In a political season, who do you believe?

The NYT this morning reports on the congressional "skepticism" about the Iraq war. The skepticism splits along party lines, pretty much, with the Dems more skeptical than the Republicans. Does anyone believe that any of this is much more than political posturing? I think not. Sometimes it seems like it's not worth bothering to report all this "point of view" stuff when you don't research the real story behind the opinions.

Brilliant insights from David Mamet

One of our best, if not the best playwrights writes about his departure from liberalism. In the Village Voice no less.

I don't agree with absolutely everything here, but 99% of it rings true. A couple of money quotes:

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?

I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience. I referred to my own—take away the director from the staged play and what do you get? Usually a diminution of strife, a shorter rehearsal period, and a better production.

The director, generally, does not cause strife, but his or her presence impels the actors to direct (and manufacture) claims designed to appeal to Authority—that is, to set aside the original goal (staging a play for the audience) and indulge in politics, the purpose of which may be to gain status and influence outside the ostensible goal of the endeavor.

Strand unacquainted bus travelers in the middle of the night, and what do you get? A lot of bad drama, and a shake-and-bake Mayflower Compact. Each, instantly, adds what he or she can to the solution. Why? Each wants, and in fact needs, to contribute—to throw into the pot what gifts each has in order to achieve the overall goal, as well as status in the new-formed community. And so they work it out.

Also:

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

Read the whole thing, please.

Clintons overreacting to "Pimped out" comment

It's time for the press to scrutinize Chelsea. - By Guy Branum - Slate Magazine Branum outlines the double standard, and the ruthlessness with which the Clintons operate. These are dangerous people. I have nothing against Chelsea, but Hillary is not just a leftist, she's nearly a fascist. If she's elected, expect a purge.

Experience check

Dick Morris, former Clinton advisor and political pollster/analyst, comments:

During the Bill Clinton presidency, it became obvious that the president and the first lady were locked in a zero sum game of perception. The stronger people perceived her, the weaker they felt he was. Early in his tenure, news stories were rife about Hillary’s extraordinary influence on appointments, policy and political strategy. Each of these leaks sapped confidence in Bill Clinton’s strength and led to a drop in his ratings.

The solution was to exile Hillary from the White House. She stopped attending strategy meetings, no longer had a direct or public role in policy formulation and redoubled her schedule of foreign travel and writing.

A major part of HRC's pitch is her "experience." I've always questioned exactly what she did do (successfully) in the White House, but this reminds us that for a large portion of WJC's presidency, she wasn't even there. Sure, she could advise Bill remotely, but if she stopped attending meetings, how much involvement did she really have? Is this why she doesn't really want to release the internal communications between Bill and herself?

Clintons Redux

A Clinton re-run is likely to be disastrous, and at the least, just as scandalous. Andrew Sullivan gets it right.

If she is the nominee, it will be the two of them again. The real risk is that it will mean the same never-ending psycho-drama, the same petty sleaze, the same constant beat of marital-political intrigue that we endured in the 1990s. It's worth recalling: just because their enemies were often vile doesn't mean the Clintons didn't give plenty to work with - often needlessly. Another term of the two of them could well lead to the same kind of sexual scandals that distracted and near-paralyzed affairs of state in the 1990s. If you don't believe that, then you simply haven't grasped the depth of Bill Clinton's needs and compulsions and Hillary Clinton's life-long enabling of them.

There, I feel better.

According to a McGlatchey poll a majority of general election voters says they can't or won't consider voting for Hillary Clinton. There is hope for America. Although, I can't help wondering why Hillary doesn't get the message. Neither does Andrew.

Hillary's down, way down.

Dick Morris, former Bill Clinton advisor, reports extreme slippage in Hillary Clinton's popularity.

According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don’t like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.

Hillary isn’t wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama.

Obama may or may not be a great alternative for the Democrats, but the data does indicate the Democratic nomination won't be a coronation of Hillary. My prediction: the long knives are going to come out from the Clinton camp fairly soon. As Morris says, she can't alter her personality any more than she has (even though that's one of the things that is hurting her). So, I expect the tactic will be to destroy the competition, because where there's a choice, she isn't it.