...it's the US and the Eye must be the American media.

So that's how the analogy works. Our eye is focused on Iraq, while back in the shadows, young Georgo Bushins and his faithful companion, Dickwise Cheney, are secretly struggling to drop our lost ring of democratic power down the nearest shithole they can find. I think it all makes perfect sense!

...is that Frodo and Sam achieve their victory by giving up power--by tossing the ring in the fire. That's what makes the LOTR the brillant saga it is and not just another dumb swordfights and elves tale.

And note that it's really Gollum who accidently saves the world, because Frodo finally caves in to the power of the ring. And Gollum lived only because of pity on the part of Frodo and Bilbo.

So in the LOTR, the good guys win because of pity, restraint, and hope. They don't win because they're born good or because they get on the right side of God or because the enemy finally overreaches and blows up his maniacal land of doom; they win because they make choices for good. They could have made other choices, and nobody would have said anything against them: they could have quit, they could have finished off Gollum, they could have tried to use the ring themselves. But they didn't.

The last three things this administration believes in are pity, restraint, and hope. Instead, they beleive in torture, abuse of power, and fear. That's why I said earlier that this country is now Mordor.

...George Costanza. Dick Cheney is Jerry Seinfeld. Condi is Elaine and of course Rumsfeld is Kramer.

The Iraq war? It's a war about nothing! It's genius, I'm telling you! And Saddam? Man hands!

Same as the show, the rule for this administration is "no hugging, no learning."

Bill Clinton said Wednesday that "ideological, divisive, demonizing, distracting politics" may be "good for an election, particularly when people feel unsettled and insecure," but that they don't "do much to advance the common good."

However, non-ideological politics such as the Democrats apparently want to practice doesn't let the voters know what Democrats will do.

Democrats keep trying to run on being better people than Republicans. As long as they do that, Republicans will always reach for the character smear, because once Democratic character is destroyed, then Democrats don't have anything left.

Consider Hillary Clinton, who is a terrific person: a very intelligent and capable lawyer, a former First Lady who amazingly won her own Senate seat, and now one of the leading senators, even as a junior. But we don't know what she stands for: we don't know if she will give us health care or a flag burning admendment.

In contrast, no matter how much we call George Bush a moron--and he is a moron--he is still at least perceived as standing for something.

...when he says that 'ideological' politics is bad for the nation. Ideological politics in my view is BETTER for the nation than character driven politics. It's better for politicians to discuss ideas and issues and positions than it is for politicians to discuss the supposed character faults of their opponents.

To give a quick example, Kerry would have been better off to put a clear health care plan before the country rather then engage in that silly saluting stunt. Once Kerry made his service in Vietnam the issue, then Republicans could attack his service and even lie about it and make political hay.

The problem is that Democrats often won't stand for something, and that refusal makes them vulnerable on character issues. Republicans have a clear and well known ideology (right or wrong) and thus they have something to fall back on when their character is questioned.

...it turns out she voted for the Iraq war and a flag burning admendment.

But voting is messy and sometimes you have to make compromises. Not making compromises is one thing that helps gives ideology the bad name it has with so many people.

But even if you are willing to compromise, you can still put up a clear ideology and defend it in clear words. This is why Republicans are so effective at communicating to the public; they know what they stand for. Furthermore, they don't get much rebuttal back from the Democrats or the liberals. So you get Republicans on tv making clear statements, and Democrats floundering around wondering what they should say.

Standing for something doesn't mean being for some policy paper stashed away on a web site somewhere--it means being for a set clear set of principles that you're willing to defend in public and from which everything else follows. When Republicans say taxes are bad, there needs to be a clear response from Democrats and liberals as to why they're wrong. When Republicans speak of being 'strong' and 'tough' in defense and foreign policy, there needs to be a counter voice for making alliances and being smart. When Republicans tell you that a mininum wage will lead to people losing jobs, the Democrats need to explain that exploiting workers actually leads to lower wages and profits for everyone else.

In short, Democrats need to fight the war of ideas. We need to fight for the mind of the country, because that's the battle ground we're losing. Clinton in his speech made some good points, but ultimately he's only asking the Republicans to quit poking where it hurts. That's not going to work.