The moment I remember was when the stay was granted on Friday, because it was obvious then that the fix was in -- there was no way that continuing the count over the weekend was going to constitute an injury to anyone unless the court intended to settle the matter regardless of what the votes showed.

I involuntarily yelped something, and popped up out of my chair to go talk to all the other horrified people who were freaked out by the decision. And then there weren't any. Big Democratic firm, too.

Bush v. Gore may have been a terrible decision, but I don't think it changed what would have been the ultimate outcome based on the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme court (if one is to trust the recounts done by the media, which is by no means certain) that did not include the overvotes.

That, of course, does not change the fact that (a) the Supreme Court should have let the recount go forward and that (from what I've read) the reasoning of the majority is terrible (to this day I have yet to read the decision),* and (b) more people showed up at the polls in Florida intending to vote for Gore than those that intending to vote for Bush; the fact that the a process was not in place to ensure that Gore won is a stain on our democracy (and the current process is no better, six years down the road).

*I would also note that the fact that O'Connor didn't retire until after the 2004 shows (at least to me) that she was ultimately embarassed by joining the majority and couldn't bring herself to give Bush the choice of replacing her until at least the next election when the Court wasn't involved.

the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme court (if one is to trust the recounts done by the media, which is by no means certain) that did not include the overvotes.

But it was going to -- the local judge who was supervising it stated his intention to look at unambiguous overvotes. I can look up a reference for you, but I was immersed in this stuff at the time and I'm certain.

Now, it is not certain what the result of the ordered recount would have been -- it was hair-close anyway -- but it's not unlikely that it would have changed the election.

involuntarily yelped something

"Titties! Hooray!"

However much it may disgust our conservative readers, I can remember those days as clearly, as fixed by horror and dread, as many people claim they only felt after 911. This was both a crime and a mistake, as may by now be admitted by a surprising number of people. Watching the Iraq Study Group present last week, my wife said of Sandra Day O'Conner with more rancor than I have ever heard her express, "I wonder how she sleeps at night."

I'm convinced that had Gore been seated, we wouldn't be on this damn-fool misadventure in Iraq. On the other hand, in retrospect, thank heavens Bush won in 2004, because I'd be sick to death of the endless explanations of how John Kerry lost Iraq.

Oh man, vivid memories. I had just voted here on the West Coast, and was on the phone with my mom, who said they'd called Florida for Gore. I told her that that was it then, we'd won, and I was so intensely relieved--the forces of evil beaten back for another four years. So much for that.

6: I forgot she was in the ISG-- given the report's blunt assessment, I wonder if Baker and O'Connor ever feel a moment of chagrin for their role in Bush's election. It's chilling to think of what it would be like to be a person of decent character in that position, whether or not they qualify as such.

Vivid memories indeed. I had just gotten my drivers permit.

Oh yeah, I was proud that my political awareness in 2000 had me telling several people, in the week before the election, "It all comes down to Florida." Bah.

What happens when a president-elect dies? Does the vice-president-elect then get sworn in and everyone's bumped up? Or is there no set process since it's never happened?

I think the vice-president-elect gets sworn in and he selects a new VP, right?

What happens when a president-elect dies?

U.S. Constitution's provision that if the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.

This is where my limited understanding of the electoral college comes in, but I think if the electors haven't voted yet, they're legally free to do whatever they damn well please. I think that would mean that the winning party would instruct them, and probably to vote for the veep-elect as the seemliest looking choice. But I think, without being certain, that the electors could vote for anyone.

Or, what Ogged said, except that he has a source.

What if both died after the electoral college voted?

Got plans?

No. I'm just starting to wonder if part of the rationale for selecting Cheney as VP was to make sure that GW Bush would be 100% completely safe from assassination.

19: "assassination" s/b "impeachment"

15: Another reason why you should only send loyal party members to the EC.

(EC for me, see?)

20: Well, either way. "Being removed from office."

7: Instead we're treated to the campaign on how losing the war in Iraq is all the media and Democrat's fault for undermining the American Public's power rings.

Did you really have such a negative image of Cheney back in 2000? I remember mostly thinking that it was reassuring that someone experienced and knowledgable was going to be around to help little George. I thought of Cheney as quite conservative, but not insane.

