Radley Balko wonders why Bush (and Cheney) haters would want Hillary!™ as president.

The 1990s, remember, weren't exactly a decade of peace. Bill Clinton ordered more U.S. military interventions than any other post-WWII administration, and there's no reason to think any of them were over Hillary's protestations. She supported the U.S. military campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia. She once boasted that as the tension in Kosovo mounted, she called her husband from her trip to Africa and, "I urged him to bomb."

Hillary Clinton voted for both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She voted for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. She voted to loosen restrictions limiting the federal government's ability to wiretap cell phones. In the past, she has supported a robust role for the federal government in enforcing "decency" standards in television and music. She teamed up with former Sen. Rick Santorum on a bill calling for the federal government to restrict the sale of violent video games.

Leftists concerned about the entertainment industry's increasingly imperial stand on copyright might take a cue from copyright guru Lawrence Lessig, who wrote on his blog for Wired magazine: "Of all the Dems, I would have bet she was closest to the copyright extremists. So far, she's done nothing to suggest to the contrary."

What about secrecy and executive power? It's difficult to see Hillary Clinton voluntarily handing back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush. Her husband's administration, for example, copiously invoked dubious "executive privilege" claims to keep from complying with congressional subpoenas and open records requests—claims the left now (correctly, in my view) regularly criticizes the Bush administration for invoking.

How short their memories are.

A very nice summary of why I intend to vote for Barack Obama in the Illinois primary.

Polls show Hillary Clinton has now opened up a striking 33-point lead over Barack Obama in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. The latest poll shows that likely Democratic primary voters favor her in every major policy area. Clinton also raised $27 million in campaign contributions in the last quarter, adding to an already-significant lead over her Democratic rivals.

He's wrong about the money. Obama has raised slightly more money than Hillary for primary purposes AND his donor base has vastly larger numbers of people who gave less than the $2300 maximum. More upside potential.

Hillary and Obama are essentially tied on fund raising even though Obama did not start out with Bill Clinton's Rolodex list of well connected donors.

4 years ago Hillary was already running for POTUS while Obama was a state senator. His ability to fund raise is an extraordinary story.

The polls? Hillary is indeed the prohibitive favorite. But remember that she started out with the head start offered by Bill Clinton's Rolodex and contacts. And that the MSM and polling outfits are on her side.

Obama doesn't believe in the accuracy of those polls and the theory is that Hillary's support is a "mile wide but an inch deep" -- we won't know that until the votes are counted.

A win for Obama in Iowa and all bets are off.

= = = =

In any event, what we need is a reduction in the unchecked powers of POTUS. No matter who wins in 2008.

And that the MSM ... are on her side.

You can say that again. Yesterday the L.A. Times ran a story about the odd prevalence of working-class Asian-Pacific immigrants who give $1,000 to her campaign -- reminiscent of the Norman Hsu business -- but the reporters credited the cash influx to "appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins."

In any event, what we need is a reduction in the unchecked powers of POTUS. No matter who wins in 2008.

It's a start. We can get to work on the other two branches of the federal government next.

Oops. That was me. This is the only blog I ever comment on that allows people to post with the name field empty.

The left wants Hillary! because she enshrines everything they want to be. To the extent that our President acted in a way Hillary! already has, he was stealing her thunder.

/end of irrational ranting/

More seriously, I think all three branches need to respect their institutional boundaries more. In a self-governing, federal republic, it is inappropriate to have the federal branches become so overwhelming.

I speculate that the mental model of competitive economies -- the industrial era -- fed this centralization. The concept of advantages from large scale (in markets, in warfare, etc) fed into everything else. Large power plants, large civil engineering projects, etc.

Current and near-future technology holds a promise of decentralization. When:

-- homes don't rely upon a centrally governed grid for electricity;

-- they process sewerage on site;

-- clean water is created on site;

-- vehicle transport uses electrons, decentrally harnessed and stored;

-- the central government demonstrates corruption, incompetence, and counterproductivity;

Then I suspect that the decentralization of economics will provide a conceptual basis for decentralized government.

-----------

Note: These concepts already exist, and have existed (Usonian estates, anyone?), but the centralization of society has long pushed them into the background. Maybe not so much anymore.

PS: Sorry about the O/T stuff.

"The left wants Hillary!"

And the 90% of the country that makes up the centre wants anything but the status quo. Since the rest of the republicans are still pushing the fundamentalist nutjob party line, that leaves the democrats and Ron Paul.

I'm hoping they vote for Paul.