Your jedi mind tricks have no influence here, American Hawk.

American Hawk,

It doesn't matter who the Dems put up, or who the Republicans put up.

The Republicans, who love the Iraq war even as the American people hate it with a passion, are going to be trounced.

Ah, Kevin.

People are tired of Whitewater and Monica-Gate, Kevin. Everyone but the zany liberals. The liberals will nominate Hillary, the woman who wants equal rights for children, full scale abortion on demand, universal healthcare, and the woman who voted for the Iraq war before she was against it.

She will get obliterated by Rudy whose a true American.

That guy's no jedi, he's small bird who eats rodents when he can and carrion when times are tough.

Edwards still leads in IA and as we know he who wins IA gets a big leg up.

American Hawk,

Did the first Tuesday in November 2006 make any impression on you?

I didn't think so.

How does suffering an attack make one a hero?

The rural red states will vote for a woman or a black man before they vote for an Italian New Yorker who is pro-gun control.

yep hawk, you guys lost a "few" seats. prepare to lose a few more in 08. oh and please, please, please nominate rudy. he'd be such a swell candidate for the democrats.

And there wasn't a fucking thing routine about the midterms, except the date they were held.

As much as I hate to deign to converse with AH - it really is better overall if he is ignored - I can't let his last statement go by unnoticed.

"The party that holds the white house (sic) always loses some seats in congress (sic) in the sixth year."

1998, with a Democratic White House, how many House members did we lose again? Oh, wait a second, we actually gained 6.

Anyway, go Barack!

Kevin,
Apart from the fact that it's the standard MSM narrative, why exactly do you believe Hillary Clinton is so much more "ambitious" than the rest of the field (bar Giuliani)? What makes her more ambitious than McCain? Edwards? Obama? Gingrich? And so on? I'd like to know.
Is it that she's a woman and her ambition is therefore unseemly? Or is it perhaps that you've been listening a tad too much to the burblings of Al and Americanhawk?

If you can't win an election, dismiss it. "Aw, that one doesn't count. We lost both houses of Congress, but not the White House!"

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Again, sorry to stoop to the level of debating trolls, but I also can't let AH's first comment by.

The "hero of 9/11?"

I wonder how many lives would have been saved had our hero had the foresight to put the emergency center somewhere other than the building that had already been a victim of a terrorist attack.

At this stage of the game, it's all about fundraising. If your numbers look good, the cash flows in. However, the

As for Rudy, too bad he's viewed as the "Hero of 9/11" because he was stupid enough to put his city's Emergency Response Center in the same site as a previous terrorist attack rather than somewhere slightly lower profile and more secure. Wow, he was forced to abandon his multi-million dollar boondoggle and walk somewhere - this makes him a hero? Rudy's flaws are too many and too obvious to let him go the distance.

Hillary's another question. She'll be swiftboated, but she's already been swiftboated - and so will all the Democratic candidates. The Republicans have nothing but slime and complete control of the media to spread that slime - so it'll all come down to whether the bury-them-in-bovine-derived-organic-fertilizer tactic will scare away enough voters so that judicious ballot rigging in key spots can bring off another Republican win.

I know nobody - and I mean NOBODY - republican, democrat, or independent - who supports Hillary. OTOH, I know many, many democrats AND republicans (like my grandma, who is a 3rd generation all republican voter) who are smitten with Obama. I don't believe that Hillary will get the nomination; I hear literally nothing positive about from any of my friends and neighbors; rather, so much vilification verging on disgust or loathing. (I'm in the pacific northwest...)

I just don't believe it; it rings absolutely false with everything that I see and hear in my everyday life.

So we are to lionize Rudy for his skill in capitalizing on a national tragedy into a speaking tour? Just so we are clear on the rules.

Question: You think anyone will remember he floated the notion of delaying the municipal elections to stay in power and capitalize some more?

Answer: Fuck yes, because the blogosphere won't let them forget.

I am so sick of the misplaced, war-driven priorities of this administration that even morsels of the thought of change two years from now warms me.

WAR LEAVES EVERY CHILD BEHIND.

It is pretty significant that some of those driving the investigations of the 90's into the Clintons' lives have repented in recent times. And that Bill Clinton's presidency is viewed positively in terms of the goodness of the times.

The fact is that America is in a big predicament right now.
Republicans are voted off the island.
While my heart holds for people like Senator Feingold and Wesley Clark, I know if it becomes a Hillary Clinton-Rudy Guiliani race,
I will gladly welcome the Senator from New York and beloved Bill.

I wouldn't be displeased if Guilani wins the Republican nomination and even the Presidency - he's pro-gay, pro-illegal immigration, and pro-abortion... Guilani is a Republican the same way Arnold is a Republican. The fact that he's pro-gun control makes him more liberal than many Democrats.

Triskele, don't make the mistake of assuming that the opinions of your friends mean anything nationally.

Otherwise, you're risking being the apocryphal Democrat who predicted a landslide for McGovern in '72 because he didn't know anyone who was for Nixon.