I don't remember anyone warning us that Cheney was as dark and evil as he has turned out to be.

thank heavens Bush won in 2004, because I'd be sick to death of the endless explanations of how John Kerry lost Iraq.

A-fucking-men. I was more heartsick over the loss in '04 than '00, but there was that consolation.

My secret shame is that I voted for Nader in '00. It was purely a gesture--Gore never had a chance of winning South Carolina--and I never believed Nader had a snowball's chance, either; but I'm embarassed to admit now how much I did buy in to "Really, there's not that much difference between Bush and Gore." Partly, that was because I was disappointed by Gore's lackluster campaign that summer; partly because I was still angry with Clinton for not keeping it in his pants; and mostly because I was naïve.

Still, I remember writing on the eve of Bush v. Gore: "this is going to be a dark fucking decade." Little did I know.

You have many companions in your shame around here. Including me. (NY, also where it was safe.) I don't think anyone's admitted to Naderizing in a contested state.

"this is going to be a dark fucking decade." Little did I know.

I remember thinking, "Well, I lived through Reagan and there's just no way anybody could be worse than that." Oh, how my imagination failed me.

I didn't buy the 'Not much difference' argument; I would never have dreamed of voting for Nader in a state that was remotely close. I just thought Gore, while immeasurably superior to Bush, still wasn't left enough for me, and that 'sending a message' made sense.

I voted for Gore, in Florida. But I remember thinking, well, GHWB wasn't so bad. Picking Ashcroft was a bad sign. But in the summer of 2001, it looked like the administration had already exposed themselves as middling incompetent leaders, and publicity artists of insufficient ability to overcome that. (Remember the president on reform of corporate governance?) I think if not for 9/11 these guys would have sunk into much deserved oblivion and inaction by 2004.

I don't remember anyone warning us that Cheney was as dark and evil as he has turned out to be.

Begala's book and others took a look at Cheney's voting record in Congress, and yeah, it was pretty clear he was s total nut.

That's what I always love about the "Karl Rove is an omnipotent demon" line -- of the three elections that he won, he actually lost the first, and then for the next two was artificially given a boost by a fucking terrorist attack.

Plus, I've always wondered how this "spin" stuff even works when everyone is explicitly talking about how it's spin and analyzing how it will affect people's opinions, etc.

Plus, I've always wondered how this "spin" stuff even works when everyone is explicitly talking about how it's spin and analyzing how it will affect people's opinions, etc.

I think the idea there is that the audience for spin consumes so little news that it doesn't matter if you discuss it in public; the swing voters aren't listening.

Having given money to Nader, which could have been used to mess up the close states, would have been more worth ruing than voting in a not-close state. But even there, the degree to which none of us could have imagined how bad it could get really exonerates nearly everybody, except Nader himself.

Also, the egregious Nick Lemann's positive piece about Cheney in the New Yorker appeared after good, damning summaries of his career had appeared, notably in the Washington Monthly.

I would never have dreamed of voting for Nader in a state that was remotely close.

Me neither. I had the luxury of frivolity. Maybe that's what embarasses me about my attitude toward that election, especially in the light of everything that followed.

Cheney's voting record in Congress

That was what I based my assessment of Cheney on, specifically that he was to the right of Jesse Helms, just without the openly racist rhetoric. This is also why I think McCain would be worse in nearly every way than Bush.

Does anyone else feel regret, or guilt, or something, over not having 'taken to the streets' in November 2000? I wonder if part of what happened is that with the orchestrated mob, and the whipping-up of claims that the military was being targeted, and all the nonsense, that there was a belief that there would be real violence if Gore came out of the recounts ahead, but not if Bush did.

The next election could come down to whether the press wants to remain faithful to their worshipful adoration of McCain or whether they're tired of him and ready to move on to worshipful adoration of Obama. Harper's has already had a negative article about Obama, which is a pretty reliable indicator of what the mainstream press is going to think is super awesomely cool.

I suspect Obama is this year's Howard Dean. Fanatical support, but not in big enough numbers to actually win primaries.

36: Fahrenheit 911 was effective in shaming us on that account. It never seems to make sense to me to take to the streets in blue cities in blue states about something that happens because of/in other places in the country. Even a peaceful demonstration could easily be matched, and would be, by counter-demonstrations, in other places.

