The, very new, bad boy of the left, NBC?s Tim Russert, quized the DNC Chairman*: Now, you said in The New York Times last week, ?Jeb Bush is gone.? You want to take those words back?

McAuliffe: Of course not. I?ve very excited about what?s going on in Florida.

Russert: He?s going to lose guaranteed?

McAuliffe: Yep. That is why the president was down there yesterday for his 13th visit. People in Florida are energized. They?ve already started the early voting. And if you look at Broward and Dade counties, there are lines already, huge lines, people--record vote coming out in Florida... we are going to win Florida which is going to set us up, Tim, very nicely for 2004.




* NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? November 3, 2002

I absolutely agree HC. Less tech is the answer.
In some circumstances 1950's technology is perfectly fine. If not better.
How many time have you heard it said, "They just don't build things the way they used to.." ?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

The, very new, bad boy of the left, NBC?s Tim Russert, quized the DNC Chairman*: Now, you said in The New York Times last week, ?Jeb Bush is gone.? You want to take those words back?

McAuliffe: Of course not. I?ve very excited about what?s going on in Florida.

Russert: He?s going to lose guaranteed?

McAuliffe: Yep. That is why the president was down there yesterday for his 13th visit. People in Florida are energized. They?ve already started the early voting. And if you look at Broward and Dade counties, there are lines already, huge lines, people--record vote coming out in Florida... we are going to win Florida which is going to set us up, Tim, very nicely for 2004.




* NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? November 3, 2002

Hey Terry, whats that black feathery thing in your teeth?

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

So maybe the service was supposed to be a political rally too. Why is that a problem? Maybe it's what Wellstone would have wanted ... for people to laugh and joke and have a good time remembering him, and then fight like hell to keep his political agenda alive. What's wrong with that?

I think that conservatives really couldn't care less about people showing a lack of respect for the man. It seems to me that what really bothers them is seeing anyone promote the Democratic agenda.

No, what bothers us is that they tried to use the real grief to suppress any political opposition to that agenda. They were seeking to harness it, so to speak, to make running against Mondale be perceived as insulting to Wellstone. It didnt work, but they did try it.

As I said before, if all they had done was throw a wild party, that would be there business. I might personally find it tasteless or I might not, but it would be none of my business either way. But this was something quite other than that.

Geez, HC, are you just now finding out that politics is a dirty business?

Of course not. But you seem to be implying that the correct response would be to ignore this. By doing that, we'd enable their goal to succeed. By calling them on it, we largely neutralized it. It was precisely their hope that admixing the private into the public would prevent us from calling them on it.

As it happens, I suspect that this manuever backfired on them in a large way in practice.

This is why I think that both the Democrats and Republicans suck. Both sides are completely hypocritical. You can bet your ass that if Jesse Helms died and his memorial service was also a political rally, there would be no conservatives complaining, but the Democrats would throw a fit. Ethics and taste have nothing to do with it. It's all about politics.

That's a half-truth. But nobody's ever tried to combine a memorial service and a political rally that way in recent memory. Frankly, it wouldn't even occur to most conservatives, or most liberals for that matter. This isn't so much a Democratic thing as a Clinton/McAuliffe thing.

As big a night this seems to be turning out for the GOP, the much bigger story here at www.fourthturning.com in my mind is this zzzzzzzzz story:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by voltronx

Well, that was sort of a disappointment. I saw this title and the fact that itas created by S&H, and I thought this topic was a kind of "Is the 911 Attack Triggering a Fourth Turning?" type article from them. Something that would confront and discuss the question of whether the 2002 election has the qualities that make it a 4T election, the differences between elections typical of Third Turnings and those typical of Fourth Turnings, and how to tell.

BREAKING NEWS This just in, from the Fourth Turning Blog!

For the very latest on "Is Election 2002 a Fourth Turning?", we go now to Messers Strauss and Howe: What, Messers Strauss and Howe, have you to say about Election 2002?

Originally Posted by Messers Strauss and Howe

Hummm.... Interesting. We now...zzzzzz... return you...zzzzzz... to you regularly scheduled... zzzzzzz... nothing. :wink:

In a recent full page spread of my local rag, The Columbus Dispatch, headlined:

Historical patterns emerge over centuries
History is a moving target.

