Insofar as he persuaded large enough numbers of people to elect and re-elect him(or get him close enough for the electronic machinery to put him over the top), Junior clearly has intelligence.

Also, he's succeeded in persuading the real power-brokers who sponsored him to not take him down and not interfere with his alarming, cock-eyed plans, even though they're smart enough to see he's headed the US towards an economic precipice. That also, must take some intelligence.

But I am utterly mystified by the idea that he's charming. It seems as if it's a meme that's been sold (and sold, and sold)to us so that if we hear it often enough maybe we'll accept it's true. (I completely agree with raj's assessment in this area.)

But if some people want to insist he's charming-- hell, let them. Maybe it's projection, the excuse influential people make for foisting him upon us:

"We couldn't help it. Can't you see how charming he is?"

it's fairly likely that whoever might be the initial nominee for AG, whether it's Olson or somebody else, will just be a sacrificial nominee designed to get the Democrats to fume and stamp their feet so that Fox News, et al might paint them as unreasonable. Then the 1st nominee will be withdrawn and a somewhat more competent but similarly loathsome nominee will replace him. Call it the Harriet Miers play.

for months we've heard prominent American politicians scolding the Iraqi government for not meeting various "benchmarks" that the US has seen fit to set for them.

Now it appears that al-Maliki has stood up to a US interest group that has been routinely wreaking havoc in his country, and in so doing asserted a greater measure of autonomy and possibly even legitimacy for his beleaguered government.

Now I wonder: will the same irony-deprived US politicians who've been so patronizing towards the Iraqi government and al-Maliki scold him for this too?

reminds me of the scene in Last Tango in Paris in which Brando and Maria Schneider discuss the future of her breasts.

"Why are Democrats letting Republicans off so easy?"

I don't know...because if they didn't they'd have to actually DO something?

Because out-fundraising the GOP is far more important?

Eventually the democratic rank-and-file will have to ask themselves,

"why are the democrats letting the democrats off so easy?"

vote D.

vote R.

vote Green or Libertarian.

Or, don't vote...none of these seem satisfactory at this point- and I know I'm not the only person who finds himself at this frustrating juncture-- not by a long shot.

today's senators want a resolution saying that war is bad. But no unpleasant specifics, like say, references to specific wars, whether current or pending.

And, of course with numerous caveats about when it's regrettable but necessary, etc.

Then they could just pass that and go home, secure in their knowledge that they did what they could.

One of the many things that frustrates me about the hysterical and inane tone of our public discourse on Iran and the "global war on terror" is the unwillingness people seem to have to acknowledge something which should be so simple:

If Bush,jr and the neocons keep frightening people in predominantly Islamic countries with talk of war as if it were nothing, and seem so unwilling to learn from their own mistakes, then isn't it in fact rational for an Islamic country to try to get nuclear arms? If Iran did have nukes, Bush wouldn't f*** with them, and assuming they could safeguard their arsenal from outsiders wanting to steal them and internal political struggles, Iran would actually be safer.

Moreover, if the Bushies really do have a long-range plan to start one war after another in order to dominate the region, might not the Russians or Chinese decide to facilitate Iran getting nukes so that Bush would finally be brought to heel?

Since the US government is no longer functioning to curb their out-of-control president, the Russians and Chinese could very well feel obligated to create that parity. It would be a bitter irony for Americans, that the largest communist and ex-communist state might apply a policy of containment-- on us.

I am not advocating that these things should come to pass, but they strike me as fairly reasonable possibilities. If Americans weren't intent on believing rot like "they're insane" or "they hate us for our freedoms" then others could see these dangers.

although I tend to accept some of the premises of this study at face value, I wonder about the effect of peer pressure among professional women, not wanting to be shunned by their cohort (and to a degree, by their families) for "dating down."

As I was reading this letter I couldn't help but think of the Simpsons episode with "Carl," the mysterious workplace guardian angel who appeared one day and helped Homer to be less of a screw-up and generally fixed his life, then just as improbably disappeared.

it occurs to me that your letter writer needs a magical figure to pop in and advocate on his behalf. someone promoting someone else to fill the void left by a departed employee is less likely to seem uncouth than someone promoting himself, if said advocacy is sincere.

admittedly this is potentially a hazardous route, if the advocate is immature, and might gossip about it afterwards, or somehow expect some kind of uncomfortable quid pro quo.

I would only go with such a strategy if a truly authentic booster of the L.W. was available, as genuine "Carls" tend to be a lot scarcer in our 3D world.