Did you happen to see Sen. Elect Jim Webb on Meet the Press yesterday?

While it won't be in '08, that guy will win the White House for the Dems one day.

You're right - interesting choices. Even the Republicans after getting their butts handed to them, but the same old machine in power.

I really think all of these people live in a bubble back in Washington and spend all day telling each other how great their ideas are (there is a less polite term, but I'll spare you.)

This has always been the biggest argument to me for term limits. At least we get people who have had to struggle for a living in the real world.

Jack, Jack, Jack. I love you, big guy, but you've swallowed the GOP kool-aid on this one, and are back in line for seconds.

First of all, why does it matter what Pelosi was wearing?? When was the last time anyone in the press felt it was relevant or proper to talk about Denny Hastert's suit, Tom DeLay's (or, worse yet, Bob Ney's) hairstyle, or John Boehner's fake smile? I'm usually the last person to yell "OMG, you are teh sexist!11!!", but in this case, I think that Pelosi is drawing a lot of flack for things that nobody even pays attention to when a man is in that position.

Second, the election was LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO. They are not the majority party yet, they are not submitting legislation yet, etc. Give them a chance. Why did nobody write about the bruising battle between Boehner/Blunt and MIke Pence for House Minority Leader, a race that showed far more ideological divisions than Hoyer/Murtha?

The fact is that for the past 12 years, the national press has essentially bought the Republican narrative on all things political, and this business of writing the Dems off before they even take over is one more example of this.

I think that Pelosi is drawing a lot of flack for things that nobody even pays attention to when a man is in that position.

Yep, there's definitely a double standard in effect. Unfortunately it's going to be her job to overcome it, not the public's. Dems cannot spend the next two years playing the Hillary "you wouldn't say that if she were a man" card. That's a recipe for disaster.

Of course so is the Hannity/Dobson wet dream ticket of Allen-Santorum.

It's gonna be an interesting next two years.

Never mind the wardrobe/hairdo (though no one will top Sen. Smith of New Hampshire for Combover King). What about Alcee Hastings as chairman of the house intelligence committee? What about ethics reform? It only takes a minute to produce a train wreck.

And besides, when politicians are dressed by their image people, it's worth a mention in the press -- whether it's the blue suit/red power tie, or whatever.

I guess folks from pennsylvania and ohio aren't as enlightened as Oregonians. (roll eyes here). Maybe they should get a pedophile to dominate state politics for the next 25 years to catch up.

I don't think Dick Cheney's going to go quietly. I'm concerned the Neo-Cons are trying to pull something with Iran. I've read there are 4 of our aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, and that Cheney couldn't care less who's in control of Congress. The CIA assessment of the lack of an Iranian nuclear weapon is being countered by intelligence Cheney has developed that he won't let the CIA look at. We've seen this movie before, and this could be the worst sequel ever. Resistance in the intelligence community and the military could be stronger this time, but do you really think the Neo-Cons are just going to abandon their agenda because of Iraq or the Elections? People on out-of-control power trips react poorly to setbacks. They'd rather be wrong again than stop. Using force is an addictive drug, and I think Cheney is a power junkie who is craving another big hit.

I think Cheney is a power junkie who is craving another big hit.

I think you're right. I wrote a little about this last night. It's gonna be a helluva struggle between Cheney and Gates as to who controls the military agenda for the next two years. I'm guessing Gates will win, but it could be close. For his own sake, I hope Cheney does the smart thing and resigns before he does something truly stupid, requiring a presidential pardon.

The CIA assessment of the lack of an Iranian nuclear weapon is being countered by intelligence Cheney has developed that he won't let the CIA look at.

Just curious.....how would you know that?
I mean, as "secretive" as the neocons have been about crap, where do you find info like that?

Seymour Hersh, although there are websites like the Wayne Madsen Report that have predicted this show-down between the wounded Neo-Cons, led by Dick Cheney, and the team of 41's men led by James Baker. Rumsfeld was a casualty of that Washington War.
I could not find the transcript from yesterday - perhaps it isn't out yet - but Seymour talked on TV about an agent that Israel has provided to Cheney who paints a much worse picture of the Iranian nuclear ambitions. The CIA wants to check him out but Cheney won't let them. This is the role played by the informant known as Curveball before we went into Iraq.
By the way, one problem with legalized torture is you can get "intelligence" to back up anything you want. For example, some of the claims leading to Iraq were gotten under torture, when a person will say anything the government wants.

