In contrast to Charlie Rangel, Bill Clinton gets it, and demonstrates why he was so politically successful. Of course, some of it is to try to cover his own sorry ass for his pusillanimousness with respect to foreign (as opposed to Montana militia) terrorism.

Fortunately, in their utter insanity over their unexpected and continued loss of power, to which they thought themselves naturally entitled, I expect the Democrats to continue driving themselves over the cliff.

Whether Bill really gets it or not is beside the point. What is really important to the Clintons right now is that Mr. Bush win re-election.

Don't think so? Why would good Democrats want the Republican to win? Simple. If a Democrat wins next year, then he will almost certainly be the Dem's nominee in 2008. Mrs. Clinton's only chance of winning both the nomination and the election is in 2008. 2004 would be too soon - she needs to build a track record and distance herself from his performance - and in 2012 she would probably be too old.

Therefore, they want Mr. Bush to win the 2004 race, so that 2008 will be an open race. You will notice a definite pattern with both Clintons recently to belittle the Democrat presidential candidates and steal the spotlight from them. This is why.

Not that I think Mrs. Clinton will win in 2008. She is simply too divisive to attract enough swing voters, no matter how much the press pulls for her. Nor would I want to see those two in the White House again. But they certainly think they can win and that explains most of their public comments and actions since leaving the White House. So, Mr. Clinton's comments have nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of Mr. Bush's actions; they are simply political expediencies, as we have always come to expect from him.

> Not that I think Mrs. Clinton will win in 2008.
> She is simply too divisive to attract enough
> swing voters, no matter how much the press
> pulls for her.

I agree that being a woman, ambitious, intelligent and a Democrat won't go down well with voters in the South. But the "divisiveness" argument against her is, basically, nonsense. A successful candidate such as Reagan, Clinton and (arguably-) the current President is more often than not loathed by the opposition. Partly as a result of this, he tends to be hugely popular among the (relatively extremist-) core supporter base, which then will cut him some slack when he invariably pursues some centrist policies the true believers normally would oppose. Bush v1 was inept at this (he didn't "speak the language of the average Republican"), which explains why he wasn't reelected. Reagan, on the other hand, did this all the time with the religious right (=paying lip service to school prayer etc.) and one might say Clinton successfully marketed himself to liberal activists and blacks as secretly being "one of us" despite frequently borrowing political ideas from the Republicans.

One might also argue that "Slick Bill" and "Shrub" are being loathed mostly for personal reasons by their ideological opponents from the other party, rather than because of the policies they favor, which tend to be surprisingly centrist upon closer examination. Hillary has also been pursuing a more moderate set of policies recently. The Republicans will still hate her in 2008, but swing voters may well have a shorter memory. And if "Shrub" gets reelected, you can be sure the Democratic base will enthusiastically support her.

MARCU$

Marcus, your continuing to refer to the president as "Shrub" doesn't lend much weight to your comments, and in fact makes it hard to take anything else you write seriously.

I'm not so sure any more about Hillary and the Whitehouse. What if her strategy is to build long term staying power in the Senate? Under a party-in-power changeover, she would arguably gain a lot of clout. A longer term grip on power. How many Presidents did Thurmon, etc. see out? And, I keep hearing the pre 1994 echo of Ted Kennedy saying; "If we win a majority this time, we'll get single-payer" (healthcare). Eeeww.

As for presidential ambition, the biggie for me is Diane Feinstein is now supporting vouchers. Why? I'm watching for any "reasonable" overtures from her on gun control.

>> One might also argue that "Slick Bill"
>> and "Shrub"

> Marcus, your continuing to refer to the
> president as "Shrub" doesn't lend much weight
> to your comments

What's in a name, Rand?
---
Funny how you don't seem to mind me calling Clinton names, BTW.

MARCU$

What nickname do I use for Clinton, Marcus? I usually refer to him as Mr. Clinton, or Bill Clinton.

Anyway, what's your point? You're entitled to think whatever you want of my opinions. I'm just telling you that yours are devalued by the use of that silly nickname. You can certainly continue to look unserious if you want.

But the "divisiveness" argument against her is, basically, nonsense. A successful candidate such as Reagan, Clinton and (arguably-) the current President is more often than not loathed by the opposition.

She is a polarizing figure, in that people in flyover country who are as likely as not to sit out an election like, say, Bush-Gore, would flock to the polls to vote for Mrs. Clinton's opponent.

Nice lip curl at Southerners there, Marcu$. If you want to know how many Southerners feel about strong, independent women, you might wander over to Mike's place at and read his paeon to "Tough Chicks." I can think of a number of tough, smart, independent women who would do well in the South; Maggie Thatcher (if younger and eligible), Jeanne Kirkpatric, and Condaleeza Rice for starters. Hillary isn't well liked in the South, because she is seen as what she is, an elitist phony.

Drat, the link didn't take. Mike's place is [coldfury.com].

> You're entitled to think whatever you want of
> my opinions. I'm just telling you that yours
> are devalued by the use of that silly nickname.
> You can certainly continue to look unserious if
> you want.

So I look "unserious" and "silly" to you whenever I am using Molly Irvins' moderately derogatory term for the current POTUS? And this from someone who posts sneering remarks about "anti-globo morons", "duplicitous power-hungry whores", "tree huggers" etc.. Oh dear.

MARCU$

So I look "unserious" and "silly" to you whenever I am using Molly Irvins' moderately derogatory term for the current POTUS?

Yes. Just as Molly does.

I'm not telling you not to use descriptive language, Marcus. I'm saying don't use silly and demeaning (and unoriginal) nicknames. Given your command of English, I'm surprised that you don't understand the difference.