No Way

Hillary might not run for President, you say? Poppycock, says I. Hillary's looking at the field of potential challengers in 2008 and salivating. The article suggests that Hillary might serve as Dem Leader in the Senate for a few years and gear up for a run in 2012. Two problems: first, it's entirely possible that a Dem will win in 2008, and that would foreclose her options until 2016; second, by 2012, if the Democrats don't win in 2008, Barack Obama will be emerging, and Hillary would have someone who matches her in "star power" to contend with for the nomination. I just don't see this as having any validity. Hillary will run in 2008, and she will probably win the nomination. Whether she can take out whoever wins the Republican nomination is a much less settled question.

Good ole' Mexico

I'm really glad that things like this generally don't happen here. Although, really, this is just a bit of great political theater, and Great Britain's unruly House of Commons (watch "Prime Minister's Questions" on C-Span sometime to see how...ahem...respectful the opposition MP's are to Tony) proves that civility isn't a pre-requisite for an effective government. It isn't really the protest that I'm disturbed by. Instead, it's Lopez Obrador's insistence on refusing to honor the results of an upcoming decision by Mexico's electoral court on whether the July election was valid, unless of course the court rules in his favor.

I am much too far removed to know who "actually" won the Mexican election. Corruption in elections is rampant anyplace where large-scale elections are held, and so there was undoubtedly some foul play going on in Mexico. But Lopez Obrador is just a candidate, and his followers are just average folks. To analogize, how would a pig farmer from Iowa, or a stock brocker from New York, or an actor from Hollywood have any idea whether an election was "free and fair?" Simple answer; they wouldn't. I haven't seen a single piece of hard evidence indicating fraud in Mexico's election. Instead, it is enough for Lopez Obrador that he didn't get enough votes. That, in and of itself, provides the necessary proof.

Lopez Obrador has gone so far as to say that if he loses in court, he will "create a parallel government and rule from the streets." Imagine if we did that here? I can just imagine "shadow" Secretary of State Joe Biden delivering addresses on Iraq at the behest of "shadow" President John Kerry. Lopez Obrador may or may not be the better choice to lead Mexico, but that really isn't the point. He lost the election, and he and his party need to end the fight before they do irreparable harm to the spark of democracy that exists there.

Just shut up...

and go away.

Wal-Mart Politics

I find the end premise of this Real Clear Politics blog post a little bit dubious. Ryan suggests that "The people who shop at Wal-Mart and like the bargains, on the other hand, are up for grabs. And this will only push them toward the Republicans."

Somehow, I don't think so. Even in this most consumer-oriented of cultures, I don't know a single person who would base their decision on who to vote for in an election on whether the candidate was pro- or anti-Wal-Mart. And I have to say, I'd be very, very frightened to find out that this is what elections are being decided on.

Of course, if you can be a single-issue voter on an issue like abortion, gun control, or gay marriage, then I guess anything is possible. Single issue voting based on a candidate's Wal-Mart stance makes just about as much sense.

What Was That, Joe?

Joe Biden says a lot of silly things. This, however, ranks up there. When talking about his ability to beat out 2008 Presidential challengers like Mark Warner (VA) and John Edwards (NC), he said "My State was a slave State too." Uh...what? Now, Biden isn't stupid, exactly. But he has an odd way of getting to his point. I assume that this statement meant he could connect with black voters in the same way that politicians from the South can (if you have a better suggestion of what he was going for, let me know). But, seriously, shouldn't a career politician have a bit more ability to discern what is, and what is not, going to sound completely foolish in public? I've long thought that if Gore had won in 2000, or Kerry in 2004, that Biden might be asked to serve in the Cabinet. But, really, would you want someone with such a tremendous propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth in YOUR cabinet if you were the President?

Oh My

More evidence that Katherine Harris is a loon. Even if she believes this stuff (and I have no doubt that she does), you don't SAY IT OUT LOUD! This race is an embarrasment for the Republican Party. How could there not be a single candidate in Florida willing to take on an only moderately popular, unspectacular candidate like Bill Nelson? Ouch.