TomatoPie wrote:I've long felt that the USA is the sole adult on the playground. We do have a duty to protect the innocent from the bullies.

QUIET YOU FOOL, WE ARE THE BULLIES!

Disco Stu wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:I've long felt that the USA is the sole adult on the playground. We do have a duty to protect the innocent from the bullies.

QUIET YOU FOOL, WE ARE THE BULLIES!

Whether or not we "are" the bullies, we're certainly perceived that way. This is a case where perception isn't just more important than reality; it is reality. The arrogance of the Royal Families doesn't let them see this.

TP, you're probably going to like the Hillary presidency a lot more than I will.

And, Stu, I've started to refer to Romney solely as "Mittler." A guy with a great sense of humor like him--that dog diarrhea gag! Classic!--surely would get some good yuks out of my little pun conflating him with the embodiment of evil in history.

dajafi wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:I've long felt that the USA is the sole adult on the playground. We do have a duty to protect the innocent from the bullies.

QUIET YOU FOOL, WE ARE THE BULLIES!

Whether or not we "are" the bullies, we're certainly perceived that way. This is a case where perception isn't just more important than reality; it is reality. The arrogance of the Royal Families doesn't let them see this.

TP, you're probably going to like the Hillary presidency a lot more than I will.

And, Stu, I've started to refer to Romney solely as "Mittler." A guy with a great sense of humor like him--that dog diarrhea gag! Classic!--surely would get some good yuks out of my little pun conflating him with the embodiment of evil in history.

Hillary won't be President, Algore will. And he will actually be pretty good at the foreign affairs stuff, he will keep his fly zipped. I hope he stays true to his wonderful defense of NAFTA as he did in debating with Ross Perot on the Larry King show. The whole global warming thing will be long forgotten by the time he's out of office; my hope is that he ends the ehthanol boondoggle for something less harmful to the poor. He'll have 2 years to do damage to the economy before the voters return the GOP to congress; then we can have wonderful Clintonian stalemate.

I do predict we'll get thru his 4 years, maybe 8, without any credible threats of impeachment.

No shot Gore runs. Or, I reluctantly conclude, Bloomberg. I'd be very happy with either of them.

It will be Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation versus Mittler. Hillary will win with 51 percent of the vote (and a bit more comfortably in the electoral college), killing any chance for the Republican Reformation this country needs worse than almost anything; she'll lose the House next year--because Democratic freshman Reps in places like Indiana will be swamped trying to run away from the top of their ticket--and the Republicans will take everything else back in 2012.

At which point I'll probably become BSG's Canadian correspondent, or join Wizlah in Ireland, depending on my wife's preference of places where she "also" has citizenship...

We badly need to reboot our politics. But it won't happen until the two Royal Families go away, and I can't see how we can make them.

dajafi wrote:We badly need to reboot our politics. But it won't happen until the two Royal Families go away, and I can't see how we can make them.

One unreasonable man has tried repeatedly, but was virtually ignored by the media and demonized later.

dajafi wrote:
At which point I'll probably become BSG's Canadian correspondent, or join Wizlah in Ireland, depending on my wife's preference of places where she "also" has citizenship...

Alec Baldwin?

TheDude24 wrote:

dajafi wrote:We badly need to reboot our politics. But it won't happen until the two Royal Families go away, and I can't see how we can make them.

One unreasonable man has tried repeatedly, but was virtually ignored by the media and demonized later.

I was there that night (at MSG), and I voted for Raging Ralph in 2000. Didn't work out so well, as you might have heard.

This was a big part of why I was so into Bloomberg. Not that I thought he had much of a chance to win, but by virtue of his money and his business success the political culture would have had to take him seriously, and his appetite for big ideas and insistence on energetic management might have helped change the conversation.

The job of the presidency is essentially vision and management. Hillary might be okay on the management side; the Democrats as a rule tend to value competence in addition to cronyism and ideological compatibility (the only two criteria the right seems to care about anymore). But her vision-- essentially a better-managed "more of same" in terms of the Steroidal executive, might-makes-right foreign policy, and corporate rights and prerogatives trumping economic equity, social justice, and our Constitutionally enumerated liberties--is just dismal to me.

dajafi wrote:The job of the presidency is essentially vision and management. Hillary might be okay on the management side; the Democrats as a rule tend to value competence in addition to cronyism and ideological compatibility (the only two criteria the right seems to care about anymore).

There's plenty to criticize about the GOP, but how can you say with a straight face that the Dems value competence, after all the nincompoops in the Clinton admin?

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:The job of the presidency is essentially vision and management. Hillary might be okay on the management side; the Democrats as a rule tend to value competence in addition to cronyism and ideological compatibility (the only two criteria the right seems to care about anymore).