I know lots of women who want Hillary because she's a woman and because they're tired of how men crap on her. She's their send-them-a-messeage candidate. And these are women willing to acknowledge all of Hillary's flaws and weaknesses. But they're still for her.

But notice that the 18th pre-dates Hillary getting nasty to Obama.

hawk: Try selling that bill of goods in Montana or Missouri or Wyoming or any other purple-tinged red state (that is purple because of constitutional concerns and social issues be damned) that is nervous about Constitutional abrogation.

I don't think either of them will be the nominee. I think the Democratic contest will narrow quickly to a three way race with Hillary, Obama and Edwards in the running. I think the latter two have more appeal and fewer negatives and one of the two will ultimately be the nominee.

As for the "hero of 9/11" (sweet Jesus what did he do that made him a hero -- oh I know he stood in front of the TV cameras because our president was bravely running away)-- is the Republican electorate really ready for a thrice married, abortion flip flopping, drag wearing, gay tolerant New Yorker? I don't see it.

Remember John Tester in the debates telling Montanan's that they may need their guns if Burns and the Republicans kept chipping away at the constitution with laws like the Partiot Scam. The place went nuts.

The reason Rudy is seen as hero of 9/11 is because the President was AWOL that hiding in an airplane in the mid west while the northeast was being attacked

oh we will we will, hawk. the next two election cycles look very promising for the dems, especially in the senate.

Every time Mitch McConnell opens his mouth, a Democrat somewhere gets spinal fortification.

I wouldn't be displeased if Guilani wins the Republican nomination and even the Presidency - he's pro-gay, pro-illegal immigration, and pro-abortion... Guilani is a Republican the same way Arnold is a Republican.

He also has a mean streak, a tendency towards cronyism (see: Kerik, Bernard), and more than a hint of authoritarianism. He strikes me exactly as the type of leader who sees himself as a Great Man of History and doesn't like to have his will questioned. We have one of those right now; we don't need another. I'd rather have an old-school Republican like Hagel or a nutso libertarian like Ron Paul.

"She will get obliterated by Rudy whose a true American."

LOL! Clinton favours"equal rights for children"!

I want to see a cage match between egbert and Hawk to see who can mangle the language and common sense with more finality. Is it possible for minds to shrink more on contact with each other.

Yeah, Squawk, a pro-abortion, gay-friendly, war-loving Catholic who hired Bernie Kerik and demolished his marriage in public is really going to fly with general public. Good luck with that!

Hi Kevin,

I'm confused about two things.... You say Hillary is "way ahead of the pack" -- where are you getting that from? EVERYONE I know is negative about her.

Obama is drawing huge, worshipful crowds -- when did that start? Why is it happening? What's his huge appeal?

If Hillary isn't getting that response, doesn't it mean that Obama -- to the extent that he is -- is "way ahead"?

His personality may be an issue, but it seems like Giuliani is strictly a fiscal conservative, unlike Bush, who is socially conservative, fiscally lax, and generally inept. He recently praised Arnold for what he's doing here in California WRT legislation curbing greenhouse emissions - it doesn't get more liberal than that.

Remember John Tester in the debates telling Montanan's that they may need their guns if Burns and the Republicans kept chipping away at the constitution with laws like the Partiot Scam. The place went nuts.

I like Tester too. But do you really think that Clinton or Edwards or Obama will be able to capture the same audience? The Dems have mostly ditched gun control, and civil liberties are a more popular issue now, but they're still seen as the party of big-spending and social engineering. I realize that the GOP has thrown out all of its supposed small-government principles, but the Democrats still have to run against their own reputation. I cringe when I remember Kerry going duck-hunting to prove what a gun-loving badass he was.

Except to the extent that some of them voted for the war and the PATRIOT Act (like Hillary, and Edwards too in the latter case), none of the leading Republicans were directly responsible for the catastrophic fuckups of Bush or the wretched sleaze of the GOP Congress. Even if they're flip-flopping like crazy on social issues, they still have moderate credentials and a reputation for hard work and competence. If it comes down to Clinton vs. Giuliani, it'll be hard to convince the red staters that Hillary shares their values more than Rudy does - regardless of actual views.

I still think Feingold might have had a chance, but his policy views in most respects are standard left-liberal and the RNC would be beating him over the head with his voting record the way they did with Kerry.

Guiliani?

I can't wait to see him "vetted" in public by the far right wing Republican smear machine, as will be his fate.

It will be a pleasure worthy of a MegaCinema size bucket of buttery-est, saltiest popcorn.

If I die, it won't be because of the cholesterol or the sodium, but an excess of joy.

Rudy - so many skeletons that he's had to build oversized closets to store them all.

And you don't think they'll be on center stage once the campaign is in full swing?

Especially leaked by all the enemies he made as NYC mayor? Not to mention enemies of his best bud, Bernie?

Ah, I foresee a tell-all book by his ex, Donna Hanover.

Here's hoping the Repubs nominate him.