Pelosi needs a beer gut, sagging jowls and a bad toupee to really fit in.

"I'll likely vote for whoever they run against the Republicans..."

Jack, I'm curious. Have you ever voted for a Republican candidate? Would you vote for Satan himself if he was the Democratic candidate?

Which reminds me of a story about Sargent Shriver's short-lived run for the Presidency in 1975. After Shriver announced his candidacy for President, claiming the Kennedy "Camelot" legacy as his own, Washington Post columist Jules Witcover reportedly went to Sen. Ted Kennedy's office to ask a few questions.

Witcover asked Kennedy if he had talked with Shriver and if Kennedy had endorsed Shriver's candidacy. Kennedy said that Shriver had informed him that he was going to run, and that Kennedy wished him well.

"Well", Witcover asked, "If Benito Mussolini walked in here and told you he was going to run, would you wish him well?"

Witcover said Kennedy laughed and broke into a broad grin, replying, "If he was married to my sister!"

I'm not talking about whether the Democrats are going to try to pass good legislation over the next two years. I'm talking about the race for the White House. That's a game that's won and lost on TV, and only in those brief moments when the public is paying attention. The two weeks after the election have been just such a moment, and the Democrats have performed badly.

As for Ms. Pelosi's clothes, I have also remarked here many times about the physical attributes of male members of Congress. Her Armani suits and forced smiles are the equivalent of the squirrel on Trent Lott's head. Like it nor not, that stuff wins and loses presidential elections.

Anyone else notice that after all the "voting problems" rhetoric up until the election, that has all dissipated now? I have to wonder if all that "Ohio" crap would be in the papers & liberal websites if Dems had lost...

And I have yet to hear anyone crying about voter disenfranchisement. Did all our country's election problems just disappear because Dems won?

there are websites like the Wayne Madsen Report that have predicted this show-down between the wounded Neo-Cons, led by Dick Cheney

I am reading Madsen's book, Jaded Tasks right now. Very interesting...some of it sounds kinda on the "moonbat" side, but so far its a good read.

Her Armani suits and forced smiles are the equivalent of the squirrel on Trent Lott's head.

Man, Jack....I just sprayed Dr Pepper all over my keyboard....thanks!

An editorial in our local paper today recommended income tax reform as a bipartisan issue which seems a worthy "populist" endeavor. Reform which reinvigorates the shrinking middle class might garner significant popular support similar to the Iraq occupation for the mid-terms?? Whadayathink?

"Did all our country's election problems just disappear because Dems won?"

Not all of them but, yes, sort of. The lack of an audit trail for computerized voting systems is still outrageous and a threat to our voting rights. But when the party in control of the government and the voting process loses, who's going to complain?

Do strong, smart women scare you, Mr. BoJack?

Seems so, because you're writing hundreds of words about a small brushup over a minor job.

Lead, don't follow.

Lead.

Comment, don't snipe.

Comment.

Ms. Pelosi seems like kind of a jerk to me. Like Lott, Kerry, Cheney, Kennedy, and the many other jerk politicians I've criticized on this blog.

I don't care which gender the jerk is, I call 'em as I see 'em.

But it's interesting to me that whenever a jerk is called out for being such, if there's a PC card to be played in response, out it comes. In this case, it's gender.

Lucky for you Ms. Pelosi is a white straight woman. Otherwise you would be playing 52 card pickup with several PC decks about now.

I think Jack is quite right on the "Images That Stick In The Minds Of Those With Attention Deficit Disorder" issue.

Like TV anchors, the physical image is what cuts through for all but the policy wonks. We're talking about the 2008 Presidential election, not fairness.

That image of Pelosi and Steny Hoyer (Who can't stand each other) hugging and Nancy grinning through the pain was tough to ignore.

"Do strong, smart women scare you, Mr. BoJack?"