The reporter summed his thesis as follows:

A fourth turning brings crises but ultimately "periods of achievement, a higher plane."

"What's happening to American society does mirror the early 1930s in a number of ways," Strauss said. "There is a question of whether 9/11 is for the current era what the stock-market crash was to the prior era -- an end to one mood and the start of another."

Talk about "hedging your bets"? It doesn't get any worse than that. :wink:

While talking about negative ads on the newshour, one anchor said, "They're not new, they're just getting nastier". 3T.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

You seem to be under the impression that Bush and Limbaugh send out control programs that all conservatives echo. It just doesn't work that way. Granted, Limbaugh is a staunch partisan, and he often skips over the bad side of the GOP as he lambastes his opponents. But the fact remains that most conservatives came to approximately the same conclusions with or without him.

No, they didn't HC. I witnessed it with my own eyes through the tail end of 1999 and into the early 2000 primaries among the "conservatives" I know in real life. And, yes, I was absolutely appalled when I first encounted this because I had spent all the years previous defending "conservatives" from such charges made by "liberals." Actually, I will not go so far as to say that "liberals" were correct all those years and that dittoheads have always been simply the guy's mind-numbed robots. But with respect to George W. Bush getting first the nomination and later the selection, he owes his "success" entirely to the influence of that vile cretin on the radio...entirely.

Now you are partly on to something.

When G.W.B. was first mooted as a possible candidate for the presidency, he was indeed regarded with some reluctance by many conservatives, me included, and it indeed Limbaugh was one of the GOP types who helped him get past that initial reluctance.

However, that alone would not have done it. There were three things going for G.W.B. along with Limbaugh. One was the Bush name recognition, and the sense among many GOP types that Ross Perot had caused Clinton to win out against Bush. This made the idea of electing a Bush more palatable than it might otherwise have been to many.

Another was the lack of plausible GOP rival candidacies.

Most important of all was the fact that from the GOP POV, nearly anyone was better than Clinton and Gore.

Further, Bush connected with the public over time. This is something the Dems have overlooked to their cost, and which I think you yourself don't quite recognize. If Bush is as evil as you suspect, he hides it quite well, not that that proves anything.

BTW, thank you for confirming that the vile cretin did generate all this nonsense exploiting a dead man's memorial service.

No, Stonewall, he didn't generate it. I'm beginning to wonder whether your fear and hate of Bush has blinded you to reality. Almost every conservative who saw that broadcast had that same reaction. My reaction was formulated that night. So did most of Minnesota, apparently, to judge by the Sunday polls. It was never really a memorial service, and there's nothing you can say that will make it one.

Limbaugh is very good at some subjects, such as media analysis. He's rotten at others. When he talks about scientific matters especially, he's often cringe-worthy. OTOH, he's not as blindly devoted to Bush as you seem to think either, though sometimes he does indeed have to stretch his arguments to avoid certain things. But he's no different in that from countless other political commentators of all stripes in that.

BTW, Limbaugh has occasionally hinted (I'm not sure how seriously) at the possibility that Torricelli was threatened with violence if he didn't withdraw in favor of Lautenburg, something I don't believe any more than the theory that the Right killed Wellstone.

(I do suspect Torricelli was threatened, but not with violence.)

I cannot listen to him for more than two minutes now without getting physically ill and I only heard him mouthing off for a two minute span while spinning the dial that day. When I heard Hannity mouthing off about the same thing later that day (again, for a two minute span because I can no longer take any more than two minutes of Hannity either), probabilities suggested to me that the Flatulent Fraud had dedicated his whole show to milking that dead man's memorial service. Based upon your response, it would appear that he indeed did. That is sad, really sad.

Yeah, all the GOP types were talking about it. It resonated. More than a few Democrats and Liberals had the exact same immediate reaction, and they certainly don't take their cues from Rush. Stonewall, it's your reaction that is out of touch. This isn't some malfunction in conservatism, it's a failure of perception on your part. I don't say that insultingly, but it's true.

Stonewall, as I said before, get a grip. The things you are saying here are losing touch with the cold facts. I STILL oppose the national ID card, and in my opinion the GOP is less likely to create one than the Democrats.

