I should have mentioned this in my earlier post, but it slipped my mind. To me, Reagan and all he represents is encapsulated in a single anecdote. One of my former research committee members lived in DC when Reagan came into office. Reagan and his staff at the time decided that it was demoralizing to the nation, and inconsistent with the national character that there be so many homeless people visible sleeping on the steam grates around Washington, and especially around the buildings adjacent to the Mall. Their solution was to put spikes on the steam grates. To me this is the essence of "conservatism". It was an image of a solution. The underlying difficulty was still there. Those people, many of whom were likely Vietnam veterans, were still homeless. They didn't go away, but for the sake of the peace of mind of those who needed not to see them in such prominent locations, and to think things were okay, they were made to appear to go away. The image of the nation was restored, but the reality was not there. All that happened in reality is that those without homes were made that much colder. These were fellow citizens, and even a little comfort was denied them. How callous...how illusory...but how "conservative"...that was Reagan.

This piece should not be a surprise. The old, straight-talking, honest John McCain died long ago at the hands of his ambition for the presidency. That McCain died of a thousand cuts that included panders to the extremists of the "Christian" right, to Bush, to the ideologues of the economic right, and to the neocons. This McCain is everything the old one wasn't. Heck, this McCain doesn't even know the name of the other major party. Somehow he forgot that it was the Democratic Party, and not the "Democrat" Party (I immediately lose respect for anyone who intentionally uses this pejorative - it shows an inane juvenile mentality that is absolutely incompatible with the characteristics of one deserving of high office in service to the public). Given these, the debate incident shouldn't surprise at all.

As the resident troll (you know the one, the guy who is a Bushevik first, Republican second, and American last if at all), has been urging, Lieberman should switch. This would at last show fully his true colors, if nothing else. It would, however, do nothing at all to the balance of power in the Senate. This goes to something folks like your typical "conservative" do not understand: rules. The Senate, you see, operates according to them (indeed, the only extent to which a "conservative" understands the concept is in using them to block virtually every legislative act of Democrats - remember that the Senate Republicans already hold the record for the number of filibusters ever filed in any congress - with another year still remaining). When the Senate was organized for the 110th Congress in January of 2007, the organizing resolution passed lacked the provision present in the 2001 resolution that allowed for re-organization of the Senate should a member switch parties (this was done at the time to reflect the fact that Democrats technically had control of the chamber when the resolution was passed due to Al Gore still being the VP, and it was understood that with Cheney coming in, the chamber would be 50:50, and was thus needed). Due to this, should Lieberman shift to being a Republican, Harry Reid would continue to be the head of the Senate's controlling Democratic delegation, and Democrats would continue to head the Senate committees. Them's the rules. Tough luck, Elephantman. Switch Joe, switch!

In any case, Joe will be less than a footnote after the 111th Congress convenes, and the Democrats have a solid, working majority that can actually accomplish the business of the people over the objections and obstructions of the America-hating thugs of the Republican caucus.

A lot of Senator Edwards' original strategy hinged on sweeping up the not-Clinton votes. This was destroyed as a possibility when Senator Obama entered the race. He is fresh and charismatic, and the almost perfect rally point for the not-Clinton sentiment. He took many votes that would have otherwise naturally accrued to Senator Edwards. You will notice that in the contested primaries in which Senator Clinton has won, her margin was quite thin. This is because Senators Obama and Edwards were splitting the vote of those who would not vote for Senator Clinton. If Senator Obama were not in the race, Senator Edwards would likely be edging out Senator Clinton. Now that Senator Edwards is out, this will swing a lot of votes to Senator Obama. I think that Senator Edwards knows this, and wanted to give Senator Obama a better chance next Tuesday. Of course, if Senators Clinton and Obama don't settle things next Tuesday, then there is a chance still for a brokered convention (slight, but possible), where Senator Edwards can play king-maker and maybe win some concessions to his platform. Regardless, I am glad he stayed in as he did. Senator Edwards is closest to me in his political leanings, and I am glad that he has influenced the policy side of the campaign as much as he has.