LB, I suspect you and I taking to the streets would confirm the belief that Gore's people pose no threats (look out! a mob of peeved khaki-wearing maniacs!) but I do regret not going outside and holding up a sign that said, more or less, this is bullshit.

Look, it's a pregnant lawyer! And she's miffed!!

Yeah. Taking to the streets seems to work in France, but it seems terribly unrealistic here.

unrealistic here

Counter-productive, even. Which makes me mad enough to take to the streets.

re: 41

It's the absence of teh badass. Unfortunately.

I suspect Obama is this year's Howard Dean. Fanatical support, but not in big enough numbers to actually win primaries.

I'm not sure about this. I'm leaning toward believing that Obama will roll if he runs. I really really don't understand the liberal hostility to this guy.

Maybe in other countries, there isn't as much traffic on "the streets," meaning that "taking to" them is easier.

You can't take to the streets by yourself. That's what they're good at in France (and most other places) -- the organizational part.

Nah, it seems like there's a stronger streak of mainstream establishmentarianism here, so anybody in the streets is automatically dismissed to some degree as a wacko.

I'm not hostile toward him; I actually like him. I just think that the Democratic nominating process and constituency hasn't changed enough that a <1-term black senator is going to take the nomination.

I didn't have you in mind, apostropher. I think he has one huge advantage, in that the press seems to genuinely like him.

I'd be as happy with him as anyone; what worries me is that he hasn't had an election that wasn't an effortless win.

"I can't take to the streets, I've got to go to work!" I suspect that's the difference between the American and French attitudes.

The cheap quality of the attacks on Obama, I'm convinced, will help him. Sure, there will be some people shouting 'IRAQ HUSSEIN OSAMA!' but I can see more people voting for him because they don't want to be one of those people. In that way it's good for him for these taunts to get out there now -- it builds up a perception that he's treated unfairly, which goes well with actually being liked by the press.

How come no one ever talks about drafting Spitzer? He's the perfect anti-corruption candidate, and not a fool. Would he lose credibility by abandoning NY so soon?

some people shouting 'IRAQ HUSSEIN OSAMA!'

From the right, yes, but I was thinking of liberals who seem to see him as another Lieberman, which seems quite wrong to me.

Definitely not another Lieberman. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that he's a little to the left of Hillary.

You're part of the problem, Kotsko.

52: I've heard gossip suggesting that Spitzer is personally loathsome -- no judgment intended, but that if you see him, you probably hate him just because he's irritating. His ads were very heavy on imagery and light on pictures of Spitzer.

So he may not have much potential as a broader candidate.

We all knew that. Every election, I write in Bob Avakian for president.

I'm with apo. Obama's going to fall to some form of reverse Kerry disease. Kerry ended up being the nominee because people believed he was electable, and I think Obama will end up being the guy everyone loves but when it comes right down to it, do they think he can win and wouldn't we better with one of the other guys?

he's a little to the left of Hillary.

Almost the entire Democratic Party is to the left of Hillary Clinton.

I've heard gossip suggesting that Spitzer is personally loathsome

Yup, heard the same thing.

This week.

Adam was just being obnoxious, Apo.

56: I don't know anything about him, really, except that he had the nerve to fuck with a lot of Big Capital, which I see as a good thing. Based on his appearance I guess it would be a bit like trying to elect Cotton Mather. But then why did he win in New York?

Also, as an aside, not an argument, if Bush isn't personally loathesome, I don't know who is.

he hasn't had an election that wasn't an effortless win

He lost in his first bid for Congress. Not that this gives him a shit-ton of experience, but he has lost and badly. That's worth something.

I advocate Obama-Spitzer.

58- Reverse Kerry disease = Howard Dean disease. He can't win, he's too shrill!

if Bush isn't personally loathesome

I think "personally" here means "when you're sitting in a room just the two of you," and from what I've read, Bush is actually quite good in that situation, Spitzer, not so much. I imagine he won in NY because it's a very liberal state (on the net) and everyone in NY is personally loathesome, in just the way that Spitzer is.

