As the political pundits busy themselves with rehashing the results of Super Tuesday and beyond, trying to decipher what happened and what it all means, the fact is it matters little whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama captures the remainder of the delegates up for grabs. What is important is that we are now assured that no relatively sane Democrat… Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson… will win the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

With the departure of former senator John Edwards, whose addiction to the public spotlight and whose five years of non-stop campaigning (2003-2008) was beginning to remind us of nine-time Republican candidate, Harold Stassen, the American people can now teeter uneasily on the edge of their chairs as they watch Democrats decide between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.

Will they choose Hillary Rodham Clinton… of Illinois, Arkansas, and New York… who, acting on the advice of a Tyson Foods corporate attorney turned a $1,000 margin account into $100,000 in just ten months by miraculously selling cattle futures short in a bull market? This took place while her husband served as Governor of Arkansas and represents one of the slickest back door payoffs in American political history.

Will they choose a woman who brought a former bar bouncer into the White House as Director of the Office of Personnel Security, who then proceeded to accumulate FBI raw data files on some 700-900 Republicans?

Will they choose a woman who, as a carpetbagger candidate for the U.S. Senate in New York, won the support of the Puerto Rican community because of pardons granted by her husband to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists responsible for the killing and maiming of dozens of innocent people, including police officers?

Or will they nominate Barack Hussein Obama… of Hawaii, Indonesia, and Illinois… who was stricken with presidential fever after serving two terms in the Illinois state legislature and just two months in the United States Senate?

Will they nominate an inexperienced and dangerously naïve young man who refuses to utter the words "al-Qaeda," "Islamic fundamentalism," or "Islamo-fascism" as he seeks to become the commander in chief in our war to save western civilization?

An article in the February 5 edition of Investor’s Business Daily asks, "What happens when an Islamo-fascist state gets the bomb and the White House falls into the hands of a president who thinks such enemies can be defeated with diplomacy?"

The article goes on to speculate that, "If that person is either of the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination, it could spell unprecedented danger. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem committed to the magic powers of negotiating a deal with Iran’s fanatical mullahs…"

For example, Obama’s foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice of the Brookings Institution, has said, "… the United States could dangle various incentives the Iranians might find attractive. For instance, in exchange for a full and verifiable halt to Iran’s nuclear program, as well as termination of its support for terrorism and anti-U.S. elements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States could offer to lift U.S. sanctions, normalize relations, pay some Iranian claims against the United States, promote new trade and investment flows, allow Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization, guarantee access to civilian nuclear power, or provide regional security guarantees."

Meanwhile, Clinton’s "experts," Iranian-Americans Ray Takeyh and Vali Nasr (both born in Tehran), recommend "engagement as a means of achieving a more pluralistic and responsible government in Tehran." They have suggested that "to liberalize the theocratic state, the United States would do better to… embark on a policy of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief. A reduced American threat would deprive the hard-liners of the conflict they need to justify their concentration of power."

So what happens if the Iranians responded to a President Clinton or a President Obama with, "Okay, but only if the U.S. will also agree to cease and desist in the defense of Israel, pull all troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, end the NSA program of monitoring international telephone calls of Muslims with al Qaeda ties, and cease tracking the worldwide financial transactions of people of Arabic and Persian descent."

In other words, Democrats would have us believe that, if we would only surrender unilaterally to Ahmadinejad, as he continues to enrich uranium, he might just conclude that he’s won and leave us alone… while he proceeds with plans to blow Israel off the map.

This is the kind of "expert" advice that Clinton and Obama are receiving. With either of them in the White House, U.S. foreign policy would likely boil down to either "dangling incentives" or engaging in "unconditional dialogue." Either way, the response to Iran would likely be, "Okay, where do we sign? And, oh, by the way! Would you please give us a few days to get our people out of Israel before you push all those troublesome Jews into the sea?"

The Israelis should be very, very nervous about the outcome of the U.S. elections. In the meantime, they’d be wise to start acquiring some very large boats. They might also begin reminding American Jews, most of whom are supporting either Clinton or Obama, of what is at stake.