« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
It's a pity a candidate like Joe Biden can't get any traction, since the media have uniformly dubbed him a "second tier" candidate.
I mean, does it bother anybody else that the "front runner" has been declared the inevitable winner when there are still three months (or is it two now? or one?) before any actual votes are cast ?
Of course, this one is Andrew Sullivan, the oxymoronic conservative gay Republican. Well, maybe not so much any more a Republican, since the party has pretty much abandoned any principal even remotely conservative. Of Hillary -v- Obama, Sullivan writes:
We cannot trust her. We can still trust him. He hasn't been turned into the machine that national politics has turned her into. In the perilous days ahead, we desperately need a president again whom we can trust. He wins that argument. Which is why it is so vital for America that he win this contest against the increasingly ruthless Clinton machine.
BTW, Sullivan was his usual brilliant self on "Real Time with Bill Maher" this past Friday night, and it was embarrassing to hear General Wesley Clark defend a muslim woman's right to wear a burka if that was her choice. Like "choice" has anything to do with it.
Unfortunately, Mario Cuomo is NOT a candidate for President this year. Unfortunate because, near as I can tell, he is the first observer to identify the fundamental flaw in the whole way we embarked on the fiasco in Iraq. By 'authorizing' the President to decide whether or not to launch the invasion, Congress abdicated its authority as outlined in the Constitution.
Writing in this Sunday's New York Times , the former governor of New York addresses the recent resolution proposed to require the President to consult Congress before instigating any military action in Iraq:
It would repeat the mistake made by Congress in 2002 when it tried to delegate to President Bush the non-delegable power that the founders chose to give to the legislative branch. Congress’s eagerness to shed the burden making the decision by passing resolutions that purportedly “authorized” the president to decide whether to start a war denied the nation the careful Congressional inquiry intended by the Constitution.
I have always felt that not only was the vote to 'authorize' ill-advised, but it was constitutionally one of most unsound actions Congress has ever taken. And it is hard for me to consider voting for any candidate who voted in favor of the resolution, not only because it was just a bad decision, but because none had the foresight to say "this is not what our Constitution commands."
But, you know, that Constitution, it's like soooo 18th century...
Recent Comments