There will be so many skeletons dancing center stage we'll do a doubletake to make sure we aren't watching a Grateful Dead show.

Just one last thought. Remember all the press coverage over Rudy cheating and lying to his wife, Donna Hanover, during the divorce proceedings? I recall his future wife sleeping in the mayor's house before the divorce, Rudy fighting over property, Rudy dragging his children into the nasty mess, Rudy publicly trashing his wife, all the NY City press coverage, complete with unpleasant pictures and in some cases cringingly uncomfortable videos.

Should make for some wild campaign ads run by the opposition, be they Repub or Dem.

Rudy and Her Royal Highness have raised a lot of money, but their chances of being nominated are much less than meets the eye. None of the Democratic Senatorial candidates will escape public anger at their constant shaping their message to each audience, and their silence when the Republicans held the majority. Feingold & Kucinich weren’t quiet. Obama may be the best of a bad lot, but I predict that these guys (Clinton, Edwards & Obama) have peaked way too soon and will see their numbers of supporters shrink.

I think that Romney has the best Republican chance- the media like to create bogus issues, like being a Mormon. Romney was a successful executive in a blue state. He's not a warmonger like McCain and his ability to get things done is far better than Giuliani's. When people hear him talk and see the MA health plan swing into action, they will forget about fearing Mormons. The country is sick of polarizers and HRC is the queen of the polarizers.

I will sooo vote Green if that's my option.

Two New Yorkers, playing out the unfinished grudge match of their 2000 Senate race.

What "unfinished" grudge match? Giuliani saw that Clinton was going to bury him, got scared, and quit like a coward, and Clinton then went on to coast to victory. A winner and a loser -- seems like a pretty decisive finish to me.

I think the "single-mindedly ambitious" tag that goes along wit HRC is taken directly from right-wing talking points. She's been in public service for decades working on two issues that are extremely important to me: the welfare of children and women's rights. She has always made that one of her priorities and continues to do so.

Someone like John Edwards, on the other hand, spent a total of 6 years in the Senate, nearly a third of that time campaigning for president. He did nothing of value in the Senate on poverty and his "poverty center" seems very shallow. Yet he never gets tagged as "ambitious". Clinton has at least spent most of her life in the public sphere, mostly in the background. Edwards bought himself a Senate seat and immediately started running for president. Obama's career in public service is not nearly as long as Clinton's either.

I like Edwards and Obama's message and wouldn't mind supporting them for president. But it's abusrd when a third year federal office holder and an obviously ambitions one term senator are treated as saints while Clinton gets brutalized as "only ambitious". Seems unfair to me.

And just possibly the two toughest, most polarizing, most single-mindedly ambitious politicians on the national stage today.And just possibly the two toughest, most polarizing, most single-mindedly ambitious politicians on the national stage today.

I realize that Drum likes to buy into right-wing talking points now and then, but with George Bush around neither of the two is remotely the "most polarizing" politician on the national stage today.

And while Bush certainly isn't tough (Hillary's got him beat there) he's certainly the most single (as well as simple) minded politician alive today, with his all Iraq all the time policy.

Stefan dear, I emailed you again yesterday...

Damn Barak Hussien Obama!

Who does he think he is to slander the Australian Prime Minster with a taunt that he should put Aussie troops where his mouth is...

Asshole.
Traitor.
Commie hole.

Trust me.

Prime Minister Howard knows Iraq is the most important battleground in the history of terrorism.

But the economy is bad in Australia right now...
Else Howard really WOULD put 20,000 troop in Iraq.

God damn fucking uppity democrat...

Where's my fucking SAWED-OFF shotgun...

Hillary is not a New Yorker

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't polls taken this time in 2003 put Joe Lieberman in the lead for the Democratic nomination?

At this point, Hillary and Rudy have the highest name recognition. That won't last.

American Hack: "[the 2006 midterm] was a routine election. The party that holds the white house always loses some seats in congress in the sixth year. Perhaps you need a broader historical frame of reference?"

Cerainly not from you, we don't. In 1998, the Democrats held the White House and gained five House seats while breaking even in the Senate.

American Hawk: "Rudy demonstrated great leadership on 9/11, which is why he's still asked to speak and give lectures, six years later."

The New York Fire Commissioner and the people who staffed Rudy's emergency command center at WTC No. 7 -- where Hizzoner insisted on locating it despite repeated contentions by the commissioner that the WTC complex was ""Ground Zero" for any future terrorist attack (from hence the current term took its name) and therefore completely unsuitable -- might beg to differ with your inflated opinion of the Manhattan Mussolini.

That is, they would if they had survived 9/11. Mahalo nui loa for reminding us that raking their remains has now become Rudy's personal (and very lucrative) cash cow.

American Hawk: "And he's demonstrated leadership that makes him a role model for tens of millions of Americans. That's the point."

Please don't pee on our legs and tell us it's raining.

And don't even think of getting me started on Rudy's poltically incestuous business and personal relationship with former NYC Police Commissioner (and spectacularly inappropriate Bush nominee for Homeland Security Secretary) Bernie Kerik.