Strong, smart women would scare me - which is precisely why Pelosi doesn't.

Pelosi?

"Jerkyness" is an equal opportunity malady. Ms Pelosi's has left people with a first impression that she is using her office to punish and reward lawmakers for personal instead of political reasons.

Yea! A draft! Yea!

I am 100% for a draft... of all of America's tubby, yet apple-cheeked young people... in college... married... heck... even if they are God-loving Mormons with 17 chilrun... THEY ALL GET TO GO TO IRAQ to fight W'S long war.

And Mr. BoJack's going too... all able-bodied men and women up to age 50... get to go and find out that "this one's a rifle, this one's a gun, one's for fighting and one's for fun!"

A draft. Yes. Finally.

Thank you Chuck Rangel. Thank you.

Jon, the "voting problems" rhetoric has NOT subsided, at least not on the progressive blogs I frequent. There are many stories of voter disenfranchisement, and still a strong commitment ending such practices, and ensuring free and fair elections for all.

It's a testimony to how fed up people are with the current government that the Dems won so big =despite= the evidence of illegal tactics used to sway the vote against them, and trust me - the issue will not be dropped.

"I've read there are 4 of our aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, ..."

Bill -

What you may have read about 4 carriers sationed in the Gulf was, and is, bllshit.

The deployment of CVN 69, Eisenhower, to relieve CVN 65, Enterprise, was scheduled about 3 years ago. Thats how long in advance carrier deploymemts are planned. It takes a long time to integrate the operations of an air wing and a carrier for a deployment. Lots of workups.

The deployment schedule had nothing to do with Iran, nor anything to do with the 2006 mid terms. The two CVNs overlap for about 36 - 48 hours so as to transfer various supplies (primarily munitons) between the two CVs by vertreps.

Similarly, Iwo Jima (LHD 7) and Boxer (LHD 4) (neither of which are aircraft carriers, rather they are amphibius assault ships carrying copters and 8 Harrier AV8B jump jets for point defense) overlapped for about 48 hours. Same reason as for the CVNs overlap.

LHD deployments are planned years in advance, just like with the CVNs. For the 'gaitors, the long lead time is required to integrate he 1,500 member Marine force with the shp's operations.

Both Enterprise ( a true "yard queen", which has earned it the nickname "Building 65") and Iwo have been back in Norfolk for weeks.

There is far too much lying bullshit going around the web from both the supporters and the opponents of the Iraq policy. Every once in a while it helps to take off the tinfoil hats and actually check the facts.

Sad to see that you were taken in by that particular thread of loonie left lies. There are as many retard right lies out there. We all gotta' learn to look carefully at th wilder assertions by clowns on either side with axes to grind and little regard for the truth.

You apparently do not know many Mormons Daphne. First, most Mormons do not have more children than the average American family contrary to popular belief. Second, Mormons would actually be more supportive of a draft than other groups in the US. A fundamental tenant of Mormon faith is public service and support for the laws of the nation. The LDS church is currently the largest supporter of Boy Scouts and they have a service auxiliary for young women. Many active Mormon children, young men and women serve missions during their college years. In fact, there is such prevalence of Mormons in the military that they have Mormon chaplains, services on bases, and organize official “English speaking” wards in foreign countries with US military bases, Japan, Korea, and Germany. Even Baghdad has a Mormon branch.

In case anyone needed a demonstration of what comes out of the woodwork when given half a chance, The Nancy & Charlie Show has unofficially begun. New episodes are already in the can.

("Chuck" is Chuck Schumer - he's got his own show)

At least someone's happy - deliriously, if spitefully, happy. Didn't miss a beat. Shows that all politicians have a constituency - even the wackier ones.

I'll defer to your knowledge of aircraft carriers. That's why I wrote "I read", because I wasn't sure.

My fears for what the Neo-Cons might try to pull in Iran are based on following their actions till now. I admit I'm paranoid that they'll screw up again, because they have in the past. There are a lot of lies on the Internet, but there have been no shortage coming from the Bush White House either.
I wonder if you think Iran will happen or not?

Mormons can have, like, 17 wives and only 6 kids.

Got it. Thanks.

