Just what is it with the Democrats ... a deathwish?

I gotta say, JM, your observations are valid ... to but not inclusive of the potential for Democrac success in '04. Indeed we are too close to the events to e3valuate them objectively ... that is the major inconvenience of history; it takes time. From the perspective of historical example, however, I expect Bush the Younger to be rather well-remembered. An economic boom is well under way, and even the current inconvenience of Iraqi insurgency is little more than a media event. I note that most historically revered politicos had contemporary controversy and contention aplenty during their time on the stage. That too is part of their measure, wouldn't you think?

Timber,

You are absolutely correct. It is the great leader's "Vision Thing" that allows them to wade thru all the controversy surrounding their decisions and the events leading up to those decisions.

I am, however, worried about this Iraq business. Like most Americans most of what I hear is negative. Some of my more in depth reading produces some good stuff like school openings and increased power availability. The BBC seems more apt to show positive results in Iraq then does our own media, rather strange.

My worry comes from my somewhat hopeful desire of how important and truly momentous changes of political thought in Iraq (read constitutional democracy based on individual and economic liberty) can mean for not only the stability of the ME but the resultant increased stability of the international community. I had mentioned before that I think that this accomplishment would be more important and even further reaching than Hitler's downfall. It certainly is on the level of importance as the exposure of communism as just an ideological shell game thereby leading to its demise.

But herein lies the problem: If someone, such as myself who invests in such informational research, becomes impatient with the situation how are we to expect those who base their decisions upon scanty news and political sound bites to exhibit the patience to "stay the course"?

This is where use of leadership abilities becomes paramount. Somehow this administration must overcome the American penchant for instant success and the public's desire for immediate gratification. Ultimately the success of this enterprise will depend upon how closely this administration obtains this goal of educating all us citizens, for if the public loses patience all is lost.

You have mentioned the mind set of those cloistered in the Ivory Towers of Academia and their inability to countenance the difference between how things should be and how they really are in the real world. They sometimes deceive themselves into thinking what should be as ultimate truths when what they really espouse is how they think the world should be according to their own standards. Just as Academics participate in flights of fancy so do us citizens indulge when we eliminate those problematic variables caused by the thought, wants, and needs of people of different cultures and life situations. Only when we are given correct information can we work towards a compromise that works for all concerned.

JM

JM - I was writing of a leader coming along and showing us his leadership qualities first, but you are absolutely right that sometimes it takes a watershed moment to reveal the leader within. I long to have a man or woman come along and tell us what he or she believes in, and then challenge us to support him/her if we want those things and vote for someone else if we do not. That is the vision I want, and by which I would acknowledge a true leader.

Of course, I suspect that few Americans would recognize the value therein, which might make your earlier point for you and suggest that these men and women are out there, but we consistently push them aside for the gladhanders and barkers.

bookmark

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093083/Political Suicide Starring JiHoward Dean

Dean picks a fight with Clinton.
(Get some popcorn, this is a good one.)

And then there's

I'm not counting on Ralphie, though, no matter how pleasantly amusing the thought; the Left can't possibly be that disingenuous. Again.


Can they?

Run, Ralphie, Run!!!
I hope Rove has dispatched the secret cadre of mock supporters to the Nader camp to help Ralph make up his mind.

<The above conspiracy is a tribute to Wild Eyed Liberals.>

It is looking good, at present. Dean is imploding.

Didn't see anyone addressing Bush's VA spending, Timber. Guess they can't take all this bad news in one day. Thanks for bringing it. I really needed to see it.

Sofia:

Good to hear from you again!

I must concur with your Karl Rove actions assessment!

This brings up a subject that Bill Safire had addressed in a column not to long ago:

Dean is actually the best candidate for president that the Dems could run. Is this because Mr. Safire is secretly in league with Mr. Rove? Not necessarily. Seems Safire is looking into the far future. His view involves the supposition that the majority of Dems would like to see Sen. Hillary Clinton run for and win the presidency. If the Dems essentially concede this coming year's election to Bush then run Dean in 2008. If Dean won this would mean the possibility that Hillary would have to wait until 2016 to run . The fact that her age might mitigate her desire to run is secondary to the fact that 8 years of Deanism might make the public yearn for a more conservative (read republican) candidate. Added to this is the distinct possibility that Hillary's nepotistic connection with Clintonism would have dissolved by then.

The Dems (the ones that dispassionately view their chances at the presidency) know that Clintonism is barely discernable, on the whole, from that of the liberal conservatism of mainstream republicans. Clinton supported free trade, middle-class tax cuts and the military. The military we used to go after Al Qaeda and Saddam is a result of a Clinton administration build up and restructuring. In addition, which administration involved itself in the Balkans without UN approval?

With the democratic goal of reinstalling a more central candidate in mind, Dean is the Dems man for now. He runs a furious campaign dripping with vitriol and invective which points out the "bad" neocon or ultraconservative traits of the republicans and then looses. The Dems look like they really tried and in only 4 years Clintonism gets another chance.

Gephardt looks good to beat Bush in the mid-west but is that enough to win the presidency?

I really like Joe Lieberman. He, at present, embodies Clintonism and intellectualism, especially when compared with G.W., but then who doesn't? You gotta love Joe's quip about the result of Dean's anti-war logic in relation to Saddam. He reminds us that instead of us enjoying Saddam's subterranean adventures we might be seeing him continuing to add to the mass graves of his people. Good point.

Dean seems to think his leftist policies will get him the nomination and he may be correct but if that happens expect him to move much closer to the middle in his campaign against Bush. Problem is this tactic works towards a difficulty in discerning any difference between himself and his opponent and, in addition, makes him look like a Clintonite. In regards to the former, look to see Rove dredging up Dean's leftist quotes during the campaign, hell, Lieberman did. The latter should be a cause for wonder by the Dems as to why they didn't just tap Joe or Hillary in the first place and eliminate the middleman altogether.

Oh yeah, timber, if Nader runs I see Bush and Rove just kicking back on a beach somewhere and just letting their opponents do their work for them.

JM