care and have some awful illness, or if you have any other sort of problem, religion can provide comfort. how does this work? easy! religion tells you exactly what you want to hear: that everything is going to be all right, that someone really nice and all-powerful is going to move mountains and do whatever is possible to help you out, and that even if your life does not turn out well at all, our brief lives are just a test, and if we are faithful, we will be rewarded with eternity in paradise, eternal life in heaven, with eternal bliss and happiness. if people really believe that, how could it possibly not be comforting? of course it is comforting! and of course having guns around can make you feel safe! what is amazing is that so many religious people are not very comforted by their beliefs, despite the fact that if they really believed what they said they believed, it makes no sense why they would ever be worried about anything involving life here on earth. if they really believed they would end up in an eternal paradise, wouldn't they be happy all the time while they are still alive here on earth? and why do religious people cry and get sad when other people die, even if they know that those other people were fellow believers and are now in heaven? shouldn’t they be happy whenever anyone they knows dies and goes to heaven, and celebrate the person’s death as a glorious ascension to eternal bliss in paradise? and shouldn’t every true believer in religion want to die as early as possible so they can get to heaven as quickly as possible? perhaps the reason they are not happy all the time is, they have to wait so long before they can die and go to heaven, and they know that they are not allowed to commit suicide since that will make them go to hell, so they are stuck waiting to die as soon as possible so they can get to heaven as soon as possible. but even this does not seem to be the case. most religious people try just as hard as nonreligious people to stay alive when they are in danger, and they seem to have just as much will to live as anyone else, which makes no sense. why prolong the unnecessary suffering of being alive when you could be spending eternity in heaven, happy forever? the only real conclusion i can draw from this is that religious people either do not really believe in the afterlife, or they are not as sure as they claim to be that they will go to heaven instead of hell. if they really believed they were “saved” and had won guaranteed tickets to heaven, they would act like it. maybe they think that if they do not do everything possible to stay alive as long as possible, they are committing suicide and thus damned to hell. who knows? i certainly don’t. earlier in this campaign, bill clinton talked about a “fairy tale”, but the only real “fairy tale” is religion. and all 3 major presidential candidates left in the race (or perhaps it is only 2 since hillary clinton can’t win, although the media portrays her as if she is still a viable candidate) are devout christians, but of the non-fundamentalist type, the type who believe in evolution instead of creationism. speaking of creationism, ben stein, famous for being ferris bueller’s teacher in the movies and being a former game show host on comedy central, has made a “documentary” about how awesome “intelligent design” is and why it should be taught alongside evolution (of course, proponents of “intelligent design” really believe in creationism, and they would ultimately prefer that students are taught that biblical creationism is correct and evolution is wrong, in every classroom in the entire world; teaching both side by side “neutrally” is just their strategy to start us moving in that direction). now some classrooms do teach biblical creationism as correct and evolution as wrong: for example, the islamic madrassas in pakistan that train little kids to one day become terrorists. of course, communists who strictly follow marxist doctrine likewise disbelieve in certain aspects of science: the communist theory known as “dialectical materialism” states that physicists are wrong about the big bang, that there never was a big bang, and that the universe has always existed. anybody who strictly follows an absolute ideology will end up contradicting science, if that ideology is broad enough. so, i consider communism to be a major world religion, although it masquerades as a political philosophy and a form of government. for those who question communism being called a religion, confucianism and buddhism are both considered religions yet people sometimes claim that neither of them makes claims about the supernatural. oftentimes, cults such as scientology and raelianism try to pretend that they are something other than a religion, when really, all they are are religions. perhaps even the church of the subgenius is a religion, and the idea that it is just one big joke and a parody of religion is a great lie to prevent people from seeing the truth about this nefarious cult. but anyway, communists deny the big bang theory and claim the universe existed forever, so they are a religion, since they deny the validity of science. there are also many other conflicts between the communist doctrines of dialectical materialism and the science of physics: dialectical materialism claims matter is infinitely divisible into smaller parts, and there are no fundamental building blocks of matter (such as subatomic particles). the soviet union and china are lucky that their nuclear scientists did not believe in communist doctrines regarding physics, because otherwise, they would never have been able to build nuclear bombs or nuclear power plants. similarly, followers of fundamentalist islam are incapable of understanding how chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons work, because they have a belief system that is diametrically opposed to modern science. in order to build weapons of mass destruction, they would have to compromise on some of their beliefs, just like all 3 presidential candidates left in the race have decided to compromise by believing in both christianity and evolution.

i guess my point is, people do cling to guns and religion, and communism is one of many religions in the world. so basically barack obama’s so-called “gaffe” is not a gaffe at all, and he was just telling the truth, so it makes sense that john mccain would prefer to run against a proven liar who flip-flopped on the war in iraq and many other issues and is willing to say anything to win, who can’t decide whether she is a big proponent of guns or thinks guns are bad. and as for john mccain, all he offers is more of the same we have gotten from george w. bush. same immigration policy, same policy towards war in iraq, same economic policy, same policy towards pretty much everything. so if you like george w. bush, you’ll love john mccain. if you don’t like george w. bush, you’ll hate john mccain, because he is even worse. if you think we are in trouble in iraq, just wait until john mccain is in charge and escalates the war even more, and has us unite with the unpopular prime minister maliki against the populist movement and guerrilla-warfare militia of muqtada al-sadr. al qaeda did not exist in iraq until after we invaded iraq and al qaeda decided our american troops were sitting ducks in iraq, easy targets to kill or permanently injure. being a prisoner of war does not mean you are a brilliant military strategist. in john mccain’s case, it has made him obsessed with the idea of winning the war in iraq, no matter what the cost, in human lives, in money, in moral standing in the world, or in anything else. that did not work in vietnam and it will not work in iraq either. being obsessed with winning no matter what the cost is a sign of desperation, a sign that you are losing... just look at the presidential campaign of hillary clinton, where she is obsessed with winning the democratic nomination no matter what the cost, the same way john mccain is obsessed with winning the war in iraq no matter what the cost. barack obama, on the other hand, has a healthy attitude about things and is able to keep things in perspective, keep his cool when under pressure, and not go nuts about anything. he has an amazing amount of calm and composure that he is able to maintain consistently. in other words, he is, in certain ways, the exact opposite of me, and i see in him plenty of good qualities that i lack. this is why john mccain probably does want to go up against hillary clinton: she is prone to saying things that get her in trouble, and unlike barack obama, she cannot seem to get rid of this trouble caused by things she says, since she is lacking in eloquence and charisma. her husband bill clinton once had great eloquence and charisma, but it seems that either he has lost his skills completely, or he is deliberately or subconsciously trying to sabotage his wife’s candidacy for office. i am sure john mccain would love to run against someone whose spouse is constantly saying things to undermine them in public. so, in the end, i must conclude that this drudge report story is probably true, although i still think matt drudge is completely untrustworthy.