Eh, New York politics is funny -- that is, everything seems to happen behind the scenes. It's been obvious that Spitzer was going to win since sometime last spring, probably longer; no one was seriously running against him. He won the election before the voters got a look at him.

And on the aside, yeah, I never understood the 'I'd have a beer with him' reaction to Bush. Not that it's a valid way to judge anyone, but he struck me as creepy for as long as I've known who he was.

Can an ex-president (2 terms) be a vice-president?

I do remember thinking that we *should* take it to the streets. And also feeling hit with a sudden realization that our republican form of government is actually a lot more like the governmental structures in South America than the parliamentary systems of Europe (which I still think is true). And watching tv obsessively both during the returns and the ensuing Florida nonsense.

But I also remember thinking, "ok, maybe this compassionate conservatism thing is real. Maybe it won't be that bad, he seems like a nice enough guy and Cheney's experienced, blah blah. And really, how bad could it get?"

But like they say, 9/11 changed everything.

everyone in NY is personally loathesome,

Yeah, but at least we can spell it.

The whole Bush v. Gore thing is so depressing because it's one a counterfactual, unlike Althouse's "Maybe Padilla has telepathic abilities that only work if the camera can see his cornea!" argument, that would have made a huge difference in the world with ever so slight changes in initial conditions.
I'm glad most Iraqis don't know much about American politics, because a unique form of torture would be thinking, as you're about to die from the car bomb of the day, "Shit, if only that bitch in Palm Beach knew how to design a ballot correctly."

ouch

72->70

Yeah, but at least we can spell it.

A fair point.

68: Why not? If he had to replace the president, though, he would only be able to serve two years, right?

It occurs to me: If Clinton had resigned, we could've gotten close to ten years of Gore. Just think of how clean the air would be right now!

Shorter 66- "Bunch of New York Jews."
(I know you don't really think that, just defending my home state)

I think that to be VP, you have to be eligible to be President, which means two-term Presidents are out.

68- No- you can not be elected VP if you do not meet all the qualifications to be president. There was talk of a Gore/Clinton ticket, but it wouldn't be allowed.
Of course, there was talk of a loophole because it only refers to qualifications for election, you presumably could be appointed VP even if you're not qualified.

Just thinking that sometimes an ex-president is popular enough to carry the election, and that voters would like the father-figure advisor thing. Maybe none of 'em want to.

Like, if Reagan was (not-senile/dead) and wanted to run as Bush Sr.s running mate in '92, wouldn't that have helped him?

Or, I don't know how Bill's popularity is these days, but as an Obama running mate? Just indulge me.

Forgot to refresh before posting. That answers my question.

78 - Of course, the Constitutional requirement that the President and VP be residents of different states was duly ignored when we elected a pair of malign Texans.

1) Florida didn't matter much, once it was close. Bush was going to become President, via SCOTUS, the Florida House, the electoral college, or the US House. Each would have had different political ramifications.

2) Karl Rove's "Genius" was supposed in running poicy as far right as possible to keep elections as close as possible. Rove doesn't want landslides. It is way to rule with a minority. I have heard he wants 45%, and then intimidate/cheat to to final victory, achieving even more useful polarization. He may have failed in 2006, but I am not sure how many close races there were that he couldn't put over the top.

3) The time to hit the streets was 2002-2003. Bush was inadequate to war, and should have been removed by any means necessary.

The time to hit the streets was 2002-2003

I marched and stood on busy corners with a lit candle several times, for hours. And it made all the difference and it changed the world.

Shorter McManus -- Torches, not candles.

83: OMG, IDP, are you actually being snarky? Congratulations!

I realize the thread has moved on, but as the resident Obama fangirl I'd like to respond to LB's 50.

Obama received 70% of the popular vote to Keyes' 27%--one of the most one-sided results ever for a statewide race in Illinois.

How is that not effortless?

There was supposed to be a link in there.

25 & 26: me three.

It was in Massachusetts. And I tried to vote swap with someone in Oregon. I still regret it though.

On Obama--I think 75% of the political pseudo-science on what makes someone "electable" is worthless--correlations based on a data set of maybe 6 elections and a huge # of variables thrown around like it proves anything. These are not real statistical studies; we're better off relying on our own observations.

Shorter: talent is talent. He's got it.