"Pelosi?"

I'm not wild about her, either. But do I miss Dennis Hastert? Am I sorry he's not still one heartbeat and one V-Tach away from the presidency? Not so much.

Nobody ever accused Speakers Hastert, Foley, or Tip O'Neil of having too many facelifts. I'm not sure about Trent Lott.

A leadership post in Congress typically requires strong communication skills, love thy party diplomacy, and no small amount of ambition. Looking pretty/handsome was rarely a defining characteristic for the men who achieved Congressional Leadership (though there are a few exceptions, we can probably disagree who they are).

The problem with Speaker Pelosi (to this recovering Democrat) is there seems to be an emphasis on style over substance. It's much easier to take pot shots at the President than to offer a competing plan of action. The jury is still out. If she fails, it won't be due to her gender or her clothing.

Jack, I'm disappointed that you focus on Pelosi's and Hilary's pantsuits. I know you're probably trying to prove a point, but it still is pretty inappropriate for a bright guy like yourself to focus on the pantsuits women with some modicum of power wear.
And I don't think Rangel's draft idea is really serious or that off-base, even if it were serious. Like you, he's trying to prove a point and draw some attention to an issue. That issue being: If congress or the public vote to send kids into harm's way, think about your kid being over there. Wasn't too long ago that over 75% of congressmen were vets. Now we're looking at 18-20 and falling. Nearly all have no kids in the service, either.
I think Demo's have good options for Prez. I think Hilary's a tough, fair-minded, bipartisan senator who has proven ability to lure funds to the demo cause. I think there are others, too. And I think Nancy Pelosi is far more sensible than you give her credit for.
We've got work to do, but I think Demos can get it done. If they stay practical, that is. And, uh, wear better pantsuits, I guess.

What is worse, an expensive ladies pantsuit or this from our afraid-of-his-own-shadow leader who finally made it to Vietnam, about 30 years AFTER we needed him there.

Check out Bush's pjs here:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20061120-1123-apec-attire.html

What is that Manfred Mann song?

"Blinded by the... pjs"?

Bill --

Will Iran "happen"?

If you mean do I think the US will attack Iran by air or gound in the next two years to prevent Iran fron perfecting a nuclear device or a nuclear weapon (they are not the same thing) my answer is a resounding "No".

Three big reasons.

First, the US does not have the air assets to seriously injure the Iranian nuclear pogram. To do so would take 6 months of repeated daily strikes with conventional weapons, no matter how "smart" those weapons are. There is no way the US can keep up an attack for that duration, and there is no place from which the US can launch such attacks for 6 months. Qutar won't play, nor will Kuwait or Saudi.

Second, the US has 150,000 troops as "hostages" in Iraq, on Iran's western border. A US attack on Iran would result in major asymetrical attacks by the Iranians and their colleagues on the US "hostages". Those attacks would render any US air bases in Iraq for attacks on Iran useless.

Third, the Iranians would at least temporarily close Hormuz. In one sense that is cutting their own throats because Hormuz is the choke point for Iranian oil as well as that from Saudi at Ras Tanura; from Kuwait, from the UAE, tc. But closing Hormuz for any more than two weeks will result in a worldwide oil shock and an economic meltdown that wuold render moot any US attacks on Iran. The US Navy could reopen Hormuz, but doing so would require the use of assets that would be needed to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Can't do both, better to not have to do either.

If the Iranians do foolishly perfect and deliver a nuclear weapon, of course, all bets are off. Iran gets slagged. The Suni Saudis (Wahabbies though they may be) , are more terrified of the Persian Shiite Iranians than they are of Israel, and would quietly cheer the slagging of an Iran which made first use of a nuclear weapon.

What scares me is that the Iranian theocracy and Ahamenadjhad are quite capable of first use.

We apparently do agree that both the right and the left lie constantly to promote their agendas.

I'm disappointed that you focus on Pelosi's and Hilary's pantsuits....
I think Demo's have good options for Prez. I think Hilary's a tough, fair-minded, bipartisan senator who has proven ability to lure funds to the demo cause. I think there are others, too. And I think Nancy Pelosi is far more sensible than you give her credit for.

People like you are why George Bush is President.

As for Ms. Pelosi's clothes, I have also remarked here many times about the physical attributes of male members of Congress. Her Armani suits and forced smiles are the equivalent of the squirrel on Trent Lott's head. Like it nor not, that stuff wins and loses presidential elections.

Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick! Nancy Pelosi is running for President?!

Jack, if you're going to break news, you're supposed to put "Breaking!" in the headline...

OK, deep breath... recovering...

Hey, you might check out Senator Evan Bayh for president. He's a two-term former Governor of Indiana, and in his second term as a Senator from Indiana. Actually did some good there as governor, and is now on the Armed Services committee. Smart guy.

(Full disclosure: I did some training for his interns this summer in Indianapolis, but he's not a client.)

What is that Manfred Mann song?

Readers of this blog know the song to which you refer is not a Manfred Mann song.

E said -

"I think Hilary's a tough, fair-minded, bipartisan senator"

Sorry, E - all the terms used after the words Hillary's a, are oxymoronic to the words Hillary's a.

Yes, Hillary's a ... several things, but none of the ones you mentioned (except senator - unfortunately she still is a senator).

And Mr. BoJack's going too... all able-bodied men and women up to age 50...

Alas, I'd miss the cut. But I'd love to go, just to, as Arlo Guthrie once put it, get "blood and guts and veins in my teeth, eat dead, burnt bodies, kill, kill...."

Have you ever voted for a Republican candidate?

I voted for Gordon Smith last time against the laughable Bradbury campaign. I doubt that I would do it again, but hey, it depends.

Oh, and I think I voted for Saint Hatfield and Tongue Packwood once or twice.

"We've got work to do, but I think Demos can get it done. If they stay practical, that is. And, uh, wear better pantsuits, I guess"

In order to "stay practical", they'd have to have been practical. The juxtaposition of the term "practical" and (this crop of) democrats is oxymoronic.

Also,

There are no such things as "better pantsuits".

Even though Charlie would like to draft women, I'd be the first to offer a deferment to someone who belongs on the "Group W" bench.

Are you sure that wasn't Manfred Mann, Jack?

Hillary Clinton is a very focused natural leader. Many insiders credit her energy and ambition to the fact that her lazy sack of shit husband rose out of the relative obscurity of Arkansas politics to the Whitehouse. She has spent her entire adult life in politics, and she is very savy in the national political arena. Counting her out as a viable candidate for president in 2008 is unwise. On a personal level, I think many people respond to her strength and integrity. The people who attack her tend to do it on a more visceral level rather than her record, mainly based on the fact that they don't care for her husband. John Edwards is a good guy, (sort of like a Harry Truman or Jimmy Carter) but he is a political lightweight when you consider his limited political experience, and I think he lacks the star power to overcome the fact that he's just another well intentioned guy with lots of good ideas. Gore is a second fiddle to Hillary because, although people respect him, he comes off as being too smart for the average person to relate to. People relate to a woman who had her husband cheat on her in front of the entire planet, and then came out of the whole fiasco as an intact strong person. She had an identity separate from her husband, and was a person who you genuinely respected for the way she dealt with a painful family crisis on display to the entire world as opposed to turning into a helpless victim. You can never forget the fact that at least half of the people who vote for president in 2008 will be women, and I don't know what the polls show yet but my instinct tells me that they like Hillary. I like Hillary because she has more balls than 99.99% of the men I know. My call is Hillary on the main ticket with Barak Obama as a running mate. This isn't the old days of Geraldine Ferraro beoming a non-factor overnight politically because she dared to cry on camera. This isn't the old days of Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition circus. Women and minorities together make up a huge majority of the potential electorate and they aren't happy. White male dominance over the political and economic infrastructure of this country has an inevitable terminus, sort of like apartheid in South Africa. Eight years of George W. Bush, the epitome of the arrogant white male jack ass, may just be enough to piss people off enough for us to see our first female president, with a black v.p., if you can handle that. Maybe, if we're lucky, she'll wear her favorite pantsuit to the inauguration.

The people who attack her tend to do it on a more visceral level rather than her record, mainly based on the fact that they don't care for her husband.

One of the things I liked least about Bill was his crooked friends, of which there were many. Several of them were Hillary's partners in the Rose law firm, a real den of iniquity when Bill was governor. When they brought Web Hubbell in to be no. 2 in the Justice Department, and then he was indicted on stealing six figures from firm clients to support his wife's Nordstrom jones, that was the end of the Clintons for me. Then Hillary's miraculous killing in the stock market, Johnny Wong or whatever his name was, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," Stephanopoulos cashing in as he left the White House -- no, no, a thousand times no. Bill and Hill were crooks. Both of them, she probably more so.

Then the carpetbag move to New York, like she's Bobby Kennedy or something. The Yankee hat. All the phoniness, over and over. You can run it, but it won't win.

My call is Hillary on the main ticket with Barak Obama as a running mate.

Without even knowing the opposition, I can assure you that that ticket, as wonderful as it might be in the abstract, will lose 55 to 45. Unlike you, I don't want to prove anything. I want to win.

Are you sure that wasn't Manfred Mann, Jack?

Crediting "Blinded by the Light" to Manfred Mann is like crediting "Tutti Frutti" to Pat Boone.

Then the carpetbag move to New York, like she's Bobby Kennedy or something.

Are you suggesting, Jack, that Bobby Kennedy wasn't an opportunistic carpetbagger just like Hillary Clinton?

Thanks for your studied take Kevin, here is another opinion.

Hillary is power hungry and power mad. She is ruthless and will do ANYTHING to achieve what she wants. The ONLY reason she didn't leave Bill after his national disgrace was because she calculated that staying with him would help keep her closer to power and help her when she made her calculated move to seek the white house. If you look behind her moves you see that everything she does is because it helps her, if it doesn't help her political career in some way, she won't do it.

Not that what she does and is doing is anything different than the men, but recognize it for what it is - cold, calculated politics.

As for your "dream ticket" of Hillary and Obama - what makes you think that Obama is ready to take the number two spot, I don't think he is. Add to that, the fact that many people view Obama (and Hillary to a lesser extent) to have very socialist leanings ("redistribute wealth"), which plays to the socialists but doesn't play with many folks.

Face it Kevin, Hillary is just a power mad witch.

"People like (me) are the reason why George Bush is president."

Jack, fraid not. A couple of your fellow Stanford Law alums on the SCOTUS are the reason GWB is in there.

Or have you forgotten?

Don't give me that b.s. No need.

Crediting "Blinded by the Light" to Manfred Mann is like crediting "Tutti Frutti" to Pat Boone.

Thanks, Jack. Now who's gonna clean the Diet Pepsi off my screen?

A couple of your fellow Stanford Law alums on the SCOTUS are the reason GWB is in there.

More drivel proving my point. The Court didn't put him there the second time -- a myopic Democratic party that couldn't do better than John Kerry did. Have fun with Hillary and Osama Baraka -- 55 to 45.

Jack, I want the Dems to win in '08 for sure. Yes, I agree that the sleaze factor with Hillary's days in Little Rock is quite high, and AAA is correct that she opens herself up to being called a power mad witch. The Whitewater investigation ran on for several years and cost several million dollars, and Hillary & Bill came out of it without a scratch...possibly due to some creative shredding on Hillary's part. The presidency usually goes to those who have the ruthless ambition and cunning political acumen behind them. When it comes to political races, especially the presidency, nice guys & girls usually do finish last. George W. Bush is a total puke and he won in spite of this reality because lots of people perceived him to be a god fearing good Christian man, etc. I think the public PERCEIVES Hillary in a favorable light in spite of her shady past. I also think it's too early to tell if the Clinton/Obama ticket would get blown out 55/45, and I haven't seen any poll results along these line. I'm more worried about the Electoral College with this ticket than the popular vote due to the weakness of the ticket in the red states. Again, I like Edwards but I'm not sure that he has the dirty politics mentality that it seems to take to win the presidency in this country. Ditto to Al Gore and Howard Dean. You also have to consider that the Repubs don't have anyone very tantalizing to offer on their side of the equation. Just talking about my opinion of reality here not what I think would happen in a perfect world.

I think it's high time we opt for someone without "Bush" or "Clinton" as their last name.

Wishful thinking, I know…

I agree, Chris.

Hmmm... President Obama.

And the biggest laugh is when people say he can't be President because he has no foreign policy experience.

W surrounded himself with foreign policy GENIUSES (like Dr. Kenneth "Cakewalk" Adelman) and the USA will be stuck in the sand of Iraq until at least 2020, according to the retired four-star general who just moved to Portland (of all places) after several tours of duty in Iraq.

Why until 2020 and beyond?

The USA is currently building a $500,000,000+ fortified embassy in Baghdad, the single biggest building in the entire country, a compound, really, covering several city blocks. The Embassy will have its own power, gas and fuel supplies, and can survive multiple terrorist attacks at once because of the way it's built and defended.

But what does a four-star general with three tours of duty in Iraq know that Santa Monica Community College dropout Sean Hannity (who couldn't find Iraq on a map) know?

"President Obama", try it on!

Are you sure that wasn't Manfred Mann, Jack?

...referring in jest to your citation of Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant.

Although Blinded by the Light didn't really go anywhere for the Boss in '73.

"People like you are why George Bush is President."

-Jack Bogdanski, November 20, 2005

"One thing I've tried really hard to do as I get older is to stop directing the anger at the wrong objects, and to try to understand the real causes. I don't always succeed in putting my finger on them, but at least I figure out pretty quickly that most of the immediate triggers of the recurring storm of negative feelings aren't really the causes."

-Jack Bogdanski, November 5, 2004.

George Bush got into the presidency because of Sandra Day O'Connor (and fellow Cardinal Law alums Tony K. and Billy R.--Huzzah, Justices, all) GWB stayed there because Kerry is a stentorian windbag who didn't come out hard armed for bear at the very whiff of what the Swift Boaters were up to. Kerry had a war record but a tin ear for politics. That's ONE reason why GWB is still around. Not so sure Edwards would've fared any better.

Also, just plain lotsa folks voted Republican in '04. They didn't get it until '06 midterms because they needed to see a few more Iraq body bags, a few more mangled streets scenes from Baghdad, a little more of the Tom DeLay/Abramoff debacle, a few more "macacas," and a few more "brownie's doin a heckuva jobs" before it sunk in. Americans, God love em, gotta see it to believe it.

I'll move off this thread now, but Jack, even though I like it that you shoot from the hip, you sometimes hit yourself square in the nu*s.

People who think Hillary Clinton can win a presidential election are the same people who thought Al Gore and John Kerry were going to be winners. Those nuts have long been shot off.

Go ahead, nominate a jerk ticket and enjoy four years of President Giuliani. Maybe you'll come back and quote me again?

Osama Baraka will not be on anyone's ticket in 2008. The only real thing he would bring to a campaign is the race card, and the dems don't need to pick up any black votes. If Hillary is the nominee (and she will be), her VP will be Bill Richardson, who has about 10 times more real political experience than Osama Baraka and nails the all-important Hispanic vote.

As for the repubs, would Jack vote for Rudy Giuliani? I'm guessing he is the nominee.

Okay, I can't resist one more.

"Hillary is power hungry and power mad. She is ruthless and will do ANYTHING to achieve what she wants. "

Duh, that's what it takes to be president, not the audacity of hope. If you guys count viciousness as a liability, you might as well sign John "The Swift Boaters are Beneath Me" Kerry on for '08. Say what you want, but Bill Clinton won, over and over, and big. He was a damn fine president, and you all know it.

Hilary's got sharp elbows, like the kind of forwards the Blazers need. Jack, you're a hypocrite if you you can poo-poo the whole Democrat thing about proving they're right, rather than win, and then turn around and say "eew eew eew, the Clintons kept such AWFUL company." Suck it up. Hilary can win.

I don't care what the hell Web Hubbell did--Ken Starr's little adventure sniffing around the Clintons on our dime went NOWHERE. I don't care what George Stephanopolous took away. There's no comparison with what Cheneyrumsfeldbushhalliburtonkellogbrown&root & Co. have sheistered all of us out of.