Well, at the moment it is your beloved Bush administration which is leading the effort and they wear an "R," not a "D." So why don't you get a grip, vote straight Democrat, and keep things as bottled up as possible?[/quote]

Because voting Democratic makes all these things more likely, not less. Don't kid yourself, Stonewall, the Democrats offer no refuge on this matter.

Ok, more Stonewall and Hopeful...

In the meantime, as it appears that Adolf Hitler's "Gestapoesque" Bushlickers take over the United States of America, one (of sound mind, anyway) might wish to consider, again, Messers Strauss and Howe in all this nonsense:

In the spring of 1988, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., published an article entitled "Wake Up Liberals, Your Time Has come," predicting a resurgence of sixties-style liberalism over the next few years. To date, Schlesinger's prediction seems wide of the mark. One problem, in our view, is that a sixteen-year pendulum is too exact--and (unlike Klingberg's twenty-three-year pendulum) speeds the clock too fast. (Strauss and Howe, 1992: 103).
In good scientific form, Strauss and Howe (1992: 105) state that "the acid test of any theory is its ability to forecast,"

Just thought I might throw that in there. :wink:

Now back to the Stonewall v. Hopeful, er, Cynic Show...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Let's face it, folks, this dang thing has turned out to be a...

GOP ROMP!

And, quite frankly, spells doom for the very unholy triad of Clinton, McAuliffe and Daschle. I think...

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Let's face it, folks, this dang thing has turned out to be a...

GOP ROMP!

And, quite frankly, spells doom for the very unholy triad of Clinton, McAuliffe and Daschle. I think...

There appears to be something weird going on in California tonight (I'll preempt the joke: what else is new?).

As of the last numbers I saw, maybe 15 minutes ago, Bill Simon was effectively tied with Gray Davis. That doesn't mean he'll win, of course, and only a few precincts have been counted, but if Simon even ends up losing by a narrow margin, it'll count as an upset of sorts.

I wonder what percentage of the hard-core are voting Green today, the way Brian Rush said he might a few days ago?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Let's face it, folks, this dang thing has turned out to be a...

GOP ROMP!

And, quite frankly, spells doom for the very unholy triad of Clinton, McAuliffe and Daschle. I think...

There appears to be something weird going on in California tonight (I'll preempt the joke: what else is new?).

As of the last numbers I saw, maybe 15 minutes ago, Bill Simon was effectively tied with Gray Davis. That doesn't mean he'll win, of course, and only a few precincts have been counted, but if Simon even ends up losing by a narrow margin, it'll count as an upset of sorts.

I wonder what percentage of the hard-core are voting Green today, the way Brian Rush said he might a few days ago?

GET OVER HERE YOU 2 AND LET ME KISS YOU!!! WHOOO HOOO!!!
I can't believe Simon and Davis!! I voted against Davis, beyond hope, and
wow! I guess alot of people voted against Davis too. Cuz' they sure as
h@LL didn't vote for Simon.

Who'se that man with the trash can hat??
Carville!

Originally Posted by voltronx

Maybe we can see how 3T or 4T an election this is by positive and negative numbers.

It might work... it's worth a shot :-)

Since voters, indicative of a 3T, responded to a poll recently that they prefer to continue having Congress one party and the presidency the other, add x points if we have a net gain of x Republicans and subtract y points if we have a net gain of y Democrats.

Pretty good general equation (although I'd say that large enough Dem gains would suggest 4T like the election of 1930)

If the House becomes more Republican as a net change, add 10 points. If it becomes more Democratic, subtract 10 points.

looks like it will be more republican... +10

If the Senate gains a Republican majority (51 or more), add 5 points.

If the Senate loses Democrats but maintains a Democratic plurality (difficult to do), subtract 3 points.

If the Senate has 50 Democrats, subtract 1 point.

Add 1 point for each Independent who loses his seat, not due to retiring.

If a new Independent is actually elected to the Senate, the House or a governor's office, subtract 3 points. If MORE THAN ONE Independent wins a seat that was formrely occupied by either a Republican or a Democrat, than subtract three points for each of them.

If Mondale, in particular, wins the Minnesota race, subtract 1 point.

For each incumbent Silent who is unseated by a Boomer, add 2 points.

Subtract 3 points for every Silent incumbent who manages to beat a Boomer challenge.

If an incumbent Boomer loses his seat to a SILENT...subtract 10 points.