So go ahead -- make our day, fool. Ever heard what happened to Alf Landon?

Ever heard what happened to Alf Landon?

Does Rudy have a daughter to have a future career as a decent hard-working and competent Senator?

workingclassannie: "Hillary is not a New Yorker"

A decisive majority of New York voters in two successive Senate elections said otherwise.

I suppose the next thing you'll try to tell us is that Mitt Romney isn't from Massachusetts and Barack Obama isn't from Illinois.

Blue Girl: "Does Rudy have a daughter to have a future career as a decent hard-working and competent Senator?"

Probably none that wouldn't first require a court-ordered DNA paternity test to determine.

There you go again, Kevin, doing the Right Wing Noise Machine's work for it. "Most single-mindedly ambitious"? Where do you get this from, other than the fact that other people (like the brilliant "I wish I could decide elections in my smoke-filled back room" David Geffen, through the always shallow and frivolous Maureen Dowd) say it? Is Hillary (or Rudy, for that matter) any more ambitious than any other candidate? They are ALL running for the most powerful job on the planet, for Christ sakes. How do you measure their relative ambition, other than with some secret mind-reading device? Maybe the one who is the most successful is the most amibitous? God only knows. And as for "polarizing," what makes Hillary polarizing? The fact that for the past fifteen years the crazies on the right have been villifying her? I suppose that's her fault?

This should be a fascinating election cycle and it's beginning to play out that way already. Vilsack has already taken his hat out of the ring and there has been at least some minor drama in the Edwards campaign. I'm waiting to see what Gore and Clark are going to do and I hope they don't wait too long to make their intentions known. I would love to see Wes Clark build a viable campaign machine, but the time is running out!

God damn good-for-nothing do-good liberals...

Look at this shit: Gore Helps Airlift New Orleans Victims

What's next? Is he going to build houses for these po', starvin', innocent little black criminals too?
Christ.
You ever see such a party of do-good Jimmy Carter ASSHOLES such as this?
Man I hate these bastards...
They are worse than Al Qaida.

Where's my shotgun?
I'd like to seem them go fuck themselves with that...

Heh.

I'm with whoever above noted that, as much as I am not a fan of Hillary or Giuliani, the conservative movement is the real loser in this race. Conservative candidates like Brownback are weak. Too weak for my liking actually. The saddest thing about the GOP primary is that they won't nominate some conservative loony who can get the pinata treatment till election day, burying conservatism for a generation. When Rudy loses, it will be about five minutes until the meme gets around the wingnut grapevine that "We lost because our guy wasn't as right-wing as us!"

Abortion and gay rights are likely to die out as hot button issues as well, though that will happen whoever becomes president. At least the Republicans still have their expertise when it comes to foriegn affairs. Oh wait.

The Dems are almost certain to increase their margin in the senate. 2008 is looking real good, people. My only regret is that I'll still be here in Australia (which is all set to kick Bush-buddy John Howard out on his ugly little toad butt, btw) and won't be able to watch the highlights from what should be a morbidly fascinating GOP primary.

I don't see a scenario under which Rudy Guiliani can win the GOP nomination.

Most of the country know him as the "9/11 hero". His GOP primary opponents will be educating the voters about the rest of him, his personal and professional record. It is not a pretty picture.

God damn if my last post wasn't positively prescient.

Look at the worthless lies Peanut Carter is peddling about me here:

Former President Jimmy Carter, in an interview to be aired Sunday morning by ABC News, sharply criticizes Cheney's record on the war."If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low," Carter says of Cheney in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that will be shown on ABC News' This Week.
"He hasn't been right on hardly anything, in his prediction of what was going to happen . . . He's just been almost completely wrong on just about everything he's said."

God damn good-for-nothing do-gooding goober.
Hate.
Hate.
Hate.
Shotgun.
Shotgun.
Shotgun.

Rudy demonstrated great leadership on 9/11...Y'all have very slim majorities...Again, broader historical perspective...American Fawk at 4:06 PM

The house majority is substantial, the Senate will increase because there are more Republicans trying to defend their seat and their Bush votes.

Don't try to give the 6th year itch any more credibility than you already lack.

... makes him a role model for tens of millions of Americans.... American Hawk at 4:16 PM

It's clear what constitutes role models for RepubliConTarians: trailer trash.

AH, you fucking dimwitted moron.

Rudy, the fucking genius who had the prescience, the brilliant foresight, to put NYC's emergency HQ in the number one terrorist target in the U.S.

Jesus fuck, a man just as fucking stupid as W.

Guiliani- there is no way he is going to win the nomination. He's kind of a thin skinned jerk like Bush is, but without the superficial charm or the family retainers. McCain is going down too, for much the same reason. Oh, and I forgot, they both support the war.

Anyone hear of the movie "Guiliani Time" made in 2006? It's a documentary of Rudy's time as NYC mayor. Google it and you'll find plenty of reasons why Rudy will never be the Repub nominee.

