...and the rule of law. Both Republican and Democrats take oaths of office to uphold the Constitution. Liberals and conservatives alike can function under the Constitution. And if Republicans can violate the Constitution, well, so can the Democrats. So supporting the Constitution cannot be the difference between the parties or between the left and right wings.

As for Al Gore invading Iraq, I don't know why that's impossible. There's not that much difference between the parties and there's not a lot of coherent thought out there about how to deal with terrorists. There's really not a lot of coherent thought in this country about much of anything, really, when you get right down to it. All we really have in this country is a Republican party and a "Me Too" party. Are they really all that different?

Most Democrats voted for the invasion. Most Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. The press supported the invasion. Many intellectuals supported the invasion. Our military and intelligence and diplomatic organizations didn't object (much) to the invasion. So why, exactly, do we think Al Gore wouldn't have done it as well?

Conservative ideology dominates in this country. When we have problems, our first impluse is to 'show' strength by invading somebody or at least by throwing some missiles around. Clinton did it, why wouldn't Gore? We have no real counter ideology to the 'strength' doctrine, which says that if we don't blow up and kill somebody our enemies will think we're weak and think they can get away with killing us. So I'm not sure what Al Gore's alternative to an invasion would have been.

If he had invaded, I'm pretty sure the right blogosphere would have condemed it. Does anyone doubt that? They were against everything Clinton did, and Clinton basically served as a nicer, more moderate Republican. I think Al Gore would have gotten even less slack from the right than Bill Clinton did--and he was probably more conservative than Bill Clinton was.

And once the right blogosphere came out against the invasion, would the left blogosphere have joined hands in opposition with them? Somehow, I doubt it. The left blogosphere is mainly defined by being dead set against the right blogosphere--even to the point of being against anyone (left, right or middle) with any sort of non-laudatory alternative opinion to the left blogosphere. So how could the left blogosphere even conceive of joining hands with the right? It would be going against everything that defines the left blogosphere. IMO, they would have had no choice but to support the war, one way or another.

The real problem we have in this country is not that partisans will switch sides at the drop of a hat (which they do all the sad time), it's that, as I said, conservative ideology dominates. Conservative ideology is the default position of this country, even when Democrats are in the majority. It's the ideology that's promoted, understood, and acted upon in this country. Liberal opinion simply doesn't exist as an alternative in this country, except in the form of slanders and smears and misinformation.

If you don't want this to be the case, then you have to create and promote a persuasive liberal counter ideology to the ruling conservative ideology. Doing that requires making choices and coming out positively FOR things, not just being against things. We have to argue why taxes are necessary and even good for us, why restraint and alliances are better at fighting terrorism than self defeating displays of strength, why gay people should have rights, why it isn't good to throw half of the country in jail for small crimes, and many, many, many other things. We have to argue against libertarianism and for democratic self rule (these being mutually contradictory positions). We have to get out there and contend with and compete with conservatism and show why our thinking is better than theirs. We have to talk to people, even people who disagree with us.

However, there is not much hope of any such counter ideology coming from the self laudatory 'liberal blogosphere.' The left blogosphere simply doesn't want to talk to or hear from anyone who disagrees with them. It appears that liberal bloggers and their supporters are more interested in defending themselves at all costs from anyone with an alternative idea. After all, how can people who already know everything ever accept a new idea? A new idea would just prove they don't already know everything--and maybe don't even know anything at all.

The fact is, if liberal bloggers were really any good, we would never see all this self soaping and such between them. Instead we would see real debate and real disagreement and bitter argument. But we don't see that.

...the 'Commander Guy,' he's afraid of the Veep, right?

Isn't that kind of sad?

1-618-033-9887 for a Phi time!

...the once and maybe future first couple, who've taken themselves supremely seriously going back to their Yale days

In this day of manufactured, reality free imagery, it has to be asked: what, if anything, do you base this perception on?

One would hope that presidents and presidential candidates would have reason to take themselves seriously, if not "supremely seriously," whatever that might mean. The current occupant, for instance, doesn't seem to take anything seriously and that seems to be a big part of his problem.

...that someone would confront the bald guy with this. But it'll never happen and he might even win.

"Mean" and "dumb" are the exact words that so need to be said and heard. And the exact words we'll never hear.

...after the Republican and 'mainstream' media spin gets through with them?

What are the numbers for John Kerry?

Since when was George Bush ever the president in anything but name? It's Dick Cheney who has 570 days to go and I have a bad feeling he isn't quite done yet.