Jesus H Christ...This is a media circle jerk.

A couple of points:

"One flashpoint is the assigned speech topic for former president Bill Clinton, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday night, when the convention theme is 'Securing America's Future.' ... The former president is disappointed, associates said, because he is eager to speak about the economy and more broadly about Democratic ideas,"

Bill should not be speaking about the future. He should speak, as he apparently wants to, about the economy, (to remind people how good it was under him, and how bad it is now), and more broadly about Democratic ideals, because, well, that's what he's good at. "Securing America's Future"? The Clinton name should not be tied to anything with the word "Future" in it. But please, give Bill free rein, and he'll deliver a helluva speech.

Harris and Allen also report that there's some unhappiness from the Obama side too, that the Obama camp is complaining that Hillary Clinton's "team continues to act like she and Bill Clinton hold leverage...

Another news flash: With nearly half the votes, Clinton does have leverage. This reminds me of the Bush line "I have political capital, and I'm gonna use it" after winning a close (and questionable) victory after 2004. If Obama can't negotiate small compromises within his own party, How is he going to do it in the real world?

That said, I wish Hillary would suck it up already.

It's true that a POTUS has limited, almost cerimonial effect on the economy.

It's also true, as you say, that the much maligned NAFTA was actually, cumulatively, good for our economy, just not all segments of it - It did hurt the unions of the rust belt.

I always viewed Bill's greatest economic acheivement not as NAFTA, but as strong-arming the Republicans into balancing the budget. I think that the sheer notion of a balanced budget, absent for so long under the previous administrations, actually laid part of the foundation for a good economy - It gave both domestic and foreign investors confidence in us.

It is on this point that he can beat up the current administration, and possibly win converts from the fiscally conservative set of the right.

What Clinton can bring to the table is the stature on the world stage America held during his administration,

That is exactly what I'm saying. The message is "We Democrats know how to get our house in order." Clinton inherited the bubble - He lucked out, in this respect. Were there other things that some of us would have rather seen with that money? Maybe. But I think that balancing the budget was one of the most positive things he did. And not just because it made the Republicans look like fiscal gluttons.

A lion in winter, is still a lion.

It just preaches to the converted.

We have serious and complex issues to consider in this (And every) election. They just don't always fit on a bumper sticker.

Maybe it's possible to raise the level of discourse enough to force people to read beyong the slogan.

Or not.

But in the end, I don't think he has a really good choice, unless it's someone from left field.

Anyone on the table will hurt him either with the immoral minority or the center.

The phone rings in the Whitehouse.

Startled, McCain drops dead of a heat attack.

Palin must answer the phone.

As did War Room.

...I wouldn't be so quick to use "Palin" and "Commander in Chief" in the same sentence.

The same right wing bible thumping racists that might go after Obama would love to see Sarah get a promotion if "something should happen" to John

Pigs are smarter than pitbulls. A pitbull will follows its master bidding, or go off half cocked. Pigs have their own mind. And they taste better.

Still, neither pigs nor pitbulls are particularly good at, say, economic analysis or delicate negotiation or other POTUS stuff like that - You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

It is hard to tell the good brown guys from the bad brown guys. All those brown guys look alike. Some have machine guns, some don't. But just because a brown guy does not have a machine gun, that does not mean that he is not a bad guy. Bad guys are tricky.

Here is Fox News Dead Commie Correspondant Flip Plume to explain:

"I am looking at some dead brown guys. The administration tells us that these were bad brown guys. Local sources say that some of these dead guys are kids. Who are you gonna believe? For Fox News, I'm Flip Plume. We decide...What to report"

The Fox is in the Henhouse with the Chickenhawks

No no no...When asked if she would be willing to go in at all costs, she thought he was asking about a "Packie store".

Why chose such a small target?

Besides, It's already been sold to the highest bidder.

"The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” McCain said in December 2007.

And...

“I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” 2005, interview with the WSJ

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. McCain sure won't be relying on any fancy-pants so-called "experts" when he's president, no sir-ee.

I guess you didn't get the memo.

It's not "flip-flopping", when McCain does it.

It's "Change"