There are actually two kinds of political talent, I think: strategy ("getting it"--the ability to accurately read the situation and act accordingly) and execution (charisma--good on TV--not sticking your foot in your mouth). Spitzer, for example, is great on strategy, nothing remarkable on execution. Dean is pretty lousy on execution, but actually quite decent at strategy. Bill Clinton is great on execution, charisma, etc. but I would argue overrated and quite uneven on strategy. Edwards has some of both. Kerry is not strong on either. Gore has become great at getting it but is still not so charismatic.

Obama has the best combination of these skills I remember seeing in a politician--better than Bill Clinton, let alone Hilary.I don't know how good a President he'd be, but I think he could get elected.
People are starved for hope and for politicians who appeal to our intelligence and better angels rather than our worst instincts. He does that. Whether it's more than rhetoric I don't know, but I'd be willing to take the gamble (especially given the alternatives).

89--

you don't think the whole anti-christ thing will act as a drag on his electoral prospects?

I mean, it *ought* to win him the Left Behind vote, since it only hastens the day etc....

I'm on record as having reservations about Obama, but I'm sure I'd have reservations about anybody. I'll grant the talent, hope that it gets put to a good use, and that the primary campaigning is a real test, with other good candidates and chances to challenge him. He's been lucky so far, and that's nice, but his luck, and ours, can't be depended on. We'll have to see. I'm open to being convinced, by him or by Hillary, and I'd like to be by either or both.

Hillary is so tone deaf and useless on the issues I care most about that I find it very difficult to imagine voting for her in a primary. She's about as good as explaining her Iraq war stance as Kerry is. Barring a metamorphosis, no.

She might win, only because at the rate things are going I more and more think any Democrat who can get through the primaries could also win the general.

I find it difficult to imagine voting for her in a general election, except that the other party is just so much worse. It's as if she has set out to alienate me specifically with every move she makes. At this point, I almost expect her to name Zell Miller as her running mate.

I continue not to get the Hillary aversion. I understand the problem with her position on the war, but in terms of domestic policy, I think she rocks.

Yeah but she's a girl.

Domestic policy? The main thing I know about that is that she wants to ban violent video games. Now that's what I call addressing the real problems.

Titties! Hooray!

97 -> 95, although it applies to some video games too.

Don't forget flag burning. Really, aside from abortion rights, what specifically do you like about her domestic policy?

Her position on the war is what sparks my aversion the most. She's miles worse than John Kerry.

What I like about Hillary on domestic policy is that she's one of the only high-profile pols who effectively connects liberal issues--health care, abortion rights, education spending--with a genuinely conservative feminist sensibility. By which I mean conservative for a feminist, rather than conservative more broadly speaking. Like Edwards, I think she genuinely cares about (yes, I know this phrase is heinous) American families. And I think this is at the root of things that people like us are likely to get all hung up on, e.g., the video game stuff. But in all honesty I agree with her that most video games are pretty heinous and certainly kids should spend a lot less time with the things. Which I realize runs against the socially libertarian instincts of a lot of the left, but the whole "if you don't like it don't buy it" argument is about as realistic as the idea that we can get rid of taxes and citizens will police themselves. I also think that she's demonstrated a steep learning curve and has become one of the better Democrats at working across the parties, which I think is an important presidential skill. And I think she's really fucking smart.

but the whole "if you don't like it don't buy it" argument is about as realistic as the idea that we can get rid of taxes and citizens will police themselves

Can you explain this? It makes no sense to me. Do you mean practically or politically?

101: I suspect it is sort of like telling people who complain about fast food & toy marketing to small children that they can just isolate their kids from it. In theory, sure. In practice though, the marketers have far, far more resources than the parents, and saturation is so high that it can't be assumed such isolation has no effect on the children. You are sort of telling parents that you've constructed a lose-lose choice for them, but they should suck it up because the market is more important.

The best thing I can say about Hillary's video game thing is that, as a good liberal and also someone who Listens To American Families, she should publically examine the Concerning Issue of violent video games so as to be able to reassure the people that The Issue is Being Examined, and then do nothing about it, which is the proper policy approach. This seems to be how it's playing out, anyway.

But really she's teaching a generation of young people that the Democrats are the party of censorship. Nuts to that.

