Are you suggesting that politicians are capable of misleading the public to win an election only to then pursue an alternative agenda? Oh my. Heh.

You are absolutely right, of course. Hillis' thesis presumes that after the election, candidates will keep all of their campaign promises and remain true to the portrait they painted before the votes were counted.

I'm a little more cynical than that. If you believe Hillis' thesis, then in a two party system, each candidate must seek the center. So then you must ask - are these folks really so similar, or is this posturing simply part of the game that must be played in order to stand any chance of winning?

Excuse me for making shit up for a minute. What if Obama had voted differently on FISA, but lost the election? (You know that Republican like nothing more than to beat that old soft-on-crime soft-on-terror drum.) Would McCain/Palin be easier to swallow in that circumstance?

I think it might just be a little naive to think politicians can ever be as sterling as we'd like them to be. If someone has a better idea about how to handle this process, I'd love to hear about it. Until then, I think we may just have to accept that these folks do indeed play the electorate in order to get elected; it's been happening since forever. (Compare the founding father's public and private positions on religion sometime.) I'm not sure what's accomplished by getting all worked up about it.

Hm, I just thought of an exception to my own cynical hypothesis. Whether you like Ron Paul or not, I think it would be hard to argue that he ever attempted to stake out a "center" position in order to win an election. If nothing else, he has been doggedly persistent in presenting himself honestly, I think. Now, he didn't win the presidential nomination, to be sure. But he sure did win his current seat. I don't know what that means exactly. I'd love to know more about the folks who elected him. Does Ron Paul represent the center of his constituency? If not, how in hell does he get elected? Has he had any serious competition?

I'm not going to waste a lot of effort rebutting someone who clearly misses the point. If you are unable to read for comprehension, then giving you even more text to decipher isn't going to help. If you think you are being anything more than just another shrill whinger, then maybe you should try reflecting for just a minute about where, specifically, I was arguing against any single one of the positions you are railing about.

Apparently there are at least a couple of oversensitive souls on this thread who perceive any conversation that doesn't reinforce the views of the echo chamber as a personal affront. Like I said earlier, take a valium. For you, maybe two.

There are a lot of firsts with the first lady. But first big butt?! Are you kidding?!

Really, I'd like to know: which first lady didn't have back?

Now, if you were going to talk about high water booty, well, you might have a point. But first big butt? Don't think so.

I guess if you can turn a phrase, or at least write grammatical English, you can write any stupid thing you like. According to Joan.

So far, we've seen nothing but a little theater since the election. No bills. No vetoes. Few appointments. Hell, a lot of folks aren't even in office yet. Was the scumbag Lieberman's kid glove treatment warranted? Not in my opinion. However, I don't understand the political calculus of Washington; and quite frankly, I don't really give a shit. The only thing that matters to me is results. The jury will be out on that one for a while.

Have the Democrats historically behaved like cowards? Sure. I find that reprehensible. But I'm equally uneasy with people who don't even wait for the next game to get started before they start criticizing the players. For example, just look at how many posters conflate Lieberman's appointment with Obama for fucks sake. He's a frickin Senator; Obama has nothing to do with it.

It is a new game. Maybe it will play out like the last game. Maybe it won't. I don't know yet, so I'm reserving judgment.

What does Lieberman's position signify? You could spin that all kinds of ways. "Democrats are cowards" seems to be the conventional wisdom 'round these parts. "Keep your enemies close" could be another. "Someday, and the day may never come, I may ask you for a favor" could be another. Who the fuck knows? Everyone here except me I guess.

You know, ripping these people a new one is pretty easy sport. I didn't read every comment, but I read a lot, and I didn't read even one that had any positive suggestions about what the Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) should be doing. Other than tearing each other apart.

Senator Hagel (R) just ripped on Rush Limbaugh recently. He said:

"You know, I wish Rush Limbaugh and others like that would run for office," a sarcastic Hagel continued. "They have so much to contribute and so much leadership and they have an answer for everything. And they would be elected overwhelmingly. [The truth is] they try to rip everyone down and make fools of everybody but they don't have any answers."

Exactly. Don't be like Rush.