The presence of the G.I. Generation reflects our place in the saeculum, and public presence of G.I.'s today denotes that we are earlier rather than later in the cycle. So if any G.I. wins a race, subtract 1 point for each of them.

looks like we'll subtract 1 for Lautenberg (do we subtract 10 more because he beat and took a seat from a Boomer? :-))

Compare the number of Boomers replacing Silents in the 2000 Congress to 2002 Congress replacement to that that took place in the 1998 Congress to 2000 Congress switchover. Take how many more seats were lost by Silents in the net count this election than how many were lost by Silents in the net count last time and multiply by two. Add 2 points for each Silent lost by comparison. If we actually lose fewer Silents than we did last time, subtract 5 points for each net Silent seat gained.

For example if the election one year changes the composition from
200 Silents to 180 Silents, and the election two years later changes the composition from 180 Silents to 156 Silents, we have 4 more Silents lost than last time (180 to 160 would have been the same as last time). For each of those 4, the new election would gain 2 points; therefore, we would add 8 points. If the second election actually lowers the count of Silents less than the last time, say going from 180 to 163, than we would take that 3 and multiply it by 5 (subtracting 15 points).

I do this because there WILL be some replacement of older generations by younger ones as time goes on, no matter what, but if the Silents disappear at an even faster rate than before, than that will hint at a real change in turning, not just a passing of time.

If the Silents actually GAIN in terms of their total seats in either the Senate or the House, or even among governors, subtract 20 points.

If the Silents gain a majority in the Senate, subtract 50 points.

If the Silents maintain their plurality, subtract 5 points.

If the Silents gain a generational plurality of the House of Representatives, subtract 200 points (actually, I think this is impossible).

If the voter turnout rate for all 18-to-24-year-olds in America is at least 40%, add 10 points.

If the majority of 18-to-24-year-olds vote, add 20 points.

If over 60% of them vote, add 30 points.

Finally, if any news network cancels its election coverage tonight to show you poodles in bikinis and people who have learned to flatulate every note with their armpits, subtract 1,000 points.

:LOL: for the last one... conclusion: TOO SOON TO TELL

Originally Posted by justmom

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Let's face it, folks, this dang thing has turned out to be a...

GOP ROMP!

And, quite frankly, spells doom for the very unholy triad of Clinton, McAuliffe and Daschle. I think...

There appears to be something weird going on in California tonight (I'll preempt the joke: what else is new?).

As of the last numbers I saw, maybe 15 minutes ago, Bill Simon was effectively tied with Gray Davis. That doesn't mean he'll win, of course, and only a few precincts have been counted, but if Simon even ends up losing by a narrow margin, it'll count as an upset of sorts.

I wonder what percentage of the hard-core are voting Green today, the way Brian Rush said he might a few days ago?

GET OVER HERE YOU 2 AND LET ME KISS YOU!!! WHOOO HOOO!!!

Aw shucks, Ma'am...but what will your husband think? :wink:

I suppose it depends where I kiss you :o

I know I woke up this morning with a shrug and a yawn. In Massachusetts, we - as usual - had little choice for most of the open positions. The one contested election, for Governor, pitted Mitt Romney, a carpet-bagger from Utah, against the latest automaton from the Mass Democratic machine.

Somehow, I never saw myself as not caring about the major parties, not caring about an election, being more about a protest than about constructive action, but this year my approach in the voting booth was simple. In every contest in which there was a third party candidate, I voted for the third party candidate. For every ballot initiative, I voted against the status quo.

Why? Because I knew that every choice presented this year was a false choice. Could this year's election be a watershed event? Nah. Shrug, yawn....

The Iron Range towns had a turnout approaching that of the suburbs of Baghdad. It will have to come through for Mr. Mondale at something close to the totality that was Mr. Hussein's.


I voted all over the party lines...somehow missing the Democrat (DFL) nominations. My choices all lost save our able Minnesota Secretary of State. One out of 20 plus is not bad...I am content that either Mr. Coleman or Mr. Mondale will lose/ the glass half full- in my ever optimistic mood. Nationally I am glad in the main...though the dubious Democrat Dole will replace Mr. Helms . HTH


PS- I am of mixed emotion in the stunning loss by Joe McCarthy's god-daughter. She campaigned like Tail Gunner Joe and was still rejected by the good folks of Maryland...what gives? Do advise.