There's plenty to criticize about the GOP, but how can you say with a straight face that the Dems value competence, after all the nincompoops in the Clinton admin?

Do you really want to have this argument?

I mean, I can do it. I won't enjoy it--I don't like the Clintons--but I can do it. But we're not going to convince each other, or probably anyone else, and I suspect that those you see as "nincompoops," I would be able to defend. Sandy Berger? Mike Espy? Albright? Richardson? They all might have made the occasional dumb move, but they all at least understood their agencies, they weren't corrupt, and none of them offered the epic incompetence of the Loyal Bushies. Janet Reno was probably the closest in some ways, and she looks like a titan of jurisprudence, Bobby Kennedy crossed with Clarence Darrow, in comparison with Gonzo.

I doubt you could do much to defend Brownie, Rummy, the S.S. Condoleezza, Miers, et al ad nauseum. And, for the sake of your credibility, I doubt you'd really want to; these are, after all, the people whose jobs required them to do things like mention Bush's wonderful leadership three times on every page of a speech.

I hope that if a Republican does win next year, they'll place a higher premium on competence than GWB did. His dad had people who generally were okay at their jobs. With a few more exceptions, so did Reagan. I just worry that the Rove-ized Republicans have permanently forsaken ability for loyalty.

TomatoPie wrote:The whole global warming thing will be long forgotten by the time he's out of office;

OOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!


I want to believe you are just the extreme. Please, oh false diety that may or may not exist, tell me this is true. Please tell me that not all have their heads in the sand like this. PLEASE!

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:The job of the presidency is essentially vision and management. Hillary might be okay on the management side; the Democrats as a rule tend to value competence in addition to cronyism and ideological compatibility (the only two criteria the right seems to care about anymore).

There's plenty to criticize about the GOP, but how can you say with a straight face that the Dems value competence, after all the nincompoops in the Clinton admin?

Do you really want to have this argument?

I mean, I can do it. I won't enjoy it--I don't like the Clintons--but I can do it. But we're not going to convince each other, or probably anyone else, and I suspect that those you see as "nincompoops," I would be able to defend. Sandy Berger? Mike Espy? Albright? Richardson? They all might have made the occasional dumb move, but they all at least understood their agencies, they weren't corrupt, and none of them offered the epic incompetence of the Loyal Bushies. Janet Reno was probably the closest in some ways, and she looks like a titan of jurisprudence, Bobby Kennedy crossed with Clarence Darrow, in comparison with Gonzo.

I doubt you could do much to defend Brownie, Rummy, the S.S. Condoleezza, Miers, et al ad nauseum. And, for the sake of your credibility, I doubt you'd really want to; these are, after all, the people whose jobs required them to do things like mention Bush's wonderful leadership three times on every page of a speech.

I hope that if a Republican does win next year, they'll place a higher premium on competence than GWB did. His dad had people who generally were okay at their jobs. With a few more exceptions, so did Reagan. I just worry that the Rove-ized Republicans have permanently forsaken ability for loyalty.

As I said, plenty to criticize about the GOP. I'm not here to defend them, just to dispute your claim that the Dems give even the weakest nod to competence above cronyism.

Look at this list of clowns under Clinton:

Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher
Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown
Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna E. Shalala
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry G. Cisneros
Secretary of Transportation Federico F. Pena

Here's a more realistic view: Official Dem party planks mirror many of your own views; official GOP planks mirror many of mine. In embracing the POV, we wish to think highly of the folks we elect to carry them out. Sadly, there is very low correlation of intergrity and conviction between the government officials and the views we hold so nobly.

Admittedly, I'd rather eat my own foot than defend the competence of Warren Christopher. I detest that guy.

Meanwhile, as much as I don't want her to win, it's brilliant political tactics like this one that leads me to conclude she will.

Few political fundraising e-mails have ever carried the subject header “cleavage,” but White House hopeful Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign sent a solicitation to supporters Friday with the attention-grabbing header in order to decry a recent Washington Post article devoted to the New York Democrat’s chest — and raise campaign cash in the process.

“Frankly, focusing on women’s bodies instead of their ideas is insulting,” Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Clinton, wrote in the e-mail. “It’s insulting to every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting. It’s insulting to our daughters — and our sons — who are constantly pressured by the media to grow up too fast.”

“Take a stand against this kind of coarseness and pettiness in American culture,” Lewis adds, with a link to make a contribution to the campaign. “And take a stand for Hillary, the most experienced, most qualified candidate running for president.”

Brilliant actually might not be strong enough here. One of Sen. Clinton's enduring problems is that she actually does much better among working-class and less educated women than those more like Hillary, academic high achiever and extremely accomplished professional, herself.

