Rice is a political Stepford Wife, more comfortable as a wonkish political appointee, blindly and obediently serving her "husband" than in doing her job or serving the country's best interests. Her mendacity reveals everything about her, and why she's unfit to seek higher office. And she's brittle -- when she's crossed, she looks like she's going to crack. Her inflexible adherence to neoconservative doctrine would not translate well in a presidential bid.

She'd do far better as the head librarian at the George W. Bush Presidential Library, assuming there'll actually be any books or papers in there (I imagine the papers will be heavily blotted out for "national security" reasons -- ream after ream blacked out).

No, she's a pipe dream for wishful thinkers, more appealing in theory than in actual practice -- rather like neoconservative ideology itself, when you think about it.

I'm more saddened that two-thirds of Republicans think Bush is doing a great job. Who are these people? And why aren't they enlisting in the armed forces to fight the War on Terror?

some folks say she'd make a good commissioner

More like Condi would make a good commissar!

She really missed her calling, that wayward scholar of the Soviet Union. I guess that's why she got busy helping rekindle the totalitarian spirit of the Bolsheviks in the Bush Administration, just to make herself more comfortable.

So glad she enjoys baseball. So does Castro. Too bad he's too sick to show up at games these days. I'm sure they could swap stories while sitting in the fancy seats.

I'm a little surprised at the Clinton campaign, by how lackluster it's been. It seems that the strengths it has in money and name recognition just aren't enough to carry it, but they're acting as if it was sufficient (or else are insulated enough from the process not to see that it's not working).

I just don't think Hillary Clinton makes for a very charismatic candidate, particularly in a crowded field -- way, way too safe. Right now, it feels like she's running a Gore 2000 campaign, blithely gliding along in a presumptive "Hey, don't they know it's ME?" kind of mentality, guided by questionable handlers, while other campaigns are actively trying to hit the right notes: more charismatic, more responsive, more engaged, more inspiring, and far bolder.

The Clinton campaign has the telltale feel of triangulation about it, which Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004 should reveal to be an outdated strategy, given the cornholing the Bush League has done to the US.

How a candidate runs a campaign speaks a lot about them, and at the rate that they're going, Hillary, Inc. seems not to get it, whether or not they show up in Iowa.

As usual, Bush's sentence-slinging is typically disjointed. Al Qaeda wants to drive the US out of the region, while at the same time, they're using Iraq as their training ground for terrorists, and that they'll follow us home if we leave.

Seems to me if we leave, then we're depriving them of their training ground, so even if they send terrorists our way, they'll be sloppy, unseasoned terrorists, versus well-trained, battle-hardened ones used to taking on American forces.

I mean, before our invasion of Iraq, there was no terrorist training ground in Iraq. After we invaded, there was, and they've gotten better at what they do, if anything. So, the longer we're there, the better they'll do, right? The usual measure/countermeasure death spiral of battlefield confrontations.

I think if we left, the Shiites and Sunnis in the whole region would be more likely to be at each others' throats than messing with us -- those fissures run far deeper than any anti-American sentiments. Maybe if the money that's being thrown to the war (and to our client nations in the region) went to fostering, developing, and expanding alternative energy sources, the US could divorce itself from the region once and for all.

Oh, and in today's NYT...

[T]he poll found that Americans now have more faith in the Democrats than in the Republicans on the issue of the Iraq war. For the first time, more than half of those polled — 51 percent — said the Democratic party is more likely than the Republican party to make the right decisions about the war.

In general, more Americans now have a favorable view of the Democratic party (53 percent) than of the Republican party (38 percent). The Republican party has not had a majority positive rating in a New York Times/CBS News poll since December 2003.

Mission accomplished!

Wow, what a great piece, Mr. Blumenthal! The exposure of the inner circle, the workings, the toadying, the angling for advantage in a den of vipers, with Wolfowitz's shooting star shining brightly and falling, fading out.

I love how you draw much-needed attention to the Trotskyite background of various neocons, and their Bolshevik ways -- it's all too true. Weirdly, the neocons themselves, for all of their Cold Warrior posturing and reactionary political portfolios, resemble nothing so much as Bolvsheviks in the practice of their ideology. Their un-American way of operating is entirely reflective of their roots, with predictably dire consequences for American democracy, both at home and abroad.

And Wolfowitz the striver ran with that ball and took it as far as he could. The fateful line that anchors it...

But basically welcoming us as liberators ... There's not going to be the hostility ... There simply won't be."

The triumph of ideology in the face of reality, driving right off the cliff, sure that the road'll be there when you do so. Why? Because when reality doesn't mesh with the theory, you throw out reality, of course!

You nailed it.