10 in the morning and still no Lakers post?

well, you know much more about this than I do. Who else would or should be on the list, to spice it up, make it a little less "dull"? He's already got a couple score of younger Clinton-era foreign policy professionals and academics on his team, many of whom are a bit more exciting than the folks on this list. But Who else should he get advice from? At some point, you go into the Oval Office with the advisers you have, not the advisers you might want or wish to have (who might not exist).

So, is Ham Jordan all hat and no cattle, or is it all Democrats?

What are you saying?

Um, I'm not sure I'm clear on why *dull* is bad in this context. Maybe I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by "dull", then. "Level-headed" would probably have been the first adjective that came to my mind.

I suggest Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson and Ivan Eland on Obama's "National Security Working Group". Intelligent men who recognize that the phrase "national security" is a sham and really means "unjust enrichment of defense contractors".

We couldn't scramble one fighter jet to shoot down United Flight 93 on the morning of September 11, 2001. So much for "national security". Thank God that the brave passengers forced it to crash. Attacking and occupying a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 9-11 also has nothing to do with national security. Obama needs to dismantle the Pentagon, brick by brick....Maybe then we can talk about national security and have it mean something.

Of course, some of those not on the list might have declined to be on it.

I was very proud of the students at Antioch for shouting down Albright when she tried to convince them a war with Iraq was a good idea.

Brzezinski isn't acceptable to the Israel Lobby.

Let's all talk about national security. President shit-for brains has just said we neeed to drill holes all over the country along the coasts and in our most pristine areas. Republican nominee McDodo heartily agrees. Are these people on the same planet with the rest of us?
Isn't it about time that we commited as many resources as we posssibly can to completely get off the oil tit? If we would have done this when that forward thinking genius Ronald Reagan was president we wouldn't be in the mess were in today. Now I'm not saying we wouldn't be in some kind of mess but we sure wouldn't be this one.
This is the main topic of Nat. security and if it isn't it certainly should be.

Conservative Deflator suggests that Obama's national security group should include Noam Chomsky and other "intelligent men who recognize that the phrase 'national security' is a sham and really means 'unjust enrichment of defense contractors'".

I wholeheartedly agree. However, this would lead to Tim Russert's successor asking Obama questions about UFO sightings during the presidential debates, and would assure that America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. would never let him get anywhere near the presidency, and that the corporate-owned media would engage in an even more aggressive campaign of character assassination against him than they already have, and most certainly will continue to do in their effort to put Their Man McCain in the White House.

Turns out it's.....kind of dull

There would be no political upside to political risk-taking in this area. Better to let John McCain keep drawing attention to his position, say on Iraq, which most Americans oppose.
.

This is obviously a newly composed "brain trust," since Albright was a strong Clinton supporter. Therefore I don't think it's really a "brain trust"; it's a list of names meant to sooth the Democratic foreign policy establishment. But it's nonetheless depressing to see that Lee Hamilton is still being treated as a Very Serious Person.

Brzezinski isn't acceptable to the Israel Lobby.

To say nothing of Robert Malley.

Look, at the risk of overstating the obvious, we're talking about a political document here. Especially with recent additions, this list skews very gray & very wrinkly. Sorry. I mean very deliberative & very experienced. Keyboard got away from me there. Certainly, some of these folks will have their fingers in the policymaking pie in an Obama administration -- Lake, Craig, & definitely Rice. Maybe Roemer & Holder. But you're nuts if you think Warren Christopher has the ear of anyone -- especially after Florida in 2000.

"Among the more obvious exclusions: Richard Holbrooke, Samantha Power, Bill Richardson, and Brzezinski. Draw your own conclusions."

Holbrooke: People will think of Hal Holbrook, aka Deep Throat, and Watergate.

Power: Called Sen. Clinton a "monster." Would alienate too many.

Richardson: VP.

Brzezinski: Can't spell, pronounce, or even listen to the name. And the Carter connection.

