seriously now.  

ability whatsoever.  I don't mind his ideology so very much--(I don't particularly care for the "politics of confrontation that he favors) but he was just awful as mayor of Cleveland.  I think that brings up another point.  It is not enough to be in tune with the people politically--which, of course, Obama is--he quite correctly read the mood of the people.  Part of that is because he actually listens to people--he makes a point of it.  

Further, the Chief Executive, must, in fact, be an excellent manager which Obama has obviously done an excellent job in that capacity during this campaign.  Someone might object that his team was responsible, but that is the province of a really good manager--knowing who to select for what job and then bringing our harmony between them so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  

and run all over the country to campaign for bernie. One smart mofo

A few months ago McCain was shouting that there should never be a timetable to end Iraq. Now he saying that "the war will be won" (we all know that this is an occupation, not a war) and all combat troops should be out by 2013, which is a giant step to the left and a flip-flop.

But, it's just pandering. He sees that the majority wants this and he is pandering to them.

Barack insinuates that victory in Iraq can be easily be won if the circumstances that trigger victory are attainable and clear and not grandiose and vague. Barack questions the current administration's definition of victory and asks why can't the status quo, after a draw-down, be something less than where Bush puts the bar which is not attainable considering the length of the occupation.

Barack has a great gift of being able to talk nuances of policy in plain language. This is both intellectually stimulating and satisfying.

I think McCain has latched onto the attainable goals meme and will change his speeches to reflect that without really understanding the direction he is going.

The fault with McCain is that he doesn't get it right the first time, and he can't seem to stand firm on one position. He is stuck in the spin cycle.  (I call him "Weathervane McCain".)

I have a crush on Darcy (including that sassy goddamn haircut), but Kleeb needs some serious image help for November. I was watching his victory speech the other night on local TV...his haircut looks way too farm, but more importantly, he wears no makeup even when he knows he's going to be on camera, so his complexion flaws show up and he shines with sweat.

Meanwhile, Johanns came on looking like the meticulously-manicured career politician he is, all made up and wearing an expensive tailored suit.

Now, I'm not saying that all that surface stuff is going to have any effect on my vote, but if you're going to run for the US Senate, you absolutely have to look like you have your shit together, not like you just came in out of the field to eat a big slab of ham for "dinner" (that's what they call lunch out west in Kleeb country :) ).

Since I've never seen Washington or Jefferson without a wig, it's hard to say about them.

Wasn't John Quincy Adams partially bald, like less hair than Ben Franklin bald? And since male pattern baldness usually runs in the family, John Adams was probably balding. Martin Van Buren was bald. Lincoln had a receding hairline. William Taft had a tonsure. FDR's hair thinned over four terms; Truman's and LBJ's over one and a half. Post-war, Ike's hair was pretty thin, and he probably wore a hair piece. Ditto for Nixon. Gerald Ford was going bald as Veep, and his hair got greyer and thinner as President.

So, our last bald president was Gerald Ford.

have some things right (civil liberties, support for the Constitution) but are waaaay offbase in some of their positions.  It is neither prudent nor effective to privatize everything.  We have had far too many services privatized.  The traditional government services worked well--why did we allow them to be messed with?  I strenuously object to safety services being privatized--especially the police.  They need to think of themselves as public servants, not boss-pleasers.  That could be fraught with peril--just as our little Blackwater army has been a disaster in Iraq.  We need to demand that the private warriors be gone from Iraq immediately.  Sorry if that cuts into Erik Prince's profits.  Ditto for these new "private spies" that are snooping on the FBI and the DoJ.  What's up with that?  Sounds like Tinfoil Hat time.

One (flawed) aspect of libertarianism that gets a lot of play is unrestrained trade and largely unregulated everything.  I think this is simplistic.

It is often explained that a corporation wouldn't do anything that in the end would hurt their long term image because that wouldn't be profitable.  The flaw in this argument (that we see realized over and over) is that there are plenty of opportunities to "take the money and run" so some regulation is necessary - Can you say "mortgage crisis"?

The appealing part of Libertarianism is the reminder that taxation is the empowerment of people with weapons (government) to take your property, by force if you are uncooperative, for the common good.  As a consequence, Libertarians are pickier than some about what is an appropriate use of tax revenue, and like to explore what exactly is meant by "common good".

Libertarians are also pretty big on personal responsibility (you made the mess, you clean it up) which makes for some challenging balancing of perspectives on policy issues.  For example, I believe you should have the freedom NOT to wear a motorcycle helmet (I don't think it's a wise choice, but it should be YOURS if you are an adult).  If you bust your head open as a result of your choice, I'm hesitant to pay your medical bills.

See... For the record, I don't completely agree with the Libertarians either.  Big problem is trying to encapsulate a broad spectrum of complex views and values in a handful of labels like "Republican", "Democrat", "Liberal", "Moderate", "Conservative" etc.

Thanks for the support.  Thanks for the dialog.