check "bathos" for a nice donkey pic

"We've got to be for something..."

In my lifetime, they've been for a whole bunch of somethings: (1) defeat in Vietnam; (2) appeasement of the USSR; (3) the abortion industry; (4) providing gay men access to little boys; (5) federally funding the abortion industry; (6) discrimination against observant Catholics; (7) Bill Clinton's sexual gratification; (8) American defeat in the Middle East; (9) maintaining the public school monopoly; (10) gay marriage.

Seems like they need to get a new set of "somethings."

JUST IN !!!

Jane Fonda to stump against Iraq war!!!

She'll be touring the USA beginning in March, 2006 on a bus fueled by vegetable oil. She also stated it will be an exciting tour.

DID Karl ROVE PLAN THIS ONE TOO?

This is not from Scrappleface. Not yet anyway.
See the MSNBC website.

The DLC which at one time was an honorable attempt to keep socially-conservative,strong on defense, tax-and-spend Democrats in a party dominated by McGovernites used to actually stand for something. They, like so many other unsuspecting fools, hitched themselves to Bill Clinton's wagon and got taken straight to the glue factory.

With Southern realignment and the narrowing of the gender gap after 9/11, they are reduced to being pom-pom girls for Hilary.

Bart - true, but the DLC gives Hillary the cover/credentials she needs to portray herself as a centrist. The GOP needs to pound into the voters that Bill ran as a centrist but once in office veered left and that Hillary will do the same.

AWW,

If memory serves she has a 3 decade long paper trail of real leftie weirdness and the GOP does have a huge fundraising advantage. If they can't pound it into the electorate's heads that she is a leftie weirdo then they have only themselves to blame.

bart --

Americans are notoriously forgiving and forgetful when it comes to politicians. As much as I would like Hillary's paper trail or her 1994 health care debacle to be the millstone that sinks her presidential hopes, the Republicans in the Senate and House are going to have to force her to vote on devisive issues that aren't 70-30 or 80-20 slam dunks, where she can allign with the moderates and conservatives and not bring down the wrath of the MoveOn crowd upon her. Get something that comes out 52-50 or 51-49, where what Hillary does will make a difference and will be remembered a few years from now.

The problem is those same close, devisive votes, say on abortion restrictions, Social Security reform or a Supreme Court nominee more controversal than John Roberts, could also hurt GOP incumbents running in less than conservative states, like Santorum in Pennsylvania. So the Republicans can play don't rock the boat and thereby protect their own, but come 2008 they'll find themselves with little amunition to throw against Hillary that's current in the minds of the public. And like that old explosive material in London last week that failed to go off, political scandals only have a certain shelf life among the swing voters who will decide the election.

She's governed to the center.

As devisive as the current political climate may seem, very little controversial legislation has come to the floor for a vote in the Senate -- the big issues have either passed easily or been bottled up in committee before the full Senate ever has to make a decision. Works out perfectly for someone trying to govern to the center but who doesn't want to permanently burn bridges with their traditional base.

She's a senator she doesn't govern.

The Senate isn't part of the government?

The Senate is far more a hindrance to government than a contributor, and it really serves no purpose.

John,

Your point is a good one. However, didn't Dukakis have to pay a price for weekend furloughs for Willie Horton, et al? And doesn't Hilary's paper trail provide more than just Willie Horton but pretty much the entire roster of the 1968 Tigers for ammunition? Hilary-care alone should be worth 3 or 4 states.

There is no more noble purpose.

As we can see with respect to Bolton and the judicial confirmation process.

The notion of having the Leader of the Free World have to suck up to third-rate hacks and ward heelers like Hagel, Voinovich and Specter simply makes one nauseous. It's like Vittorio Orlando(il amico degli amici) dictating terms at Versailles.

bart --

Hillary's in a pretty unique position. Usually, it's better to be a governor than a senator when running for president because governors can try out new ideas at the state level and get their names attached to them, and develop a core base of supporters for those projects that form the basis of their national campaign. Senators, on the other hand, usually are just followers who can't be the driving force behind legislation that gets credited to the executive branch (a situation like McCain and campaign finance reform being a exception to the rule). But they are forced to take positions with their votes on key national issues, and then have to run on those votes.

In Hillary's case, she already has a base of core supporters who know where she stands -- or at least think they do. With that advantage it's in her best interest to say things that will attract voters with less liberal views, but it's not in her interest to flick a vote swtich on any controversial issue that might show if she's really changed her views or is just doing some Dick Morris triangulation. And while her supporters treat her as if she's had an official agenda for years, Hillary has never had to put pen to paper to sign any legislation or take legal responsibility for any controversial action, as Dukakis did with his pardon of Mr. Horton.

That won't matter to hard-core political junkies who know the missus' life history, but with the big media outlets other than Fox as almost certain supporters, the lack of an official paper trail will have an effect on coverage in 2008, and she hopes, on enough "casual" voters in one or two states to swing them over to the Blue column.

She has a whole list of statements, articles, and associations which will easily enable any semi-clever campaign manager to paint her as a far leftist. If this were 1992, I'd say that I would really be worried about media bias by the MSM, but with newspaper readership almost gone, the national media having the same approval rating as used car salesmen and well below lawyers and elected officials, the presence of the blogosphere and the skewing of the American electorate towards the well-educated, affluent and, by logical extension, computer-literate, this is far less of an issue than it would otherwise be.

There is a solid 45% of the American electorate that would brave the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the Janet Reno Justice Department to vote against her. That means she has to do extremely well with the remaining 55%, winning about 90% of same in order to get elected.

bart:

Bolton should be blocked--he's a jerk. But the Constitutionm allows the President to name him over sensible objections.

"She's governed to the center."

oj

Governed what? Senators may try to affect policy, but they don't govern.

"Bolton should be blocked--he's a jerk."

OJ channels George voinovich. Explains a lot.

If he is a jerk, and I don't think he is, that is only further recommendation for that cesspool known as the UN.

I still think that Pauly Shore or Alan Keyes might be a better choice. Or perhaps Herschel Krustofsky.

bart:

Sure, it's the reason for the GOP to support him and Democrats to filibuster.