...he can shave it. If it's getting in the way of his message, then he ought to.

The fact is, Democrats like Edwards, Kerry, Clinton (Bill) like to present themselves with magnificent heads of hair and a certain lack of specifics. Clinton 'triangulated,' Kerry saluted, and Edwards goes on about compassion and caring. None of them really go around making arguments to the public, they go around posing to the public as basically nice guys--as nice guys with great hair, that is. And people are going to notice this.

George Bush too has better hair than real policies--in fact, he is really more of a poser than any of them, with his tough guy belligerence and his ranch without cattle and his bullshit high school slogans (remember, a reformer with results? A uniter not a divider?). The problem is that his tough guy act came off as more authentic to the public than the Democrats's favored nice guy act. Bad guys will always win in these games.

The media is going to notice things like Edwards' hair. People like Camille are going to notice these things. It does no good to say that nobody should speak about Edwards' hair when his hair seems to be exactly what is front and center about him. You can't blame the media for reporting what is true.

If Democrats want their message to be heard by the public, they are going to have to put thir message front and center before the public and dial back on the media stunts and the cute posing and the soulful eyes and the slick phraseology. No more great hair, saluting, suit shucking, tank riding, wind surfing, hunting, sighing, hugging, caring, kissing, whatever. Frankly, it just doesn't work for most Democrats--Kennedy may have been the last one. Just get the crewcut and get the message out.

...and as far as I know, guns have never stopped a dictatorship anywhere else either.

Iraq is full of guns. Every home is armed. That didn't stop Saddam Hussien from ruling the country as despot and it isn't stopping the US from occupying Iraq.

Guns also didn't stop the US from being a quasi-authoritarian state back in the days of Jim Crow. Guns didn't save the Indians, either.

In any case, a putative US dictatorship could simply join forces with the likes of the NRA. In that case, guns in the hands of citizens could easily be transformed into a citizen militia to help the dictatorship maintain power.

That said, this article is just a bit overwrought. The administration is afraid to propose a draft and that is very far from being an authoritarian state.

The real danger comes from the administration's sheer incompetence. At some point, something almost certainly has to break as a result of the administration's merry adventures. What happens if a suitcase nuke is set off in Baghdad and we lose our troops? What happens if Bush invades Iran and it fails because our troops are overextended? What happens if Saudia Arabia falls to Al Qaeda and our oil supply is disrupted? What happens if another devasting terrorist attack occurs in this country?

At any such points there will be a temptation to push Bush and Cheney out and put in a geniune strong man. That's when we could see the beginnings of real authoritarian rule in this country.

That's the question. If Bush is an exception, then we can expect the next president to be better, because the default assumption is that the next president will probably be closer to the norm.

But if he's the norm, then the next president might be worse or no better than Bush. And there's good reason to believe that Bush is the norm.

Bush is not a striver. He is nothing if not lazy. He would rather ride his bike than work. He does not like to think or question or trouble his mind in any way.

Whether it's tax breaks for the rich, the ruinous prescription drug program, the invasion of Iraq, or his poorly thought out Social Security 'reform,' Bush appears to take whatever crap shows up on his desk and runs with it. He doesn't question it, improve it, or worry bout it. Bush applies no imagination or interest to anything he does. He's the decider, but he doesn't lead. He doesn't strive to be good or bad. He simply floats lazily down the stream and takes the default position. He follows the norm and is not exceptional.

If I had to describe the defining characteristic of the Bush presidency in one word, I would say "thoughtlessness." And the same word sums up the country as well. We fell into the Iraq war thoughtlessly. Bush led us there thoughtlessly. Neither the media nor the political system offered any thoughtful resistance. And now we are spending year after year after year in this mess without a clue as to how to get out of it or do better. Thoughtlessness is absolutely our typical characteristic, and Bush exemplifies that characterstic very well.

The next president is going to have to strive to be very exceptional if he or she wants to correct the mistakes of George Bush. Unfortunately, Americans don't like or trust thoughtfulness or striving. We would rather not think at all if we can help it. We just don't like exceptional people. Thus the temptation for the next president will be to be like Bush--to be the norm.