In other words, "every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting." She's found a potential point of common ground with every professional woman who's been objectified and gotten pissed off about it (i.e., all of them).

These people really do play the game of politics at a much higher level. I'm rooting against them, but you can't help but admire the strategery.

When I look at this guy's second wife, I realize he has no shot whatsoever at being President.

Phan Paul wrote:When I look at this guy's second wife, I realize he has no shot whatsoever at being President.

See, I think the other way around. That is his ONLY shot...

Phan Paul wrote:When I look at this guy's second wife, I realize he has no shot whatsoever at being President.

Imagine the foreign policy crises that would crop up as a result of other heads of state trying to hide their boners at official state functions.

You're not going to have to worry about it. "TV's Fred" won't get far. This guy's closet is a walk-in, and I promise you his opponents know its contents well.

dajafi wrote:You're not going to have to worry about it. "TV's Fred" won't get far. This guy's closet is a walk-in, and I promise you his opponents know its contents well.

I dunno about that, but like Obama, he is a false hope. Folks project all kinds of virtue upon him because the other candidates are so unsatisfying.

It's still early, but it looks like Mitt or Rudy for the GOP, either of which will lose to Algore. The major suspense is who will be the VP candidates? A name, like Richardson, or someone that most folks yet don't know?

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:You're not going to have to worry about it. "TV's Fred" won't get far. This guy's closet is a walk-in, and I promise you his opponents know its contents well.

I dunno about that, but like Obama, he is a false hope. Folks project all kinds of virtue upon him because the other candidates are so unsatisfying.

It's still early, but it looks like Mitt or Rudy for the GOP, either of which will lose to Algore. The major suspense is who will be the VP candidates? A name, like Richardson, or someone that most folks yet don't know?

Seriously, TP, why are you so sure that, one, Gore will run, and two, that he'd win?

Polling shows that something like 80-85 percent of Democrats are satisfied with their primary nominee choices. There simply isn't a void within the party for him to fill, and he's too identified as a Democrat (and too loyal to the brand) to run as an independent.

I see a scenario by which he could be "drafted," but it seems like an extreme longshot at this point: Hillary wins the nomination in February but somehow self-destructs by August, and neither Obama nor Edwards nor Richardson are strong enough to take it for themselves. That's a great plot for a political novel, but almost impossible to imagine in real life.

Beyond that, Gore's agenda and the campaign he'd run, while inspiring to some of us, wouldn't play well with the public. He would be asking for sacrifice on a level unimaginable in our current fat and happy (or fat and unhappy, as now) politics. Six dollars a gallon for gas? A surcharge every time you fire up the A/C? As a people, we're far too selfish for that.

A little more on Mr. Gore:

On Friday, daughter Kristin Gore told ABCNews.com, "He's really not going to get in the race. He's really liberated working on things he cares about." With each day that passes, more Democrats, and Democratic donors, commit to a candidate who is already in the field...

It also looks like Gore could not just walk into the race and expect to coast to victory. The three most recent national Democratic polls to include him have him a distant third behind Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the latest CNN/WMUR poll in New Hampshire has him tied for fourth with John Edwards at 8%, behind Clinton (33%), Obama (25%), and Bill Richardson (10%). A CNN poll has Gore fourth in Iowa, a Quinnipiac poll fourth in Florida.

These numbers have less to do with any slide in Gore's popularity among Democrats than with Democrats' increasing suspicion that Gore will not run. And why would he? Right now, he sees only crowds that adore him. He is surrounded by young Hollywood stars who call him "The Goracle" and treat him like an idol. Why would he give all this up for a third presidential run -- one he would be unlikely to win?

It's still early; look at the results of past primaries, and poll numbers taken this early; compare to final results. Not much wire-to-wire leaders.

The parallels to Nixon are so strong here: Loyal VP to a popular peacetime president for 8 years, followed by defeat in a presidential election widely regarded as stolen; gracefully bow out for the good of the nation; go underground, but remain a party loyalist; four years later, give your full support to the party's nominee (who loses); four years after that, you are seen as the foundation of your party whose time has come.

Gore HAS been campaigning, and getting lots more mileage out of his Global Hothouse scare than he'd ever get by butting heads with Hillary and Obama. He's staying above the fray, letting the others absorb the body blows.

Naturally, when he declares, he won't run on a plank of $6 gas, anymore than Mitt would run on a right-to-life platform. He will, like every sensible candidate, simply try to appear both moderate and presidential. And he can do that better than any of the Dems now running.

Bush hate is not going to fade soon, and the best slap you can take at Bush is to elect the guy that beat him in 2000.