It's telling that Charlie Savage has thought of this while the likes of David Broder are lost in trivia (today, Broder criticizes Obama for having an inspirational stump speech). Among the non-responders: Guiliani is at least as bad as Romney on this score and Huckabee's current scurrying around on positions should put us on guard, as well. Thompson simply seems to be an uns-erious candidate at this point.

In some ways this is nothing new and reflects a disturbing current that's been around for quite some time. We've had a number of candidates from all sides who have implicitly pushed an authoritarian doctrine since at least the '92 election cycle: Buchanan, Jerry Brown, & Ross Perot. There always have been flashes of this--think George Wallace & his choice of Curtis LeMay as VP, but the '92 election struck me as a watershed. Moreover, no one really noticed what these guys had in common or the disturbing, underlying theme. It's taken ages for journalists to unearth what was apparently obvious if one gave a close reading to Cheney's record, but there should be more attention to what's in plain sight.

is to keep ignoring the press and then call them out on the podium when they suck up to an opponent. The public hates politicians, but they also hate journalists.

A largely unexplored question is what will happen to the wingnut world when its elderstatespeople start dying. When I read Rick Perlstein's Goldwater book, I was amazed at how the cast of characters around Goldwater had continued to be the cast of characters around our contemporary wingnuts. Yes, younger cons like Krauthamer have been added to the mix and the neocons were still Dems in 1964, but Bork, Schafly, Buckley, etc. were fully ensconced way back then and the neocons were well on their way.

What will happen when Irving Kristol, Bill Buckley (now somewhat marginalized for going off the reservation once in awhile), Gertrude Himmelfarb, et al. kick the bucket? Will people really listen to these pipsqueaks or will we see major conflicts as the juniors try to claim the mantel of leadership. And what will happen to also-ran cons likeles Murray, not connected or old enough to not be pushed aside?

In '64, the press loved Goldwater but still reported his gaffes and recognized he would make a horrible president. They hated LBJ, but gave him his due. Flash forward to 2000, 2004, and 2008--they love Bush and promote him as a "regular guy" and they hate Gore and try to make him sound as mendacious as Bush really is. Ditto Kerry and now we get the same thing with McCain, Clinton et al.

One has to wonder where the wheels fell off. My guess is that as these guys have gained money and celebrity, their ability to see past themselves has pretty much disappeared. In addition, few of these guys (and their all guys!) has had much grunt experience as journalists--no war reporting, no police calls, no covering dull suburban city council meetings. One of the best DC reporters of recent years was Tom Brazaitis, who started out reporting and editing for a string of suburban and neighborhood newspapers.

The only corrective is to keep calling them out. One significant chnage is the emrgence of PauL Krugman, Frank Rich, and Dan Froomkin. Krigman is a credentialed academic and an outsider to journalism. Rich knows show business and the difference between sho business and the real work of politics,. Froomkin is a journalist but operating on the sidelines of a major newpaper. they seem to recognize the childishness of the White House press. It's only a start, but having credible, syndicated observers like these and the web is a way to start chipping away at this silliness.

Gibbs didn't have the magic this time around and the Deadskins (the name that DCers from actual sports towns give the team) have really lived up to their name. He probably would have been better off remaining in retirement.

Even in his better days, Gibbs was a sanctimonious character whose players sucked up to him by claiming to be religious. he was no Paul Brown or even Vince Lombardi. Enough with the crocodile tears for Joe.

Having lived overseas, i can tell you there's tremendous value in having your kids exposed toa different culture. Unfortunately, they'll eventually have to come back to thisone. Schools are a problem--international schools with US or UK curiculla are common in overseas capitals and other major cities, but are expensive. OTOH, if you have teaching credentials or can bully your way into an instructional program, you cmight be able to teach at one of these places and get the kids' schooling gratis. Local schools may be based on archaic instructional methods (rote regurgitation predominates in Asia and many other regions) and the kids will need to rapidly pick up the local language.

Overseas life is tough on marriages and other long-term relationships. Even if spouses move together, there's usually someone who loses out in terms of their interests, needs, occupational trajectory, etc.

It's a crazy idea, but no crazier than some of the other things people do to "enrich" their kids' experiences.