This passage of history is completely like Vietnam. There came a date when the war became extremely unpopular, and it was clear that, short of nuking Hanoi and Haiphong, and China and Russia if they objected, there was no winning in Vietnam. But we couldn't leave, of course, because there would be a domino effect.

(If Bobby had won in '68, and he had just started leaving, would Cambodia have fallen, without Nixon's secret bombing?)

Except Laos never belonged to anyone except opium smugglers. Cambodia, before the massive bombing that Nixon ordered, might have stayed with Prince Sihanouk. The secret bombing of one country to supposedly close the Ho Chi Minh trail -- it didn't work -- just brought the Khmer Rouge to power. In fact, I think it's true that everything we did to forestall the dominoes falling actually made it worse. Thailand didn't go commie, or Malaysia, none of it. These aimless, brutal years from 1968-1972 were spent killing and dying for no purpose, and that is what we seem to be on the edge of repeating.

It didn't matter. Congress passed some bills to supply the South Vietnamese, and the last combat soldier left in 1972, just to put the last nail in McGovern's coffin. But the processs of "Vietnamization" was booby-trapped. We had retreated all the way back home, and the occasion of the final push to Saigon wasn't going to change that. However, Congress stopped authorizing those massive arm sales to South Vietnam, so the GOP, who had, you know, cut and run, now put the blame for "losing" Vietnam on Congress, who stabbed the South Vietnamese in the back (a political meme with a long, long life.)

It was a sad, ridiculous charge, if you know anything about the massive corruption of the South Vietnamese government and the incompetence of their military. But scratch a right-winger today, and that's just what he'll say happened.

What the writer doesn't mention, of course, are the right-wing politics of Edward VIII. The Political Establishment didn't gang up on Edward just because they didn't like him marrying an American divorcee. I'm quite sure they could have gotten along with that, but there was a fight among the toffs for a few years before the war. Part of the British establshment thought that a partnership with Mr. Hitler might not be a bad idea. What's surprising, for a modern, was that the press took politics completely out of it and presented the soap opera of "giving up the throne for the woman he loved," which was even partially true. Any fascist ties were simply never mentioned, and in those days, they could do that. They could disappear people, or put them in an Iron Mask, even a King.

Diana, by contrast, had no politics but women's liberation. She was trapped, when she married Charlie, in a marriage with the wrong man, who was forced to marry her because she was a suitable virgin. She was a creature of the publicity machine, and then she learned that her beauty and approachability gave her power -- more than the modern monarchy possessed. Since that death, it has been full-court press to make back the reputation of the monarchy. Thus, this embarrassing report. Thus, the movie "Queen."

The problem is, the power of the monarchy has dissipated after so many years of overexposure. The British monarchy now has, even at full corgie, about as much power as the cast of Dynasty.

Sorry, sports nuts. College football is great fun. Colder weather, go to the stadium with your best girl and a blanket and a flask, yell and scream and neck in the car on the way home. It also serves as a fundraiser for colleges by bringing wealthy alumni in to donate to the new Geology building. It also is a free gift to the NFL, a farm team par excellence. But in order to have a fair playoff system, you'd have to have games in various tiers all year round. A World Cup of American Football every four years, which, of course, would mean the champions would be decided in year four by different teams than started off in year one. There is no national college football champion possible. Or desirable, since the main function of colleges is not football. Get over it and crack those books instead of lounging around the TV arguing about the BCS.

Thank you, voters of Connecticut, for giving us six years of this "Nobody wants to bring our troops home more than I do" Joe who marched with the civil rights guys, did you know, but who is now in the latter stages of Washington/Jerusalem dementia. I'm so glad that his "moderate" "bipartisanship" is so popular with the Washington pundits like Broder and the rest, as opposed to that unreasonable, screeching Lamont -- who would have repeated the mistakes of McGovern and the dirty hippies, don't you know?

If these guys win, and there seems little doubt at the moment that they will, we're in hell for another two years at least. And if the Dems try to seriously put Joltin' Joe in his place, who doesn't think that he'll jump over to the Republicans, thus returning the Senate to Cheney? Oh, the reasonable bipartisanship of this whole deal?

Thanks, Joe. Thanks, Ralph Nader.