Warren Christopher. The guy who threw in the towel in Florida in 2000 the first time James Baker said boo. The guy who couldn't even bother to stick around in Florida after the first week of the recount.

The guy who appears in the picture next to the dictionary definition of Democrats as wimps and losers.

I still think Sam Power will be in the Obama administration; it's still too soon to reintegrate her, though, with the primary just having ended and Obama still working on courting Clinton's supporters.

I have my doubts about the ability of this crew to understand what's happening now, let alone offer nonhazardous advice on what might be over the horizon.

I think Noam Chomsky is a good critic, but I don't think that necessarily translates into being a good advisor on day-to-day foreign policy questions and negotiation. I'd like someone more like a top-notchm, globe-trotting lawyer who knows a lot about foreign policy-- maybe had people connected to diplomacy in his family or his family's circle of friends growing up.

I also think Noam Chomsky's critique may be a little too idealistic, but I really do mean only a little- I don't mean that I disagree with all of his conclusions, but just by a little bit; I really mean that I probably disagree with only some of his conclusions on particular situations.

So, better for a Pres or his foreign policy staff to read Noam Chomsky, or consult with him, I think, than to put him on board and ask him what to do every day. A little too much like bringing Ralph Nader on as an advisor, I think-- like someone who would tell you in all seriousness to single-handedly try to end globalization, or something like that.

This might sound a little off to people, and I admit I don't know who a lot of likley candidates for this position might be, but if I was in Barack's position I might consider Paul Krugman. Sure, this is not his particular area, but some areas really just require common sense from the people making the central decisions, more than they require someone who is going to give you terrible advice despite all their training and experience.

Noam Chomsky is an important linguist.

Even more important than who's on the list of advisors, or who's not, is whether they make any difference in what Obama actually says. Evidence suggests they don't.

If Obama ever spoke to Noam Chomsky for 8 seconds the media would tear down Obama. Oh my lord it would all be over so fast.

Noam Chomsky knows that the US govt are terrorists. And he's not afraid to say it. Repeatedly.

Former Clinton economic advisers (or their disciples) and former Clitnon foreign policy advisers. Isnt it interesting?

I'd like someone more like a top-notch, globe-trotting lawyer who knows a lot about foreign policy

I do believe that Swan is graciously volunteering himself. Oh Bravo!

Thersites,
Did you take your nap? You're still sounding a tad irritable.

Warren Christopher? How do we know he's not fucking senile, at his age?

Matt: Warren Christopher had Carter Admin connections, just like Brzezinski.

Speaking of that, where's Mika Brzezinski? Wouldn't THAT up the foreign policy buzz?

Deflator... Chalmers Smith has the government chops as well as the outside the box thought. Would be very good. But will never happen.

Gadfly: How do we know he's not fucking senile, at his age?

How do we know he is? Knock off the age crap. Based on age, GWB is brilliant.

Weenie, I'm trying to be good. I was very polite to my wife's lawyer, Mr. Swan. But this age = senility crap pisses me off. I forget why.

I don't think it's really a "brain trust"

Definitely not - just warmed-over shillarybots and fools, more of the psychopathic liars that proclaimed to "dodge the gunfire" in Bosnia and be at "ground zero" on 9/11 as heros.

Thank God, America was smart enough not to fall for the bush-clinton-bush-clinton scam, like a monarchy of elite families that feel entitled to the White House would result in any real change.

Same old, same old--liberal hawks. They want to run the world a bring about good--a pack of fools with delusions of grandeur. We need to lay off the world and get our own house in order--let's start with ending torture as we know it, restoring civil liberties, jobs/housing program for the poor, infrastructure repair, health care.

All these should keep any do-gooder busy for decades.

clean sweep. reject the list of these old AIPAC whores and get on with the business of nation building....right here in the good ole USA

I guess it's just too much to ask for a non-CFR foreign policy.

