I can't answer for George W. Bush supporters, never having been one. It was his performance as Governor of Texas that made me recognize he was a disaster waiting to happen back in '99 when his name first started bobbing to the surface. I'd say that my opinion has shown itself to be accurate. Those who voted for him in 2000 were mistaken, those who voted for him in 2004 were either delusional or corrupt and I don't deal in abnormal psychology or criminology, so you'll need to dig up a rationale without my assistance. You're right, it was hubris with a capital "H" on his part.

I have not said that Obama was "too ambitious for his own good", but I do think that he's being too ambitious for ours. What concrete accomplishments does he have, besides having given a good speech or two, that would lead you to believe he'd be able to succeed as president? He's been an activist, a state legislator, and he's put in a whole two years as a freshman senator. OK, I'll admit that he's shown that he can get at least a plurality of voters in a given constituency to vote for him - a very important ability to win an office, but not necessarily sufficient to justify support.

I think that you misunderstand my use of "proven", or perhaps I would have been better saying "established", as in what a candidate has shown that they could do in their present position. I'll agree, the job of president is a stretch for anyone and nobody can prove ahead of time that they can handle it. But a past record is a good indication of the skills that a person possesses and gives at least a glimmer of an indication of the probability of future success.

Bush's history has shown that all he was good for was for running businesses into the ground and being an executive figurehead while others ran things into the ground. A past that he has managed to avoid improving on over the last six years.

The only concrete things that I can link off the top of my head to Hillary's name are a healthcare scheme that fell over of its own weight (I'll give her points for trying), support for an ill-planned, illegal war that continued until that support was shown to be something that would cost her votes, and her somewhat less than courageous stand on last summer's flag burning amendment, again pandering for votes. Maybe there's more to her than meets the eye, but it's up to her to correct that.

I have no such negatives to associate for Obama, as far as I know, he's a very sincere guy that I agree with a lot of the time. But I have no positives, either. What legislation has Obama crafted at either the state or federal level? There's nothing the matter with him that a little time won't fix, he needs to give me something substantial that I can vote for.

Both Clinton and Obama have a year an a half to show us what they can do at their current jobs. As I said in my original response, I'm willing to be persuaded, but they'll need to do it with actions, not speeches.

Sorry to be so long-winded. As you say, nobody can really know. But why take a shot in the relative dark? I don't want to be a faith-based voter.

Joe, one of the things that would happen is that the gagging noise made by the non-delusional 2/3 of the public would more than cover the sound of champagne corks popping at Halliburton, General Dynamics, and Raytheon.

But OK, I'll bite, what do you think would happen if everyone chose the blue pill and let an administration that has shown itself incapable of winning (whatever the definition du jour of "winning" is) in Iraq, or pretty much anything else, have a blank check to mismanage the situation in Iraq any way they chose? Do you think that the problems would miraculously melt away and the militias would decide that "Whoa, the US is serious, we'd better make nice"?

What would happen is that the ham-handedness of Junior and his band of merry miscreants would just be condemning generations yet unborn to tours of duty in the Gulf. I mean look at how well the use of overwhelming military force has worked for the Israelis and multiply it by a few thousand.

Right now, the people of the region are just really, really annoyed at us, what do you think will happen when they really start to hate?

Boehner and Blunt are proposing the creation of a "bipartisan select panel charged with monitoring the implementation" of Bush's escalation.

Be still my beating heart. Isn't appointing a "bipartisan select panel" to look into something just another way to make sure absolutely nothing gets done? Anyway, we've seen how good Junior is at taking advice from such panels.

We need to have the funds cut off from Dick and George's Totally Bogus Adventure now.

"Harsh scrutiny" is just what Commander Codpiece and his collection of war criminals require. The kind provided by the ICC would be about right.

I think that the sight of Junior, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Cambone, and Fleischer in a dock at The Hague would be just about right. And just to make Bush happy, I might even relax a lifelong aversion to capital punishment.