Watch The Lady

Well, the actual delegates aren't chosen until April, so if these allegations are true, maybe it can be rectified. (And Obama seems to have won 13 to Hillary's 12 anyway.)

That's an ends-means argument. The practices would be no less sleazy had she lost unequivocally.

Speaking of potential third party candidates, what are your thoughts on Bloomberg? I'm curious what a liberal New Yorker's impressions of him are. From where I sit, much of the coverage I've seen is fawning over him.

I personally loathe the guy, although he hasn't been a complete disaster as mayor. (A partial one, but he implemented several common-sense programs and cleaned up corruption in the city.) Beyond that, he brought the GOP convention here (and had the police sweep up everybody who even thought of protesting), and he spent ages trying to get a new Jets stadium built in Manhattan--something which would have brought ruinous traffic and given benefit to no one who doesn't already own season tickets. Thank god that didn't happen.

As president--I don't get it. He's a Democrat in every single sense except that he supports the war. What constituency, other than possibly Jews, is he going for? He keeps talking about "unity"; well, the country's pretty fucking united now, and it's united for just about everything the Democrats stand for including the war. He's also got zero foreign policy experience and no experience in office other than municipal government, which ain't really that applicable to being the country's chief executive. He held a "unity" conference of prominent moderates in both parties a few weeks ago, and most of them indicated afterwards that they still planned to support their own party's nominee.

He's an egomaniac who wants to be president, and that's the whole Bloomberg mystique. He has no obvious voter base, no party in need of a candidate, no relevant experience, and nothing going for him whatsoever other than billions of dollars at his disposal. And if he does so, there's no telling exactly what will happen--perhaps he'll attract disaffected Republican voters in Ohio, or perhaps he'll attract Jewish Democrats in Florida. Or perhaps he'll attract virtually no one, as is usually the case with third-party candidates. Can't tell right now.

All I can tell, really, is that I am sick to death of the man and would find eight more years in his company utter torture. Listen to him speak for a couple of minutes and say you don't agree.

Interesting. I was reading a story about him (in Esquire, if memory serves) where his campaign manager "rebutted" the assertion that his experience as mayor of NYC wasn't relevant by pointing out that running NYC is a bit like running a small country anyway. I chuckled.

I do think, though, that you overestimate the "unitedness" of the country. I mean, I think the last 7 years in America have been an unmitigated disaster, and George W. Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents—if not the worst—in American history. Any intelligent person should be able to see that. But my experience living in the buckle of the Bible Belt is that he and the Republicans are still going strong. People down here STILL support the war and STILL support his moralist crusading. And I can imagine that there are still people in the flyover states who feel the same way. If anything, I think we're more divided now than we were four years ago. I'd support a viable "third way," if one were found. I'm sick to death of the Do-Nothing Democrats, and I'll never vote for another Republican.

Sorry to ramble.

It's a shame that the brainwashing is so effective in some parts of the country, yes. But it's damn hard to get more than half of the country to agree on anything, and seventy-odd percent being sick of Bush is pretty remarkable.

And I sympathize about wanting other approaches. Unfortunately, this is one of the design flaws that's ultimately going to kill America: the only possible effect of third parties (other than no effect) is to enable unchecked minority rule. If I were in charge (and really, I should be), I'd put more oomph into every vote--proportional representation, coalitions between small parties, a prime minister chosen by the majority party, elections called on short notice at irregular intervals, a judiciary that isn't chosen entirely by the executive branch, etc.

But I am not in charge, and I think the only thing to do is to vote for whoever is likeliest to provide competent stewardship. And while I have very little respect for the Democrats, the Republicans are simply intent on driving us off a cliff, and must be stopped. There is no course of action that will have the necessary effect other than voting for Democrats.

We're completely and utterly screwed. Best to accept it and move on with our lives.