My hunch is that Richardson was left off because he is being considered for VP.

Along those lines, I've always wanted to see a presidential candidate name some of his key cabinet members (Defense, State, Treasury, Attorney General) at the convention. This way you've got a whole team running for the presidency, not just a lone candidate.

For example, what if Obama, in addition to naming his VP at the convention, also announces his Attorney General (Edwards?), Secretary of Defense (Clark?), and Secretary of State (many candidates). Now you've got a team of five running against McCain, not just two, and the presence of a SecDef and SecState on the campaign trail would blunt attacks on Obama's relative lack of foreign policy experience.

Thoughts?

Just gotta say, as an Obama supporter, that I'm quite disappointed in this list, all basically Cold War warriors. Where's the change? It's really time for a new crew of 21st century foreign policy experts. I'm sure there are many who would be suitable out there in universities, etc., who are quite knowledgeable and enlightened, and possibly have ME expertise but don't have the far-left 'reputations' of people like Chomsky or Johnson, either of which I would love to see in an Obama cabinet, btw, although recognize the potential for public relations problems. Of course, the people who really matter are those who Obama chooses for his advisors and cabinet when he becomes prez. Maybe he'll surprise us, but I sort of doubt it.

A comment on my comment:

" but don't have the far-left 'reputations' of people like Chomsky or Johnson, either of which I would love to see in an Obama cabinet, btw, although recognize the potential for public relations problems."

"Public relation problems" is a bit of an understatement, huh? Just thinking of Noam Chomsky as Secretary of State makes me laugh. Now THAT would be CHANGE!

Nepeta,
Rather than a totally new crew, would you settle for a 50/50 or 60/40 mix of new/old? The thing is, foreign policy comes with "history". It would be nice, I think, if the new crew could be briefed on past actions/discussions/back door discussions by the old crew. That way things could move forward without causing potentially disastrous diplomatic faux pas.

Um, all you Z Magazine subscribers busily hypothesizing about Chomsky, Johnson, Zinn, & the ghost of Che riding herd in the Obama cabinet are overlooking the biggest obstacle. They'd never take the positions offered them. They'd have nothing left to rail against. Look, I'm all for the voices in the wilderness, but let's not get carried away playing dress-up. Policy types don't raise rabbles, and rabble-rousers don't make policy. Do you really want Donna Shalala unfurling the People's New Bill of Rights from the rooftop at your next rally?

Nuff said.

Thersites:

How do we know Christopher wasn't senile as Clinton SoS?

And, if Dems want to raise the age card against McCain, the sword cuts both ways.

Go back to your nap, perhaps?

Anonymous poster,
Waving a red flag in front of Thersite's face isn't going to get you brownie points. A pitchfork up your a$$hole maybe.

Thersites,
Calm down, take a deep breath, count to 10 before you do something you'll regret.

Someone without the nerve to use even a fake name isn't worth worrying about.

If this person could read, he would notice that
a) while I have criticized McCain, I have also vehemently disagreed with those who criticize him on grounds of age.

Mr. no-name: If you want to disagree with my comments, that's lovely. But please read what I've said before doing so.

And please, please, please, won't you have a nice day?

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "he." But if this is the same pinhead that refers to "shillarybots" I make the assumption.

Obama should be careful and wait to disappoint his base until after the election.

rail against.

Chomsky and Johnson do not rail, which would be a WSJ or Washington Times description of what patriots like Chomsky and Johnson do. They criticize US policies in clear, objective rhetoric, with tremendous amounts of evidence. If people like Chomsky and Johnson declined cabinet positions, the reason would be they refuse to be co-opted into the corporatism that is the government of the US, which they have argued is the cause of so many of our national problems.

I think Weenie at 5:45 has it right. Much as some of us would like to start with a clean slate in the area of foreign policy, that just can't be done without inducing global whiplash. And we've had enough of that with the current crew, don't you think?