So, did you see we may have just lost the Senate?

I mean practically. It's easy for well-educated and reasonably affluent people to fly the first amendment flag when it comes to certain kinds of mass media; our kids are relatively insulated from that sort of thing, and they're insulated in ways that are basically positive: we don't watch tv, honey, because we read books. I.e., we're better than the tv-watchers, so even though you're a little different from the other kids on the playground, you'll go on to college and they might not. OTOH, a lot of working- and middle-class families are pretty damn busy and can't afford "quality" child care, so their kids get left with teenage babysitters or older siblings or slacker unemployed uncles who themselves like video games and let the kids play 'em, no problem. And while it's not true that violent video games will turn children into psychopaths, it is true that a lot of video game/tv time has negative effects on learning and attention span and blah blah blah, and that the libertarianish argument that the responsibility for children's education and safety lies entirely with their parents is a bad one with all sorts of bad social consequences.

I'm emphasizing the video game thing, which I think is really petty, because people seem to think it's actually an important reason to object to Hillary. Which is kinda dumb. But also because I think it demonstrates what I *like* about her, which is that her instincts are fairly little-c conservative but her brain isn't. I think it's a pretty good mix.

...which we never had, and required us to count Lieberman anyway. But yeah, what a disaster. Oo, Harold!

104: Aw, crap. First small-plane crashes, and now this. Goddam.

Oh, man, and he isn't even quite 60. That's way too young for a stroke.

Is it just me, or do our guys seem to drop dead more often than their guys? I mean, Strom Thurmond? Cheney? WTF?

According to the news, it's maybe not that bad- he called the hospital himself, so it's not like he collapsed on the floor of the capitol.

I hate hate hate the video game thing, and it's not because I give a fuck about gaming issues. I mean, free speech, woo, but whatever, it doesn't effective many people's lives and I don't know to what extent she's advocating censorship. The flag burning thing is worse, but I think she stopped short of the amendment. The real issue is...THIS is what she chooses to focus on? Either she's an idiot--which she isn't--or she thinks that the voters are. I am so fucking sick of the press, politicians, etc. treating us like we're immoral morons. Hilary does this a lot; Obama doesn't. It's that, as much of the war, that makes me prefer him.

Maybe this is too much emphasis on rhetoric, but I think the universal assumption that American voters are stupid and immoral does more than rhetorical harm.

And by the way, I'm not actually as bitter or angry a person as I've come off in the past two days.

I do think it's an important reason to object to Hillary, unfortunately, because she's a high-profile Democrat and she's making video game censorship a high-profile issue, and besides being bad policy, it's bad politics in the medium-to-long term. And it's the main issue I associate with her, other than health care but she seemed to drop that one over a decade ago.

109: OTOH, Robert Byrd.

it is true that a lot of video game/tv time has negative effects on learning and attention span and blah blah blah, and that the libertarianish argument that the responsibility for children's education and safety lies entirely with their parents is a bad one with all sorts of bad social consequences.

OK, you can defend the video-game stuff on "defense of children" grounds, and I won't agree, but I can see where you're coming from.

But a flag-burning amendment?

My theory is that beyond a certain threshold, mean has a pickling effect.

115->109

For me it's been the visible, annoying calculation. She may have good instincts; if so I'd like to see her go with them, in an obviously genuine way. It would mean a lot.

treating us like we're immoral morons

This is the heart of it. I mean, I really don't care about the video game thing. I think it's stupid and not the business of the federal government, but whatever. The flag thing really sticks in my craw, though. Not just on the merits of the issue (though it certainly does), but because everybody knows she doesn't really believe it. Honestly, do you think Hillary Clinton gives a good goddamn about flagburning?

It looks completely insincere and calculated, like almost everything she ever does. Democrats need a leader who actually believes something, rather than casting about for the electoral hook. HRC just helps reinforce the worst image problem the Democrats have, that they don't stand for anything..

104 - OMG, if that really does turn the Senate, somebody please build a bubble around me to keep me from seeing Pat Robertson or whoever claim this is divine intervention because God wants a Senate that supports our president. Because then I'll have a stroke.