Originally Posted by 728huey

It seems that the major TV networks, CNN and Fox news are reporting that the Republicans may not only hold on to their seats in Congress but may actually gain more seats and possibly control both houses of Congress.

This is disturbing to me, but what I find even more disturbing is the fact that most of the Democrats running for office in this election refused to stand for anything of principle, but rather sold themselves out for votes. The events of the last year could have been a watershed for both parties to set a new course in American politics and show some vision. Instead, we get the same old partisan mudslinging and personal attacks. The Democrats in general have really disappointed me because they refused to articulate a vision for our future, especially Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, et al, who just go right along with the Republican agenda because they think it will win them votes in the next election. Meanwhile, the corporatists charge full-steam ahead in dismantling our individual freedoms all in the name of profit, and the Democrats line up to kiss their backsides.

728huey, as usual, you have it nailed. Couldn't have said it better myself. The "trash can man" in Maxine's picture (James Carville) also had it dead on. The Dems had no clear alternative to the Pubs and pretty much deserved what they got. McAuliffe must go.

At least we have an Xer (Pryor) in the Senate now. Is he the first Xer to reach the Senate?

And I'm very, very pleased that Jim Doyle will be the new governor of the state of Wisconsin.

Originally Posted by 728huey

It seems that the major TV networks, CNN and Fox news are reporting that the Republicans may not only hold on to their seats in Congress but may actually gain more seats and possibly control both houses of Congress.

This is disturbing to me, but what I find even more disturbing is the fact that most of the Democrats running for office in this election refused to stand for anything of principle, but rather sold themselves out for votes. The events of the last year could have been a watershed for both parties to set a new course in American politics and show some vision. Instead, we get the same old partisan mudslinging and personal attacks. The Democrats in general have really disappointed me because they refused to articulate a vision for our future, especially Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, et al, who just go right along with the Republican agenda because they think it will win them votes in the next election. Meanwhile, the corporatists charge full-steam ahead in dismantling our individual freedoms all in the name of profit, and the Democrats line up to kiss their backsides.

Don't worry, Huey-- the Republicans will get their comeuppance....when the teetering economy crashes for good and all those greedy, cold, uncaring corporate CEO bastards are jumping out of thirty-fourth-story windows as their billion-dollar bank accounts go up-up-up-in-a-puff-of-smoke. Oh, they certainly will!!! Bet on it.

Rather like the Democrats got what they had coming to them, when all their Awakening-era chickens came home to roost in the Unravelling. In light of last night, like they still are, I'd say.

We're in the Fourth Turning for sure. What remains to be seen is if E2K+2 proves to be the advent of the Regeneracy. If so, perhaps it is we Americans who will follow our very own Hitler right off a cliff this time around.

By 2008, I'll be laughing my ass off from underneath my corrugated cardboard box.

Here's a few observations.

1. The Clintonistas lost BIG! Jeb was targeted. He won big. All the former Clinton aides except Richardson lost. McCall lost big. BJ campaigned for Townsend in Md and lost big. And Katherine Harris won. Not the end of the Clinton era, that will come in 2004 when Hillary loses 47 states.

2. Long knives come out for the Dems. As I noted on the vote on the Iraq resolution, the party is split down the middle. The left will have its revenge on the center for this debacle and the party will move to the left. I think they will abandon the field to the Republicans for a while. (For you Kucinich fans, he appears to be abandoning his pro-life stance...must be the siren call of the national Dems.)

3. If you think that this election was shocking wait til 2004. We'll have a tough double dip on the recession in 03, the market will clean out all the excesses of the bubble and things will be looking up in 04. No Dem will want to run against Bush after the Iraq matter is resolved, except Clinton who will view it as a rerun of how BJ beat 41 in 1992. But 43 is not 41.

4. Did anyone listen to the Republican acceptance speeches last night? There was no gloating. Even that Foghorn Leghorn new governor in Georgia thanked his opponent and asked for unity to solve the problems, and told the voters to hold him accountable if he did not. This is not the Republican party that the Democrats have been used to running against. This is a centrist party that is a problem solver. Here and elsewhere, the commentary about the Dems is that they had no positions that they were for.