Please post and comment on this speech by Sen. Obama today on terrorism. It was a terrific offense/defense against the Rethugs and needs to be more widely showcased than I am (not) seeing around the blogosphere...

Optical Weenie, OF COURSE I would settle for 50/50 or 60/40 or even 30/70! Had there been even one fresh name in that list of advisors I would have held my tongue and hoped for the best.

Brojo, Thanks for your analysis at 7:17 PM. You're right on, as usual.

The names listed for Sen. Obama's "National Security Working Group" consists of veteran Democratic foreign policy advisors/executives of the 1990's - the last time a Democrat sat in the Oval Office. It is certain that the Republicans will push "The Democrats are weak on national security" as hard as possible during the campaign. Picking veteran foreign policy types makes that just a little bit harder.
Much as we might like to, we can't start up in January 2009 as if the last decade hadn't happened; but we can (or Sen. Obama can) find out from the people who participated in formulating and executing those decisions just what the the National Security positions were of the last adult-run government, why those positions were held, their effectiveness, and whether those methods and aims are still applicable to our national security aims in 2009. The contacts in foreign countries and governments that those mentioned undoubtedly have could also prove valuable.
For that job, these people are excellent choices.

The thing about Noam Chomsky is I feel like someone like that might be in the White House saying "do this, do that," w/ regard to particular executive decisions and diplomacy policy decisions, but the advice he'd give just would be totally incompatible with the status quo way of doing things (to the point that, more than changing things or setting a precedent, it would really just be spinning our wheels in the mud, and making the White House look ineffectual internationally).

Granted, this need not be the case with every opinion he'd have on diplomacy. There are some fronts, like for example w/ the United Nations, where the U.S. has been the rogue, and what obviously would be Chomsky's advice w/ regard to them would only please a lot of people that we'd be able to get into new working agreements with that we'd previously avoided. But I wouldn't need Noam Chomsky to tell me to do a lot of things like that (like pay our delinquent UN membership dues), I think, because I'd know to do them without him telling me what to do.

But back to advice he'd give that might be ineffectual. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: do you want to end sweatshops? Well this is how you might do it: make a minimum wage for foreign workers who work for U.S. firms, that is something like 1/4 or 1/2 of the U.S. minimum wage. Make adhering to that foreign-minimum wage a condition of being incorporated in, keeping corporate offices in, keeping corporate websites in, or selling/transporting corporate-produced products in the United States.

What will happen is that corporations will be faced with not being able to sell Nike shoes or whatever in the U.S. at high enough prices to compensate for all of the increase cost. Corporate executives will have to take decreased perks (like lectures by Scalia or Guiuliani or whoever that they take a $50,000 fee from, or gourmet catering, or who knows what else). Perhaps even some too-spacious or too-high rent corporate offices will have to close and relocate to cut costs (resulting, perhaps, in those space being turned into many new, affordable apartments in cities like LA and New York!).

How do you get something like this to happen, though? Well, you don't get it by a President rocking the boat al by his lonesome-- that's for sure. What you really need is the momentum of a full-blown social movement. You need to ease things up on labor in the United States so they can organize easier and get things done for themselves, and then they'll be able to advocate in solidarity better for the rights of workers areound the world, who the U.S. working man and woman benefit from as consumers of the products those foreign workers make.

Too many liberals nowadays don't understand that this is the way a lot of things we want to get done have to happen-- they'll face intractable opposition otherwise. We need to be sneaky about shit, and start think-tanks that are designed to nurture a social movement, just like the Republicans did with the their think-tanks creating the anti-abortion movement.

Sometimes someone like a Noam Chomsky or someone who toots the horn of someone like Noam Chomsky seems to call for a lot of unrealistic solutions to problems.

Noam Chomsky (no matter what you appoint him to do) or Barack Obama or some judge you appoint to the federal bench can't do this stuff alone. So getting one or two people in there is not enough, and if you keep thinking it is, you severely under-estimate the amount of work we need to do to accomplish our goals, and how long it will take. And a social movement, by the way, is not a handful of hyper-rich Jewish kids who go to boarding schools, have trust funds, and think everyone who isn't Jewish or hasn't heard of Noam Chomsky is a neanderthal. To start a social movement, you have to include people and get them to like you and what you're fighting for, not exclude people to start and exclusive, swanky social network for you and those who are worthy enough to be your friends.

Sorry if some of that sounds tough, but none of it is meant to be just a put-down or to be discouraging. Sometimes we need to hear stuff that is really real, and sometimes we need to hear stuff that sounds tough.

I have two words for all of you that think age=senility.

Albert Einstein

Now if someone will just hand me 1/2 of a piece of chalk, I can go back to my chemistry lecture...

Brojo:

"Chomsky and Johnson do not rail, which would be a WSJ or Washington Times description of what patriots like Chomsky and Johnson do."

Or a NYT or Washington Post description of what they do.

Goethean wrote: Noam Chomsky is an important linguist.

That may be true, just so people who don't know too much about him don't get confused, let me just point this out:

Noam Chomsky is a very smart guy who seems to have had real trouble deciding whether to go into linguistics or political science- linguisitics is the field he's trained in and works in, but he's written many works on U.S. foreign policy over many years that attract a lot of acclaim and notice. In fact, while Chomsky has many critics, the criticism of him seems to be usually over-broad and sweeping denuciations of him rather than of particular things he concludes, and to be fairly summed up as "I don't like Chomsky because he's critical of the U.S." although no one really says it like that, because it sounds so dumb. But his analyses are so accurate and professional that you really can't criticize a lot of them on any other basis than "I don't like him because he's critical of the U.S."

So while Chomsky is a linguist, he also moonlights, so to speak, as a foreign policy writer. People who are in the know consider him top-notch, or at least worth looking at, and people who don't consider him to be those things don't have really good reasons not to.

Corporate executives will have to take decreased perks (like lectures by Scalia or Guiuliani or whoever that they take a $50,000 fee from, or gourmet catering, or who knows what else).

And perhaps decreased salaries and benefits, too, of course.

Swan,

We're talking foreign policy here in regard to Chomsky and Johnson. Social movements are another thing entirely. But even in regard to foreign policy, both Chomsky and Johnson are, as Brojo said, honest enough to know that accepting a 'position' like Secretary of State would be an impossibility for them without severely compromising their positions. And if they did make that compromise, then they would be politically astute enough to know that they'd have to take things VERY SLOWLY. I'd like to see both of them in an advisory capacity of some sort. Seems unlikely and even unnecessary. They are hardly the only two reality-based foreign policy experts in the country.

Nepeta, talking about social movements is part of my explanation for why I wouldn't necessarily choose Chomsky, in case you hadn't noticed.

My point was that Chomsky (and many liberals who thinks Chomsky is a god) may not have realized that we can't solve a lot of things we've gotten into by something like executive action, and what we really need are legislation and court decisions that require a lot of heavy ground-work and preparation to happen-- at as broad a level of organization of the social-movement level (as opposed to a single letter-writing or political campaign, or adoption of a single White House policy).

Nepete wrote:

But even in regard to foreign policy, both Chomsky and Johnson are, as Brojo said, honest enough to know that accepting a 'position' like Secretary of State would be an impossibility for them without severely compromising their positions.

Contrary to you, I don't think these positions would necessarily compromise them at all, abd maybe they'd be idiots not to take a chance like that to try and change something, especially with the right president. But they'd just have to think things through so they know what kind of action by the president is actually going to change something, and what is just going to lead to frustration.

MLuther,

I'm 60 and I've got to admit that some aspects of my brain function have really diminished, e.g., memory for detail(s) and a facility for quick learning. I think my judgment ability has remained intact if not actually gotten better. Obviously the latter is probably most important for good leadership. But perhaps the president of the US should have the best of both? I think my description of aging on the brain is backed up by research but perhaps there are a lucky few individuals whose brains stay 'young' a decade or two longer than most.

