...and I don't doubt I AM dense a bit too often -- but WHAT ox is being gored?

BOTH Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are far more qualified, based on experience (or lack of it) to be President than Dubya was (or is). The same could be said of practically all the major Democratic candidates this year.

Can we admit that, and get past the pointless sniping between the two camps? And the sniping IS going both ways, by the way. Neither side is doing itself any honors with its behavior.

I'm no Hillary flack -- I'd just like a little fair play and honesty.

OF COURSE much of any foreign trip (serious or not) is going to be played for the cameras. OF COURSE a First Lady is not likely to carry the weight or authority of a President, the Sec. of State, or other high official.

But if you, or anyone else, tries to paint ANY previous President, White House official, Cabinet officer, or First Lady with the charge that he or she is as hollow, fake and ineffective as the majority of Bush & Co., then I've got nothing more to say (or read).

The Right Wing has tried to paint anyone who dislikes what Bush et al. have done as irrational "Bush Haters". I decline that honor -- my dislike is based on facts and actions, and is quite rational. I'd just like to see that an analagous irrational Hillary Hatred isn't allowed to pass by without comment.

Those who strongly support Sen. Obama ought to beware of a weak part of HIS resume, which Sen. Clinton pointed out at least as recently as the Cleveland debate -- his failure to hold even a single hearing as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on European Affairs, which is charged with NATO oversight. His explanation was not particularly strong or persuasive, and offers Sen. McCain an opening for major criticism.

It won't keep me from voting for Obama, if he's the nominee, but we must be honest enough to admit it might help sway others toward McCain.

According to CNN's contemporaneous report, The Current Occupant touched down at Baghdad International Airport that day in late 2003 at 5:31 PM local time, departing 2.5 hours later at approximately 8 PM local time.

As we all recall, he participated in (among other things) a photo op in which he served Thanksgiving dinner to the troops. As little as I like Dubya, I think it's fair to say he was in SOME danger while briefly visiting Iraq, even if none of the enemy had a clue he was dropping in.

The second paragraph in this War Room item consists of one derisive sentence, dismissing Hillary Clinton's 1996 visit to Bosnia this way: "All nine hours of it." This hardly qualifies as "insight", as claimed in the headlines of this item, or perspective. It's a cheap shot that doesn't bear up under even rudimentary scrutiny.

The level of Clinton Derangement Syndrome has risen to breathtaking levels.

And that word is EVIL.

Cheney obviously believes that an administration has one, and only one, accountability moment -- and that would be when running for re-election.

You talk, talk, talk during the campaign for election the first time, then you govern in whatever way you wish (with no regard to your earlier talk, talk, talk). THEN, when you're running for re-election after four years, you encounter the one-and-only accountability moment, which is interpreted as validation of what you did the first four years.

If you actually win re-election (and God help us, Bush/Cheney & company did!), then you are empowered once again to do whatever the hell you want for the NEXT four years, and the public be damned. Quite a neat theory of governance, isn't it?

If the media during the Vietnam era rolled over THEN as our media have NOW, we'd still be fighting in Southeast Asia, nearly 35 years after the end of that conflict.

That thought just gave me a sudden rush of revelation. It explains, clearly and completely, what John McCain meant when he said he expected we'd be in Iraq for 100 years (or words to that effect). With media like we have now, who could doubt it?

I've always assumed that people with egos large enough to believe they could lead a city, state or country were more likely than the average person to engage in all sorts of risky (or even illegal) behavior. This assumption has been borne out dozens of times during my lifetime.

However, it just occurred to me that I can't readily identify any instances when the "scandalous" kind of behavior that's absorbed national media and the public recently has involved a WOMAN. It's been (exclusively?) men, as far as I know. No doubt men haven't truly cornered the market here, and the relative lack of women in high office certainly reduces their opportunity -- but do we now have another reason to wish we had more women in elective office? Just asking...

...by bringing up a competing website many of us also visit (that would be Slate.com) -- but I imagine this latest classic quip from Dubya will end up as one of their so-called Bushisms, which are defined as Dubya's "wit and wisdom".

Honestly, I'm so tired of trying to laugh at this two-legged atrocity who pretends to be our Commander in Chief. He simply isn't funny any longer -- if he ever was. At this late date, laughing at him is destructive, when simple silence would be far more appropriate.

Gee, wouldn't it be refreshing if the entire crowd listening to the Prez when he says something like this would just stand there, staring in dumb disbelief -- with nothing but crickets chirping as he stands before them, with that trademark smirk on his face? Ah, it would be SO sweet. If only.