Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. I'll be honest, I'm going to be voting for one of these guys. But lets take a look at them, and I will try to say things that you haven't heard a kurjillion number of times before.
Clinton: Well, she already knows all the good hiding places in the White House (Kah-dum-Pah!) And she already comes pre-investigated (Bah-dum-Pah!) And how about bringing Bill back - which is scarier, him as a good-will ambassador overseas or having tea with the congressional wives? (Rimshot! Thank you! I'll be here all week!)
OK, seriously, the greatest danger of this more-moderate Dem is that she will leave in place a lot of the power-grabbing debacles that the previous administration have come up with. Slow drawdown on the Iraqi occupations, further erosion of Constitutional Rights, keeping the candy-colored "Terror" button on her desk.
What I am having a problem buying is the sudden concern about "dynasty" government offices. Not only because we just had a third-generation government type in office (and look how well THAT worked out), but that the media is similarly ignoring that one of the "New Hotness" Reps, Mitt (short for Mittens) Romney is the son of Michigan Governor and former GOP candidate George Romney. If we're worrying about Pols in the family business, why has no one brought this up (And for that matter, where was all the concern about G. Romney's religion back in '68, when HE ran for Prez).
Let me explain the appeal about Obama, because it is a uniquely Democrat thing. It is not about youth or race or messages of hope. The big attraction to Obama is: He gave a great speech. No, really, back in 2004, at the Democratic Convention. I can think of no other place where you can suddenly put yourself on the map as a major contender just because of a single speech. Cuomo, Dukakis, Muskie - you really wonder where the Dems come up with candidates like these - it is because they gave a great speech. It's the Democratic party's version of American Idol.
On ethnicity, we have no one to blame for this other than FOX. No, I'm serious. "24" gave us not one but two African-American presidents in a row, reaching out to America and saying "Yeah, anyone can be president, if Jack Baur is hanging around to help". Good going, FOX.
And Edwards. I was a caucus candidate for him last time, and I have been paying attention to what he's been saying, and liking what I've heard. Most likely of the three to disassemble the hulking monster of federal oversight and overreach we've seen. He is very much the populist reformer he projects. But he does come out of the kit labled "Leaders of the New South". Every time a southern democrat succeeds, we talk about the "New South" - Carter's Georgia, Clinton's Arkansas, and had Gore taken office, we would have heard about Tennessee as the "New South". Well, at least it has been more successful than "Liberals from the North-East", which seems to be the other note the party likes to hit (Hey guys, how about "Guys from the West Coast?" What, the time-change too much for you?)
That's about it. Like I say, I'll be voting for one of the guys, since on their worst day they are more thoughtful than, say, Fred Thompson and more charismatic than Ron Paul. But I will point out, in Clinton's case, with the Writer's Strike, Leno and Letterman can run shows from ten years ago and no one will notice the difference (Kah-bash! Thank you! Remember to tip your waitress!)
Who would be Shakespeare If there were no Shakespeare? - So, as we were going in to see the play last weekend, Janice asked me an interesting question I cdn't answer: who would be Shakespeare if we didn't have Sh...
7 hours ago