The Washington Post calls the documentary a "beware-a-gram" to anyone thinking of making Rudy their next president, as it chronicles his "less heroic" deeds.

Circulate that picture of Giuliani in drag.

That should do it.....er, shouldn't it?

Maybe not.

Obviously it's the case that we must talk up Barack "fresh face" Obama and Johnny "bitchen populist" Edwards because they'd be like totally different presidents than lib Hitler Hillary (who of course has no chance against more or less anyone [and despite what the polls say Rudy "bitchen mayor type" Giuliani clearly won't get the nomination because Republicans would never nominate a functionally pro-choice adulterer solely on the basis of charisma]).

But in the unlikely event that lib Hitler Hillary does get the nomination we all need to put aside our differences and buck up and support her. There is literally no possibility that history is generally rigged in favor of elite interests and that this time around that includes electing an authoritarian centrist who will preside over the consolidatation of the American Empire and not its end.

Also, it's the case that calling Hillary a bitch and Rudy a dick is like totally cliche so you should stop saying it.

D) All of the above.

Circulate that picture of Giuliani in drag.

Exactly. That is all it will take to tank Rude-ee's candidacy. We got a almost a year before the first primary. Things will change by then.

Shit.
Hate.
Shotgun.
Fuck.

Sonabitch...

I need to shoot some motherfucking caged birds right quick.
They got any caged birds in Asia?

Shit.
Hate.
Shotgun.
Fuck.

Going nuts over here in slant-eyed land...
Going fucking nuts...

Well Dick, it was a short trip.

That was a routine election. The party that holds the white house always loses some seats in congress in the sixth year. Perhaps you need a broader historical frame of reference?
Posted by: American Hawk

American Hawk, always the flinger of stale chestnuts. Sorry but even Time (you know the guys who put Gingrich on their cover as Man of the Year in 1995) weren't buying that talking point two days after the election:

MYTH: The losses Republicans sufferend this election were no different than what you usually see in a President's sixth year in office.
REALITY: Redistricting minimized what might have been a truly historic shellacking.

The numbers alone do look like a typical midterm loss for the presidential party: 28 House seats, with 10 races still undecided. Republicans have clung to this math hard in recent days, with even Karl Rove pointing to electoral history to prove that things could have been worse. But Republicans spent most of the year boasting about how the redistricting of the past decade had made them all but bulletproof. Absent those new district lines, says the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein, "it could easily have been 45 or more." And there are other results that break with past patterns, Ornstein adds. Democrats did not lose a single seat — a feat the party had not accomplished since 1922. Even in the Republican sweep of 1994, the G.O.P. lost four of its open seats to Democrats. What's more, the wave swept all the way down the ballot — for instance, handing the New Hampshire House to the Democrats for the first time since 1922.

I dunno, Bunker. Not sure your mumblings are working...

Here is the YouTube of Rudy in drag, smooching Donald Trump.

I dunno, Bunker. Not sure your mumblings are working...

Yeah, Bunker, seriously. Teh parody with too much of teh bile isn't teh funny.

LOL.

Sometimes, Kevin, you are toooo much.

Heroes... heroic. Words that have lost real meaning. Burned out and over-used.

A hero is a person who voluntarily puts their life or limb at risk to help others.

What did Guliani do that was 'heroic' in any way? Give a press conference?

I can't imagine two worse candidates... Hilary and Guilani. Can't this country do any better?

Might I suggest Al Gore to this motely collection of mother eaters.

No, no, no Auto. Let me take you to the mountain and give you some women wisdom--here is the whispered secret of why a woman and especially Hillary can't win, "If I can't be Queen, you can't be either." There is just enough cultural jealousy among women that enough of them won't vote for her. Maybe it's because we spend so much time primping and competing for you all while you are rubbing butts on the playing field. I dunno. But I do know that what I whispered to you is true.

Hillary vs. Rudy? Damn, I was hoping to get the chance to vote for a Democrat in '08. Maybe I'll go Green.

On the bright side, if Rudy won the nomination, messy divorce and all, maybe Feingold wouldn't consider his divorce such a handicap. Then he could come in as a last minute candidate.

Ok, while I'm at it, how about Dennis Kucinich, or an independent Bernie Sanders?

Ok, back to the more realistic thoughts I have about [insert name here] and me together on a deserted island.

If anyone had any doubts about liberal bias in Kevin Drum's bolgs, this post lays it all to rest. Hitlery is framed as the "matter", while Giuliani, American citizen, is branded "anti-matter," "anti" in this case having the negative connotation. So don't tell me there's no liberal media in this country with a straght face.

People who refer to Hitlery are not entitled to be taken seriously on this "bolg".

C'mon, are you really such a baby that you can't figure out common-sense stuff like that? Or else you're a parody, in which case remember that neither parodies nor babies get laid. So take that "bias" and shove it up where you need it most.

Giuliani is the man who made New York safe for Whitey again. He can run on a record consisting of Amidou Diallo and Abner Louima and clean up. His contempt for civil liberties and authoritarian cred will more than compensate for his lack of Taliban backing.

He's a cross between Theodore Bilbo and Mussolini -- what's there not to like?

Brownback becomes the religious right's candidate and takes the VP spot.

Giuliani and Brownback—a marriage made in the same heaven that produced Dukakis and Ferraro. Sweet!

Hitlery is framed as the "matter", while Giuliani, American citizen, is branded "anti-matter,"

Ah, egbert. Showing your ignorance and scientific illiteracy. Again. In physics, matter and antimatter are oppositely charged particles/antiparticles. If matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate one another in a burst of energy. Here's a link. Let us know if you need help with the comprehension.

One of the bloggers at the new place, goes by Strannix, has decided that Brownback will heretofore be know as Senator Sexyback.

egbert aka al, you're one strange dude.

Like me, John McCain is older than dirt. However, he is starting to hint that the main thing wrong with our Iraq intervention was the ex-Secretary of Defense, who is now gone. Let's say that McCain sticks to his guns and moves farther right on a few other issues. Sen McCain will get this nomination because Republicans have a lot of respect for seniority and former P.O.W.'s.

Better yet, any bounce in popularity that Bush gets between now and Nov. 2008 will only enhance McCain.

There will be two full summers of war before November of 2008. Wars (even low-grade civil conflicts) are funny things. A lot can happen in them in a short period of time.

Suppose the surge works? That is, works in the sense that it buys a little time to give the elected Iraqi government some real traction. The one thing about war is that both sides will change weapons and tactics as they need to do so. Besides sending troops, this summer the U.S.A. will be deploying nifty new teams of robots. Our well-financed intelligence work is over-due to come up to expectations as well.

We could have a situation where the surge works well enough in Iraq, but the ugly old War on Terror pops up big time elsewhere--maybe a big hit on airliners. Maybe Afghanistan starts slipping and Wajiristan officially becomes the al Qaida home state. Maybe Iran jumps in just begging for a fight with the U.S. anywhere it can get it.

Maybe a lot of things. Sen. McCain has shown me a good ability to flip-flop and hedge bets without ever really abandoning core principles. This is going to be the real test for Democrat candidates. If they sell out heart and soul to their party's anti-war zealots they may have a hard time coping with sudden changes in the fortunes of war, in either direction.

"Those who don't win are losers."
-- Casey Stengel.

Some Democrats -- a small enough faction, but loud and talky -- are like moths attracted to flame.

These Democrats relish losing.

Lost causes are so much more fun. So righteously cool. So ME. So all about ME. Ummmm.

And so it is, that these Democrats turn their back on the leading candidate,their best candidate, the candidate most likely to win not only the presidency but the Congress as well, and indulge themselves (umm, ummm, ummmm) by breathlessly fantasizing over a candidate without a prayer of winning.

And the victory goes to the other side.

Ummm. Ohhhhhh. Ahhhhhhhh.

Ohhh. Mmmmmmmm. Tom. You write like an irritating dick. Ummmm. Ahhhh.

The leaderboard in NH at this point in 2003:
Kerry 23%
Dean 16%
Gephardt 15%
Lieberman 10%
Edwards 3%

Undecided 27%

Pat:

You should know.

"These Democrats relish losing."

Go ahead, keep living in your fantasy world. It's soooo attractive in that cave, abd everything works out so well. And outside, there be dragons! (Dragons that like to lose, of course.)

I wonder if that stuff about polls this far out being meaningless is true anymore. Fundraising plays a huge part in this, and money people are looking at those polls in deciding whom to back. And really, when did we start hard core campaigning this early before? Vilsack has just dropped out a month after the first candidate (Lieberman) announced his candidacy in the 2004 cycle. In the past long shot candidates would be out campaigning this early; now everyone is doing it. The game has changed, and I think these polls have a lot of meaning. Not definitive meaning, but they shape the race to a greater degree than they have in the past.

Hillary's not ambitious. She has to run. You know, for the children.

Amy Carter for president!

Steppen: And really, when did we start hard core campaigning this early before?

Hey there's one good thing about the presidential race starting so early. It's easy to convince myself we're closer to election day than we actually are, which means less quality time with President George W. Bush.

But yeah, I may feel differently 18 months from now.

This is from Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and it is dedicated to mike cook who is about as blind as a bat can be.

MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER HEAD, CIA BIN LADEN UNIT:

Well, this administration, sir, seems to be afraid of almost anything that moves. And certainly Iraq was a containable country. The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States.

The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that‘s where it is.

SocraticGadfly: "I will sooo vote Green if that's my option."

Why, it most certainly is your option to vote for St. Ralph the Perfect, provided that you simultaneously scream and yell and stomp your feet on the ground whilst waving your clenched fists wildly in a blind rage -- just like you would during any othet normal childish temper tantrum.

In defense of the Greens, I think even they've gotten tired of St Ralph. They refused to endorse his independent bid in 2004. I like to think the party chair broke the news to Ralph by throwing an arm over his shoulder and saying, "We know you're left-wing and all, but by God are you ever one self-righteous asshole."

I'm relieved actually, since I never had a problem with the Greens before their Nader alliance. On their best days and in their best races (usually low profile ones) they can be useful to keep Democrats honest.

I can think of plenty of reasons why Giulani wouldn't get the GOP nomination.

But I can think of one big reason why he will. Who else do they have?

Michael Goodwin wrote this last November:
'Not to put too fine a point on it, but right now, God might be a Democrat. The party’s sweep of Congress, and huge gains in statehouses across America, were a smackdown of Bush and the GOP, especially over the mess in Iraq. Dems will hold 28 governorships, a huge advantage in a presidential election.

In addition to that structural hurdle, Giuliani and other Republican candidates will bear the burden of a presidency haunted by charges of incompetence. The minute they propose a solution to Islamic terror, Iran, North Korea or Social Security, they will be compared to Bush’s positions. That won’t be helpful.

Giuliani will have his own burdens, too. Besides his pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights stances being a tough sell in some GOP primaries, the former mayor hasn’t run a full campaign since he was re-elected in 1997. Although he has stumped the country for Republicans in the last three cycles, he has mostly been building an impressive business empire, giving speeches for up to $150,000 per and enjoying a busy social life with his third wife, Judith Nathan. “There’s a little rust here,� one insider confided Monday about a political campaign.'

Kenji:

I'm certain you have something to say and only wish you would say it in Standard English so that more of us would have a chance of figuring out more precisely what it is. Interpreters, anyone?

I know that the Republican party is in bad shape, but, if they pick Giuliani, they're in worse shape than I thought.

Rudy ["whose(sic) a true American (thank you, egbert)] is so deeply flawed that, if he becomes the candidate, it says more about the US than I care to think about. More Dangerous Than Bush.

And now, back to the news:

AT LEAST 41 DIE IN BAGHDAD BLAST

"BAGHDAD (AP) — A suicide bomber struck Sunday outside a college campus in Baghdad, killing at least 41 people and injuring dozens as a string of other blasts and rocket attacks left bloodshed around the city.

"Most of the victims were students at the college, a business studies annex of Mustansiriyah University that was hit by a series of deadly explosions last month. At least 46 people were injured in Sunday's blast.

"The wave of attacks around Baghdad came a day after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lauded the progress of an ongoing U.S.-Iraqi security operation seeking to cripple militant factions and sectarian killings in the capital."

And does anyone but me figure that al-Maliki has been viewing clips of President Bush's Mission Accomplished drama? Should we look forward then to the day when al-Maliki appears before the klieg lights tricked out in a shiny leather bomber jacket?

Where are you General Petraeus? Yoo-hoo! Pssst.

This Canadian has no problems understanding what an American like Kenji is saying. tom t's another matter. Maybe it's just he smacks his lips so much I can't concentrate on what he's saying. MMMmmmmmmm.

The hero of 9/11 was Osama bin Laden.

The carpet bag senator is McCain. He did not even know he was in Arizona until he dried out from a seventy day drinking binge.

snicker-snack

Always glad to hear from our pretty-much northernmost state even though the message is, well, a bit crude, you know: tacky. But, Happy Canada Day and all that anyway.

Actually, it is not my intention to insult kenji, though he/she apparently has decided to dog me on this blog with his/her commentary. It's simply that I don't get his/her meaning. He/she could be supportive, for all I can divine. I'd truly like to know. Perhaps a quiz?

But while we're at it, snicker-snack, might it be said that Canadians such as yourself perhaps have enough to deal with in Justin Trudeau, leaky canoes and the like without mucking about in the affairs of the Lower Fifty? Not that we don't welcome astute commentary from our 51st state, but keep it clean at the least, lest you tarnish your maple leaf, o.k.?

Lower fifty?

Christ. US geography is worse than I thought.

Not that we don't welcome astute commentary from our 51st state, but keep it clean at the least, lest you tarnish your maple leaf, o.k.?
Posted by: tom t

I thought Puerto Rico was our 51st state. At most, it would be Israel.

I wasn't aware that anyone referred to Canada as the 51st?

Oh well ... given tom's apparent facility with Google, but ignorance for everything else, I'm sure he'll enlighten me soon enough.

Tom. Do you speak that way too, or is it just your writing style that is so irritating?

Right now Guiliani is leading the Republican polls because the religious right has not coalesced around a candidate to oppose him. He is clearly the choice of Republican moderates, but everyone knows that religious conservatives tend to vote in greater numbers than secular moderates in Republican primaries.

The million dollar question is whether or not the religious conservatives will find a candidate pure enough for them to back. If they split their votes, Giuliani could easily win a fractured primary campaign.

However, I have a hard time seeing him win the general simply because I don't think that someone as short-tempered as he is can go eighteen months without pulling a Dean and shoving his foot well down his throat.

The first primaries are still almost a year off. There are always frontrunners, and those frontrunners often fade like a fart in the wind.

Clinton has real trouble with her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. She can claim to be mislead, but it will continue to haunt her. She gambled that being a hawkish Democrat would make her an overall stronger candidate in 2008, but the reality of Iraq is damaging everyone who supported the war. Same applies to Edwards (though he did it for the 2004 election). I used to think Clinton would be the nominee, but Obama looks more and more likely to be the candidate-less political baggage and just a more polished politician.

Giuliani might get the nomination. He has high name recognition. McCain has damaged himself with his connection to the surge, and by actively alienating many on the right who are likely primary voters (he seems to relish this, however).
Giuliani is not anti-abortion, and that will hurt in the primaries, but without a strong candidate on the right (Romney doesn't count), it may not matter. Once we are to the general election, Giuliani's weaknessess in positions is not nearly as important since the opposition is now on the left.

Of course 8 or so miles off could be the difference between living and dieing at that latitude, couldn't it, tom t?

Aren't you glad you rely on Wikipedia?

http://pipefusion.com/photos/alert.jpg

82deg.30min.N 62deg.20min.W

Do you know where your arse is? 'cos you keep talking through it.

Lighten up, bubba. There's some leg-pulling going on here. Get it?
And as far as your charge of my "ignorance for (sic) everything else," please be specific.
Posted by: tom t on February 25, 2007 at 3:51

who are you accusing of taking you seriously? you're a diversion, nothing more. ... a target for occasionally well-aimed feces.

and you certainly don't need ME to point out your stupidity. a snarky attempt to point out canadian irrelevance simply highlighted your geographical illiteracy. ... lower 50 ... please. 10 year olds wouldn't make that mistake. ... well, maybe american 10 yr olds would.

which is the exception that proves the rule!!!

Why do you hate America, Nads?

Why do you hate America, Nads?
Posted by: tom t

because we're bad at geography.

ot that we don't welcome astute commentary from our 51st state, but keep it clean at the least, lest you tarnish your maple leaf, o.k.?

tom t,

1. since you fuckers have decided to embark on empire, everything you fucking well do is my business. Not to mention that it's in your damn interests. Is that clean enough for you?

2. if you're writing to get a rise out of people, don't be surprised if you get a rise out of people. In other words, your tone totally sucks dude.

3. Comments already made on your grasp of your own geography.

4. And to help with your common knowledge... Kenji is always a man's name. Like Hans, Yves, Jim, Dick or well, Tom. All good American names I thought or are some ethnicities of origin better than others?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the unfinished grudge match of their 2000 Senate race" since RUDY DID NOT RUN FOR SENATE IN 2000. It was Rick Lazio who was the Republican in the race, a Long Islander who took the upstate vote for granted, something Clinton most certainly did not.

Dearest snicker-snack:

About Kenji always being a man's name . . .

I am posting under a woman's name. But do you actually know whether or not I am a woman. I could be a man posting under a woman's name. Or hadn't you thought of that?

Dear one, in referring to Kenji or even to l'il ol' me, say, is it incorrect to use "she/he" or "he/she" when in doubt? (Come to think of it, one just might actually be a he-she, huh? That would be confusing. Are you one of those, snicker-snack? You do go by a hyphenated name. By your lights that should be proof enough. Right?)

Some folks are sooooo credulous. Especially some from our northernmost state of Canada -- our 51st, don't you know.

Love and kisses,

Betty(?)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi, my name is Betty and tom t and ??? and I'm a troll. I first began trolling just a little at a time. I enjoyed the attention. Gradually, it became more than just...

Hey, trolls, keep playing in traffic! That way, if you somehow live to hear your asthmatic grandchildren ask you what you did to save the planet, you can beat your collapsing chests and proudly say, "I cheered on the biggest bunch of lying criminals since Al Capone destroy the U.S. constitution and turn America into a pathetically debt-ridden pariah—and I did it anonymously. Tee-hee."

(Dictionary can be downloaded by tom t at no extra charge.)

Somerby's Daily Howler rips this post to shreds, deservedly.

"Somerby's Daily Howler rips..."

It sure does, and everyone should read it:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

What is it about Washington CW which turns even the best pundits into assholes?

All I ask, Kevin, is that you choose your words carefully, especially radioactive terms such as "polarizing" and "ambitious." If you had done so, your reader would not have to conclude sadly that the 2/25 Hillary-Giuliani post resembled the immature "Oh goodie! a mud-fight" bilge that came out of the MSM in the 1900s.

Whatever words you choose, please apply them equally across the board to all major players and do so with enough examples to substantiate your point. What a sad post to see your name attached to such political thoughtlessness.

Referring to HRC as 'ambitious' is flat-out sexist, period.

Name one presidential candidate who is not equally ambitious, name me one.

None of you would know this, but if I'm making sticking up for women and making charges of 'sexism,' we're in a world of hurt indeed (meaning, my willingness to notice and stick up for women's issues is really quite lacking).