Swan,

" talking about social movements is part of my explanation for why I wouldn't necessarily choose Chomsky, in case you hadn't noticed."

OK, but exactly how does a social movement on foreign policy work, other than a peace movement? Obama obviously wouldn't choose Chomsky to be head of HHS or Agriculture or ask him to be an advisor on trade.

" we can't solve a lot of things we've gotten into by something like executive action, and what we really need are legislation and court decisions that require a lot of heavy ground-work and preparation to happen"

In foreign policy? Foreign policy is run by the executive branch with only cheerleading or booing from the legislature while the courts remain silent.

In any case, I don't think we need worry about either Chomsky or Johnson being a part of the Obama administration.

nepeta,

I'm 60 as well, and would tend to agree that there is some diminishment. A lot of it seems to be that we quit trying to learn more and therefore lose some of the ability.

I would also like to see a balance so that we don't have idiots that never heard of the Bay of Pigs. I remain firmly convinced that "Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
At the same time, we do need more out of the box fresh ideas, and these will come from Gen X and Gen Y. I just hope they have better luck changing the world than we did.

Oh, and please excuse the lame math joke. I have just always liked that comeback of his.

MLuther, nepeta,

I'm a mere stripling of 59.* When I snapped at Housefly, which perhaps triggered your remarks, I was reacting not just to his "Christopher is senile" but the whole set of comments here that disqualify McSham based on his age. I can think of a thousand good reasons to vote for my cat before I'd vote for McSham, but his age isn't one of them. As MLuther said, look at Einstein. At the other end, look at GW Bush who was functionally "senile" the day he took office at the age of 54.

*(I lied to a young lady yesterday and said I'm 58, but that's okay. One loses track of these things. I'll be 59 next month, I think.)

I wrote:

I'd like someone more like a top-notch, globe-trotting lawyer who knows a lot about foreign policy

Thersites wrote:

I do believe that Swan is graciously volunteering himself. Oh Bravo!

Thersites, I was thinking of someone more like a Harvard or Yale Law School type (I'm not), who has worked for a big firm (I haven't), representing rich corporate interests (ditto) in transnational litigation and arbitration (ditto again).

Such a person-- coming into a change of career-- might have more loyalty to the presidency or to public policy than to the vested interests who are typically political king-makers, would be good at negotiating with sophisticated and wily people or entities, and (hopefully) as an incident of his/her experience would have developed an interest in foreign points of view, current events and news from abroad, and foreign national interests.

I forgot to mention my hypothetical lawyer would have a working knowledge of a lot of aspects of international law and treaties.

I also might prefer someone like a lawyer who worked in the private sector because they would being an outsider to politics and the world of diplomacy might make them more capable of outside-the-box thinking.

Nepeta wrote:

OK, but exactly how does a social movement on foreign policy work, other than a peace movement?

C'mon- foreign policy includes trade, environmental policy, extradition, etc.-- a lot of things. Basically everything international law can touch on. So, the example I gave (sweatshops) is a perfect example of something a social movement could be interested in. And the same goes for any international issue that's human-rights-related- like the rights of women, human trafficking, etc. Feminists, for example, like to see women's rights improved across the globe, because they know it helps to by-analogy raise the standard of what will be considered acceptable in their own country in the future.

Nepeta wrote:

In foreign policy? Foreign policy is run by the executive branch with only cheerleading or booing from the legislature while the courts remain silent.

I think my previous example about the sweatshops showed how this can effect what happens overseas. American corporations are international actors that hold assets, do business and emply workers overseas, so to the extent the U.S. can control and reprimand them, we can control what goes on (as far as the corporation's doings) in a foreign country. That can certainly be a big bargaining chip and influence a lot of how nations interact.

I guess I've got to admit that criticism of Chomsky can, hypothetically at least, be more substantive than just dislike of someone who criticizes American foreign policy (the criticism would be something like the U.S. needs to have a hands-on, pushy foreign-policy approach, that waht Chomsky is calling for is immiscible with that kind of approach, and that Chomsky's approach is therefore impractical). But I've got to point out that a Chomsky supporter like me would answer that the criticisms are so shallow, so indiscriminating, and so reactionary that they really have to be actually motivated by jingoism, and that the responses about realism or aggression in foreign policy are really just pretentious, rather than truly substantive, responses to Chomsky's foreign policy works.

I'm just concerned that a Chomsky response to an issue, say something like sweatshops, might be to make a statement or take an action that is too much a short-sighted, short-term response which ultimately steps on a lot of toes, and creates a lot of resentment, but practically accomplishes nothing + provides little incentive for other parties to conform their conduct to what we're asking of them.

If all we're concerned about is making overt statements or taking overt actions that exonerate us in the eyes of the not-too-astute share of observers of history, then a response like what a Chomsky or a starry-eyed Chomsky-acolyte might recommend might be good enough. If we're concerned with really solving problems, what we'll all-too-often need is something of a depth way beyond merely a "holier-than-thou" stance.

I know this was tangential...but Einstein's best work in Physics was in his younger days.
In fact his best work was before he reached his 30s. While he still did some good work in his 30s and 40s, he really missed the quantum revolution (more than missed it, actively resisted it) and we will never know how much he could have contributed if only he could buy into the idea. The stuff he worked on in his older days did not have a big impact on our sceintific thinking.
I am not saying he was senile; but the idea of using Einstein as a one word argument against senility only side tracks you (like it did me :-))

No one here knows whether or not Warren Christopher is senile. But no one should care. He's already given plenty of evidence when he was managing the Democratic side of the 2000 Florida recount that he is weak, and that he advises other Democrats to be weak.

That is already reason enough to make sure he never has a responsible job working for any Democrat for the rest of his natural days.

I am not saying he was senile; but the idea of using Einstein as a one word argument against senility only side tracks you (like it did me :-))

Leaving senility out of it, we do lose brain function as we age. Memory, speed of information retrieval, agility and capacity to learn new things are all affected to one degree or another. People generally start to notice these effects in their 40s. In subsequent decades, the process is even more pronounced, although of course it varies from person to person.

More importantly, though, we also lose physical function and stamina as we get older. The presidency isn't just hugely mentally challenging (assume standard Dubya joke has been made here); it's also a very physically demanding job because of the hours, the travel and the physical effects of stress. That's tough enough on a person in his or her 40 or 50s. For a person in his 70s, it's overwhelmingly hard. And McCain happens to be a very old version of 71--he's a guy in pretty bad physical shape after his travails in Vietnam and several bouts with cancer.

Interestingly, the demographic that most agrees that McCain is too old to be prez is seniors. It seems that most people McCain's age and older are quite up front about saying his age is an issue. Perhaps that's because they've passed the point of being hypersensitive and defensive about their age and the aging process, a not uncommon stage for people in their 40s, 50s and even 60s to pass through.

Thanks for this thread:

1. Some good points from Swan on getting things changed, particularly regarding an international living wage from our multinational companies.

2. I'm a mere 52, and after reading this, suddenly I don't feel like such an old coot anymore.

I am not saying he was senile; but the idea of using Einstein as a one word argument against senility only side tracks you (like it did me :-))

I don't see that as a side track.

Einstein spent his later years trying to come up with Grand Unified Field Theory...and failed. Maybe that was a bad decision due to senility But, nobody has a working GUT now either.

I would gladly trade his mathematical capacity at 70 for mine at any age. Who wouldn't except Stephen Hawking.

The point I was trying to make (poorly) is it depends on how much you start with. Einstein's senility is still a more than 90+% of people have at any age,

Senility is relative. :-)