Look, Hillary is a Southerner. And regardless of Katherine's ire (which I share), I think that the truth is that most voters aren't stupid, but are in fact well enough off in a middle-class American way that symbolic issues *do* matter to them. I don't think that by acknowledging that Hillary's pandering; arguably she can be said to be responding to a potential constituency.

118: So your objection to her is an objection to her image rather than an objection to substance? I don't think that's the case, but it seems to be what you're saying in this comment.

120 seems to be bending over backwards to shield Hillary from criticism. Can we excuse any political stance as long as it response to a constituency? My point (and possibly apo's) is that we're not part of the constituency that wants flag-burning banned, and we mistrust politicians who court that constituency -- even if it's done out of expediency rather than belief.

Look, Hillary is a Southerner.

Illinois?

Hillary is a Southerner

??

I don't know any southerners who consider her one.

121: No, I think the objection is that she takes positions which are godawful substantively, like the flag-burning amendment, and tin-eared image-wise. I could forgive some substantive misbehavior if it were justified by the political returns, but she doesn't seem to be that good at it.

Well, she lived in Arkansas for a while. But I think more relevant than the Little Rock years is the fact that her husband & chief advisor gave us Sister Souljah moments and the Ricky Ray Rector execution. (I like Bill Clinton, but I think he is using political strategies that I always disliked and dislike much more now given the times we live in.)

It is, again, not the substance of the positions, or the political image they create of her--though I don't like either--so much as it's the assumptions about the American electorate that I think they reflect. I think it is those exact same assumptions that had a majority of Democratic Senators and presidential candidates supporting the Iraq war, and the lack of Democratic opposition to the Military Commissions Act, and...[insert litany here]

Something about me enjoys the irony that we all agree that flag-burning and video games are irrelevant issues, and yet we feel justified rejecting a Hillary candidacy b/c of her positions on those things.

I'm pretty sure that Lieberman and Tipper Gore's incessant moralizing about video games and rap music turned a lot of votes toward Nader.

Now why on earth would we object to a politician who wastes political capital on irrelevant issues?

128: I don't see any irony. Her positions on those issues indicate something about her temperament and her willingness to pander, and that's part of why I feel justified rejecting her candidacy.

Some very smart people, around politics and policy all their lives, in bed with it, so to speak, turn out to just lack the knack. Harold Laski was an example.

I'd love to believe that Hillary was someone with good, small c conservative instincts, but great policy knowledge and energy. We could really use that person.

I'd like her to succeed, I'd like everybody to succeed. I believe in her like I believe in Rex Grossman: I like to see success, confounding critics, bringing it home. I'd be overjoyed

But we have to see it, and I think soon.

129: And look how fucking stupid that was.

It looks completely insincere and calculated, like almost everything she ever does. Democrats need a leader who actually believes something, rather than casting about for the electoral hook. HRC just helps reinforce the worst image problem the Democrats have, that they don't stand for anything..

This is exactly it. Everything the woman does is like Kraft singles. Preprocessed & prepackaged. She gets behind banning violent video games because it's something no one's going to call her on (because think of all the poor children blah blah). She gets behind flagburning for the same reason. Same thing with Iraq. Safe decision, defensible later if it goes wrong. I know every politician polls, but could we try not to be totally obvious about it?

we all agree that flag-burning and video games are irrelevant issues

I don't agree that flag burning is an irrelevant issue. It shows that she's willing to legislate against explicitly political speech, and especially now, that bothers me greatly.

128: It's not because of what her positions are on these irrelevant things, it's because she's wasting energy staking out a position on these irrelevant things.

Also, what apostropher said.

And look how fucking stupid that was.

I dunno, dude. If those were your big issues, they haven't gotten any worse under Bush. Really, while I could give a damn about Grand Theft Auto, it isn't hard to see the slippery slope where places like, say, a blog full of cock jokes and gay sex references comes under fire from the same people because (clutch the pearls) any child anywhere with a computer could just log on and read this garbage. Or a movie like Shortbus or Gay Sex in the 70s can longer find distribution in much of the country.

I'm a parent and I don't want what's appropriate (by somebody else's measure) for a ten-year-old to become the standard for what's acceptable.

the whole "if you don't like it don't buy it" argument is about as realistic as

..."if you don't like abortion don't have one." It's entirely realistic. I take care of my children. I don't want or need Hillary Clinton's or Joe Lieberman's help with that.

