I don't buy that Washingpost piece; it's offering people a dodge on Bush by citing "liberal" action by Bush and declaring him to be a neoliberal, which is really just an extension of the "liberal = bad" argument of the past.

Just as Clinton outraged the Right by co-opting their economic agenda under the aegis of Democratic triangulation (smoothed over by his charisma), so did Bush's handlers camouflage the radicalism of his administration by token nods toward diversity and assorted rhetorical mandates that invoked lofty rhetoric and the "historic mission" of the US to be the world's (corrupt) policeman -- a velvet glove on the iron right hand of authoritarian power: lofty words and dirty deeds.

And, on many levels, it worked -- using the Left's personal-is-political navelgazing against it, they gave us a terrible black female Secretary of State, a corrupt Latin Attorney General -- because people were afraid of being seen as racist or sexist if they opposed them, so up they went, when what really mattered was whether they were willing or able to do the jobs at hand. It's testament to how much empty symbolism has come to characterize American political discourse.

Nixon was the last substantively liberal president we've had in this country (everybody, Democrat or Republican, has governed to Nixon's right since then), but it's almost meaningless to throw out political labels in American discourse -- I mean, "libertarian" means "anarchist" to the rest of the world, whereas Stateside, it means laissez-faire capitalist apologists. Even fascists are euphemistically portrayed as ultranationalists, arch- and ultraconservatives, and even super-patriots in the media, which seems afraid to use the "f" word at all.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are as misleadingly thrown around, as if they still had meaning -- is somebody liberal only because they're less conservative than somebody else, or do they actually stand for something left of center? What does it mean to be left of center, or right of center?

To me, it revolves around power -- who has it, who holds it. That's the origins of right v. left -- historically, the Right favors power conserved in as few hands as possible; that's why the Right was historically in favor of monarchs, and opposed to democracies -- the long shadow of the French Revolution haunted the Right, the overturning of the "natural" order of things -- kingly rule, yes; mob rule, no.

Historically, the Left favored power disseminated as widely as possible, in as many hands as possible -- pro-democracy, bottom-up in favor of top-down. That's why the Left typically bleeds for the disenfranchised and the put-upon, emphasizing fairness and equality, while the Right favors established, entrenched, and powerful interests, on the whole.

People will throw the USSR as an example of a Leftist state, but really the Bolsheviks stopped the whole "all power to the Soviets" movement in its tracks and opted for centralized state power, once they realized that if they embraced it fully, it would mean an end to their power -- they stepped back from the leftist brink as surely as the American Federalists stepped back from it, as well, opting for a robust central government instead of a confederacy of affiliated states.

I don't think any mainstream "conservative" in this country truly earns the label; they're all reactionaries to me -- far, far to the right, favoring autocratic centralization of power. If we had actual liberals and conservatives in our government, people would've fought this centralization, instead of supporting it, albeit for different reasons. Today's "liberals" are as keen to hold onto state power (and are as afraid of the mob) as their "conservative" brethren -- one favors the nanny state, and the other, the police state. Both are professional political classes, with the majority of us along for the ride.

I liked your piece, Mr. Shapiro, especially this...

Barack Obama is simultaneously both aware of the power of cheap rhetoric and easy emotion -- and intellectually contemptuous of it.

That's just it: podium-pounding and rhetorical pixie dust is about all the Democrats do anymore to communicate passion for groups they simply have nothing in common with -- give me some rational, pragmatic forward motion than empty platitudes. The Democrats administer the morphine of empty dreams, while the Republicans deal the crank of apocalyptic visions.

I vastly prefer Obama's contemplative charisma to the empty pandering performed by most candidates these days, and in days past.

Having seen him in person, know this: Obama owns any room he's in; his style comes off not as cold or uncaring, but as cool -- he's damned cool. Hillary's not cool; she's cold -- she may have the insider track, the hefty allegiances with the big money players and party powerful, the mighty Bill at her side, but she comes off as cold, not hot.

I agree with some who worry that the Democrats are going to go with the lackluster Hillary and will sacrifice Obama in the primaries, try to buy him off with a VP slot. God, I hope not. We're in the 21st century; aren't we deserving of a 21st century candidate?

In this age of sycophantic sound bites, overcooked rhetoric, prepackaged populism, and a smaller, more globalized world, cooler heads must prevail -- and, among the candidates with a chance of winning, Obama would be a far cooler head of state than anybody else running.