In the political sphere, Edwards is putting together a narrative that reads as follows: I am authentic. She (Clinton) is untrustworthy. He (Obama) is too weak. It makes a helluva lot of sense. Authenticity is the absolute coin of the realm in retail politics like in Iowa and New Hampshire.

As public policy, it is widely viewed among Democratic Party activists and groups that money in politics is not just corrupting, but corrosive of the things we need. For a richly detailed example of this, please see "Sicko". And it's not just health care -- just ask the proverbial individual on the street whether they think that government listens to them as much as it listens to Mr. Deep Pockets.

I've often wondered how long it will take, how desperate Americans have to become, how much risk-shifting onto their backs they will tolerate before they turn on the status quo. John Edwards is asking Americans to see themselves and their relationship to their country in that framework, by that angle. Just count how many times in his speeches he refers to "Washington" and "corporations" in the same sentence. Edwards is betting that 2008 is the year the dam breaks.

The most damning thing I've ever heard about Reagan was uttered by Jimmy Carter. He said that Reagan "made us comfortable in our prejudices", and I believe that was on the mark. Ironically, the one aspect of Bush's character that is modestly positive is that he seems to have some empathy for ethnic minorities, particularly Hispanics. No doubt that's at least in part due to political calculations, but it did take guts for Bush to trot out his guest worker program (never mind the good or bad wonkery of it) after Lou Dobbs' minions were howling to skin the Mexicans alive. Reagan by comparison seemed to see only white America (plus, maybe some Cubans I suppose, but that's all). "Welfare queens in designer jeans" was not a randomly chosen phrase.

Another thing about Reagan was that he was pretty averse to ad-libbing. He would have never have said the nonsense that just pours out of Dubya's mouth when he tries to wing it. Reagan would have known the "Fool me once..." jingle.

the lyrics rhymed. Remember the famous:

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice -" **blank stare**.

On January 30, 2001, Bush met with the principals of the National Security Council for the first time. From Ron Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty

Over the next minutes, speculative, nonspecific talk volleyed across the table about how to remedy inadequate intelligence, discover the nature of Saddam's weapons programs, and bomb selected Iraqi targets.

Ten days into his first term and seven and a half months before 9/11, Bush started the ponderous mechanisms of government toward a conflict with Iraq. Iraq was not reaction to 9/11, but rather 9/11 gave these crazies the cover they needed. Iraq equals al-Qaida, yeah, just repeat it enough times, and the Wurlitzer will parrot you and the Media will not bother to ask the obvious questions out of fear and compromise.

So the origin of the Iraq War was doused with deceit and laced with irrationality, but the connection the Bush Administration fabricated to involve 9/11 was a coldly deliberative process. This was not just a wild stroke against the Muslim region of the world, but rather focused like a laser on Saddam's Iraq.

I am a southern, white, male, heterosexual, property owning, stock holding Catholic, who's been married to the same woman for - it'll be thirty years next summer, and I'm a father of a wonderful young lady now at FSU (GO 'Noles!). And I call myself a Liberal. Those who want to call me "Progressive", ok, I'll take that too. But I tell my acquaintances down here in East Central Florida - who are roughly 2:1 Republican and often Bible Bangers - that I'm a Liberal, and I can quote Scripture (often Matthew Chapter 25 "Whatsoever you do unto the Least of my Brothers, That you do unto ME") to tell them why.

Now I doubt that they would vote for me if I were to run for office. In fact, I can't point to a single individual whose political choices I've changed. So maybe I'd be a pretty lousy campaign consultant too. But I'll assure you of this - they respect me and know that I'm authentic and honest.

That's all you can ask from an office seeker. Show me your hand, no aces up the sleeve. No triangulation, no contradictory messages in front of different audiences, no pandering. That's the way to approach Floridians, and as well I think Pennsylvanians and Montanans, and all the rest.

Barbara Bodine in the new movie "No End In Sight" makes the memorable comment "There were two or three ways to get Iraq right, and five hundred ways to get it wrong. What I didn't know was that we'd go through all five hundred."

When, as John DiIulio pointed out, in the Bush White House there is no policy but only politics, it follows that there is no strategy but only tactics. The Mayberry Machiavellis are a bunch of chess players that can only see one move ahead, if that. Immediate political reactions and coverage in the latest news cycle seems to be the horizon of their thinking. They were masters of distraction, playing with national security like the Enron accountants sauteing the latest quarterly balance sheets.

And the Iraq catastrophe is so intimately tied to the Bush inner circle's disdain for facts, contempt for intellectuals, and blindered lack of curiosity. Does it all tie together I wonder - loathing for analytical reasoned thought, and a short span of attention? Painting oneself into a corner does require unique skills.