5. Last time a first term president picked up seats in his midterm election was FDR. Before that TR. If that doesn't put this guy into Gray Champion contention, it sure is pretty remarkable company.

6. Even Gray Davis won in California which means that he and the Democrats out there will have to live with the consequences of electricity deregulation debacle and the other stuff they've pulled. This actually sets up Republican gains next time...or big population shifts out of California.

7. How long is the line at the White House this morning for retiring Justices from the Supreme Court?

Originally Posted by 728huey

Meanwhile, the corporatists charge full-steam ahead in dismantling our individual freedoms all in the name of profit, and the Democrats line up to kiss their backsides.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

728huey, as usual, you have it nailed. Couldn't have said it better myself. The "trash can man" in Maxine's picture (James Carville) also had it dead on. The Dems had no clear alternative to the Pubs and pretty much deserved what they got. McAuliffe must go.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Date posted: Fri Dec 15 13:29:35 EST 2000
Subject: The Clinton Legacy
Message:
I heard that President Clinton spent a few hours yesterday "hoisting tankards" with locals in a London pub. He then promptly left without paying the tab.

Sounds a lot like his legacy. He entered office with the Democrats in control of two of the three branches of government.

He now leaves with his party in control of none.

Is this a great time to be alive or what?

The Democratic party is, as I have said before, "inexorably stuck in the past". I would be thrilled to see the faithful keep talking like this... and especially thrilled to see them blame all this on Terrence McAuliffe and give Derslickmeister the pass, again.

?Ha Ha Ha, Ho Ho Ho and a couple of tra la la's.
That's how we laugh the day away in the Merry Ole Land of Oz!?

Wonderfully cogent observations monoghan. For my part, I am wondering if Barbra, Alec, and the rest will finally make good their promises to leave the country. One can only hope.

Hi!

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

BREAKING NEWS This just in, from the Fourth Turning Blog!

For the very latest on "Is Election 2002 a Fourth Turning?", we go now to Messers Strauss and Howe: What, Messers Strauss and Howe, have you to say about Election 2002?

Originally Posted by Messers Strauss and Howe

Hummm.... Interesting. We now...zzzzzz... return you...zzzzzz... to you regularly scheduled... zzzzzzz... nothing. :wink:

I wonder what is going on with the blog at http://lifecourse.biz/generations/ ? Have they abandoned it or were they waiting for election results?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Date posted: Fri Dec 15 13:29:35 EST 2000
Subject: The Clinton Legacy
Message:
I heard that President Clinton spent a few hours yesterday "hoisting tankards" with locals in a London pub. He then promptly left without paying the tab. Sounds a lot like his legacy. He entered office with the Democrats in control of two of the three branches of government. He now leaves with his party in control of none.

Is this a great time to be alive or what?

"The Democratic party is, as I have said before, "inexorably stuck in the past". I would be thrilled to see the faithful keep talking like this... and especially thrilled to see them blame all this on Terrence McAuliffe and give Derslickmeister the pass, again."


Amazing. The following is an op-ed from today's The New York Times

The American Idol
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
BERLIN

If you think Germany is turning anti-American, pay attention to what happened here last month when the president visited Berlin. No, not President Bush ? President Clinton. Mr. Clinton, who helped unveil the refurbished Brandenburg Gate, was swarmed as Germans clamored to see, hear or shake hands with him. Elvis was in the house.

If Mr. Bush visited Germany today there would also be street riots ? the sort they use tear gas to control.

Why the difference? In fairness to Mr. Bush, it's partly because he had to order the bombing of Afghanistan, and may do the same in Iraq, and these are deeply controversial decisions on this increasingly pacifist Continent. It's much easier to love our presidents when they're not exercising our power. But there is also something deeper.

Bill Clinton is viewed by the world as the epitome of American optimism ? na?ve optimism maybe, but optimism. And the Bush team ? the President, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice (Colin Powell is an exception) ? strike the world as cynical pessimists who believe only in power politics, much like 19th-century European statesmen. For the world, Bill Clinton is another J.F.K. and George Bush is another Thomas Hobbes, a man who, after witnessing Europe's religious wars, became deeply pessimistic about human nature and concluded that only one law prevailed in the world: Homo Homini Lupus ? every man is a wolf to every other man.






Like I said, "Is this a great time to be alive or what?" Quite thrilling! :wink: