perfidy

You know what's funny? I'm a centrist; such a centrist that the DLC is too liberal for my tastes in many ways. And for about ten years there I was convinced that Hillary Clinton was a power-grabbing harridan with little to no redeeming value. But something has happened over the last few years as Clinton has proven herself to be a competent Senator, well-liked and hard working, and generally approved of by the denizens of New York.

I've started to think I'd vote for her for President. Sure, the idea that she might bring her Health Care Monster back to the table scares the willies out of me, but let's be honest... is there anything Clinton could do to this country, in terms of gigantic white-elephant moneysucking handouts and entitlements, that the ostensibly conservative GWB hasn't done already?

I think it's a fair bet that the Congress isn't going to swing back the Democrats' way very much in the next couple years. Barring some massive metldown I think we have entered an era of Republican rule to match the Democratic domination of the House and Senate we saw from the 60s through the early 90s. So, with a Republican congress, I would vote for Hillary Clinton ahead of any candidate the Democrats could put up, except for perhaps relative newcomers like Evan Bayh who I haven't yet had much of a chance to look at.

And I'd certainly vote for a head of wilted iceberg lettuce ahead of any of the leading Republicans.

I know that arguing ad hominem means that my sample set is 1 point big. That's not persuasive. But it does lead me to wonder whether Hilary has managed to rehabilitate her image among swing voters enough that, regardless of what "her" party thinks, she has a shot.

Moreover, can someone please explain to me what the hell it means that "The Left has taken over the Democratic party?" 'cos I don't get it. Are they Marxists? Collectivists? Tax-and-spenders? Who is this Left and why are you saying such horrible things about them?

It seems to me that the actual "Left" in America function an awful lot like the Fundamentalist Right. They inhabit both parties, sucking platforms to the extremes, but for all the formal power they enjoy they don't actually have the support of the rank and file that such a position might otherwise suggest.

Or am I crazy from the heat on all counts?

Marxist-influenced progressives and the intellectual descendents of the new left, rather than old school, anti-communist Kennedy-type democrats.

Oh them! It's amazing... their yammering is such white noise, so ubiquitous, that I totally overlook it nowadays.

Kind of like I have learned not to see homeless kids in $300 shoes begging for spare change.

I have to disagree with McQ’s analysis also - the part where he says he will watch with "interest."

I cannot imagine anything more boring than watching a bunch of old hippies argue about irrelevant crap.

J,
The ubiquity of hippy harping has left us both mostly desensitized to it, mebbe cuz we spend so much time on campuses?

Two things I note, this discussion having marinated a bit.

1) I see that my esteemed colleague Buckethead used the word "quaqmire" to describe Iraq without mockery or ironic scare quotes, a development which gives me the screaming horrors. Although I'm sure this was a quickie word signifying little, the fact that the pro-libervasion, hawkish and generally optimistic about Neocon foreing policy Buckethead pulled this word out of his butt is what I call a "sphincter moment." In that it compresses. The sphincter. The sphincter compresses.

(Anatomically speaking, there are a couple hundred sphincter muscles in the body. I'm only talking about one of them; a very important one. Does the word "shart" mean anything to you?)

2) I said in public yesterday that I at this moment would vote another Clinton into office. I expected a dogpile with me suffocating at the bottom. Instead, I'm being given a pass. What gives?

1) You can de-clench your sphincter, as I did mean it ironically.

2) My sphincter is still twitching after your Hilary comment. I will abuse you later.

Their are websites for people like you, with your tweaked and twitching sphincters.

B, well what's a guy to do? My natural sympathy is with the small and dwindling Blue Dogs, but I'm not, and nor do I plan to be, a registered Democrat.

As for the other Dems that look like they could run in ought-eight:

Joe Lieberman is okay, but I really, really, really resent his periodic lapses into demagoguery and meddling. I get the impression that his moral conservatism and nanny-state instinct is a feature of his politics, not an occasional peccadillo.

Joe Biden could have a chance with me if he hadn't had ample opportunity to prove to me his lack of worth over the last twenty years. I hear him speak; he says all the right things; then he goes back and votes for or sponsers hideous legislation and laps up all the 'credit.'

Dean? He doesn't mean half of what he says the way it comes across, and though I really dig the big man from Vermont sometimes, I think he'd be more useful on the margins, drawing the far leftists in the Dem party back toward the center and organizing their worst marxian/populist tendencies out of the picture, much like the Republicans have done with the Christian right. Of course, that's a Faustian bargain that might best not be struck.

Edwards? Colorless. Intelligent. Smarmy. Maybe that's what we want. Maybe it isn't.

Kerry? I voted for him once out of expedience, having grown tired of always casting near-meaningless protest votes. I would have voted Libertarian had Badnarik not been one of the googly-eyed crazy types that need to be kept far away from seats of power. Never again, unless it comes down to Kerry versus Frist or something equally horrible. I think my cobloggers would to a man join me in buying land in Nova Scotia if 2008 came down to that.

Now if Bill Cosby ran, he might have a shot with me. I wish I was kidding more than I am.

On the other side of things, the potential Republican candidates that have so far raised their heads above the muck are a little, uh, lackluster.

Frist. Another freaky doctor/politician. A Kerry/Frist matchup would be yet another clash of the tall midgets.

McCain. He's getting kind of old, though he still has more character than every other 2000 candidate combined.

[insert random Republican Governor here] They all suck, but especially Taft of Ohio. That guy has even committed party-line Republicans like my cousin hating him. Romney will never pass muster with Repubs outside MA, and likewise with MD's Ehrlich. And we shouldn't have a president named Ehrlich anyway.

The Governator can't be president without a constitutional amendment or a time machine.

A passel of senators might give it a whirl. But part of the problem with senators is that they are senators. Mitch McConnel might be a good choice, but I can't thik of anyone else I'd even think of voting for, except maybe Voinovich. Having a ninth president from Ohio would be cool. He'd solve the problem of wavering Ohio in the election.

Who else? It's very hard for people outside the system to mount credible campaigns - usually it almost always comes down to elected officials. Newt will never run. I can't imagine any others.

The last, and most interesting possibility is, of course, Condi Rice. She'd be interesting on more levels than I can name. Especially given the likelihood of Hilary capturing the Dem nomination.

Nominate a woman candidate? Well screw you, Jack, we've got a black woman candidate. So there!

Condi as nominee is an interesting prospect. However, I don't think she'd make a good president. Why? Because she is a classic, chronic, dork, subset "wonk".

Consider the evidence:
* prodigy at classical piano
* awkward in social situations
* academically gifted but prone to intellectual rigidity
* has difficulty forming close relationships and, I suspect, honoring the "different circles of friends don't need to mix" rule.
* that hair

Not that there's anything *wrong* with being a dork(wonk), but they're better off in advisory roles than calling the shots.

Just my two cents.

Condi is interesting. Whoever wins the Republican nomination absolutely has to choose her as a running mate. I believe it’s a rule now.

Voinovich? Voinovich has Taft to thank for the fact that Voinovich is the Second Emptiest Suit in Ohio (actually it's more like a three-way tie between Taft, Voinovich, and DeWine--put 'em in the same room and you'd get an event horizon, but it would be so boring no one would notice until it was too late).

I'd give the Blue Dogs more credit if they could make up their minds about making the tax cuts permanent.

There's an interesting dynamic coming in the next election, though. President Bush has hacked off a lot of people, and right now a Republican candidate who was a W policy clone could count only on the "inertial base", at least at the outset. Granted, any likely Dem candidate would scare a lot of wavering Republicans back into the fold, but you never know--if the Stupids nominate a gun-grabber like Giuliani to run against Hillary, I will not be casting a vote (at least not a major-party vote) for President in 2008. Nor will a lot of people I know.