If empire is measured in external conquest and a sense of entitlement to the world around it, the US inherited the world from Europe after WWII, but even as soon as the Korean War, already found itself foundering -- no longer the sole nuclear power, not able to achieve a decisive outcome in Korea (and we've been bogged down there for decades). Vietnam was an even less satisfactory outcome for our imperial ambitions, and now we've got Iraq, our mini-quagmire that's again showing the limits of empire.

We had more success in counterrevolutionary scheming and bankrolling tributary juntas in the Third World (under the aegis of the Cold War, the ever-convenient excuse), particularly Latin America and some spots in SE Asia and the Middle East -- never leading lights in human rights, but empire doesn't care about that, compared to the steady flow of wealth and power. And we were still dazzled by the pixie dust of our own exceptional goodness to bother with the bloody details of empire.

Even in our early 20th century wannabe imperial phase (which usually gets overlooked when people even talk about empire and America, although some have rightly pointed out historian Gore Vidal as a vital exception to this -- he gets it, for sure) -- for the naysayers/deniers, see the histories of Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Mexico, China -- we were pretenders to the imperial throne; the Europeans were more experienced at it, simply better at it. Sure, we could send in the Marines and overturn democratically elected leaders and install pro-business tyrannical puppet rulers, but either greed or stupidity or both hindered our drive for empire, until WWII basically handed us the world on a platter, almost by accident.

Whether Americans realize we're an empire or not, we're just not very good at it. Maybe it's part of it; you have to know what you're doing to be good at what you're doing. Deposing democratically elected leaders in the name of democracy reflects a certain moral confusion, guaranteeing eventual failure, no matter how much money you throw to the CIA and the Pentagon, how many secret and dirty wars are waged -- even the secrecy of our assorted campaigns abroad are reflective of our imperial ambivalence.

The British, Spanish, and French all did it far better. America had the misfortune of becoming an empire at a time when the fruits of empire were apparently pretty bitter, and victory, elusive. We were latecomers to the party.

Did they hose down the jail cell with bleach? Has it been declared a Superfund site? Did they seal it off with bricks? She's America's Sweetheart, which says everything about America these days! *shudder*

Maybe they hate her (and, by extension, Bill) because they co-opted the GOP economic agenda, minus most of the loony tunes theocratic social engineering the Republican base want to inflict on the rest of the country. Republican Lite probably outrages the GOPeons as much as it outrages progressives, just for different reasons.

The Right knows that they can't run hard just on their loopy social agenda; they have to wrap the poison in the stale bread of their economic regimen (which helps the top 1% most of all, but since most Americans think they're in the top 20%, s'okay, that kind of deception doesn't get much play). The Right depends on that to appear more mainstream than it is -- the clash of the Business wing versus the Christian wing; Hillary and Bill draw away the Business wing, which leaves the Christians crucified by the cross they're bearing.

Bill and Hillary run on Republican economic ideas and steal the GOP's thunder, leaving them just with hellfire and brimstone, which doesn't play well with the majority -- "The end is near!" and "You're all going to Hell!" isn't very inspiring, compared to "You're all going to be RICH! And best of all, the costs are foisted onto future generations! Wooo hoo!"

So, the actual Left hates Bill and Hillary for abandoning them, and the Right hates them for stealing some of their game plan. That's how I see it. And it worked in the 90s -- fiscal conservatism and social liberalism seemed to win them some elections, and compared to the trainwreck that is the Bush years, the Clinton years look rosy by comparison.

I'd love for any of the Democrats to co-op the old Reagan slogan, "Ask yourself, are you better off now than you were [insert year of choice] years ago?" No GOP candidate can really answer a "yes" on that, at least if they're trying to pretend to be in touch with the majority of Americans, who haven't benefited from GOP economics.

Ah, George II and his tantrums. "It's MY government, and you can't have it back!" He's holding the country hostage to his incompetence, mendacity, and corruption.

The Dems really need to widen their margin in the Senate to render "G.I." Joe Lieberman a footnote. His DINO cred has made him a natural ally of the GOP against his former party, which is why DINOs are so destructive to the Democrats. Connecticut voters went with porky prominence in going with Shoeless Joe Lieberman, figuring a well-connected Senator was a better fit for them than a freshman Senator, but their electoral cupidity can be offset if the Democrats gain enough seats to nullify Lieberman.

And how does war with Iran help Israel, exactly? Is this the "War is Peace" line of argument the GOP's been throwing out for years? That the more war you make in the Middle East, the more peaceful it gets? I guess if you kill ~880 million Muslims, the ~3 million Israelis can be safe at last; I guess that's the moral reasoning. Why else would constant war in the region be seen as the path to peace? Or is this all some lead-in to Armageddon for the fundamentalists -- not the firmest foundation for foreign policy.

Anyway, I hope Lieberman is voted out sometime before the Apocalypse.