That's fine, but not everyone is you, Apo.

Anyway, I don't really have the energy to continue the big why I don't think Hillary is the Antichrist debate. All I shoulda said was I don't get why people think she's on some kind of par with Joe Lieberman.

Because she hasn't done anything to separate herself from him ideologically.

You know, not voting for someone is totally not thinking they're the Antichrist. To do that you have to say first 'I'm a Democrat and a liberal Christian and even I thought Obama was the AntiChrist when I first heard him speak!!11"

A stupid reason for not wanting to vote for Hillary: In my little sister's life time the only Presidents have been named Bush and Clinton. This bugs me.

Wait, isn't your little sister my age? Or do you have more than one?

Wait Teo, you weren't born during the term of GHWB?

No, I was born towards the end of Reagan's first term.

If Hillary and Holy Joe really wanted to protect kids against violent video games, they would have sponsored more draconian measures against advertising during kiddie-programming on TV. I could have gotten behind that. Blanket condemnations of entire swaths of modern culture just seem stupid.

(And I don't even play video games! I'm one of those nerds manquées who mourns the passing of text adventures!)

The calasisters are legion.

A stupid reason for not wanting to vote for Hillary: In my little sister's life time the only Presidents have been named Bush and Clinton. This bugs me.

Unless you really are worried about the name, and not the enduring family, that doesn't strike me as stupid at all. It seems like one of the better reasons.

Text adventures are totally still around, only they call them Interactive Fiction these days.

The calasisters are legion.

Right, right, Catholic.

I'm one of those nerds manquées

Explain why this is manquées, and not vraies?

I don't think Hillary is the Antichrist. I just don't like her politics.

It isn't just video games and flag burning. She has defended the Defense of Marriage Act, supported building a wall along the Mexican border, supported the Israeli wall in the Palestinian territories, supported the PATRIOT Act, supports the death penalty, opposes single-payer healthcare, only Santorum got more money from the insurance industry last cycle, she voted for the godawful bankruptcy bill, voted for Bush's energy bill, and of course, she still can't bring herself to say the Iraq War was a mistake.

What am I supposed to find appealing here? We do have *actual* Democrats we could run for president.

Was that off the top of your head, apo?

I'm with Apo. I realize no candidate is going to be perfect, but I've got my limits, and Hillary's long past them.

150.---Because were I a true nerd my preferred amusement would not remain pickled in 1985 technology?

I would prefer that the Democratic nominee not be a person who is depicted by the media as one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress despite being one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. That doesn't seem to hard to understand.

Apo, I think there's a little froth on your chin, there. Might wanna grab a napkin.

Because were I a true nerd my preferred amusement would not remain pickled in 1985 technology?

I think it makes your vernerdhood old school, or perhaps hard core.

Is Hillarycare no longer an albatross?

It'd be nice if the next Democratic president was able to tackle health care.

I think there's a little froth on your chin, there. Might wanna grab a napkin.

Wait, are you giving him the "shrill" treatment?

Apo, I have to confess that was pretty convincing.

apo-ogged '08.

160: Hey, I'm a feminist. Sauce for the gander, etc.

157: What's next, wondering if he's on the rag? He's not saying 'Oh, I can't vote for a woman' or 'Girls have cooties' or 'I hate Clintons', he's saying 'Hey, none of her politics are things I support.'

So why is he supposed to vote for her?

It'd be nice if the next Democratic president was able to tackle health care.

This too; I don't think HRC has much of a chance at convincing the country to let her have a second go at it.

Cala, see 139: I don't really have the energy to continue the big why I don't think Hillary is the Antichrist debate.

FWIW, I don't think I said he should vote for her. I merely said that *I* like her, and when asked, said why.

I'm a feminist. Sauce for the gander, etc.

"Turnabout is fair play" would be more apposite. It's not sauce for the gander, that's the point.

I won't vote for her because it's pretty clear that, as a woman, she has cooties. Sorry. Can't do it.

It would kind of suck if the President had cooties.

All this candidacy stuff bores me into a comatose murk of slothful villeinry. I really wish we had a system like they have in UK, where the party has a vote for who its next leader will be, and then if the public hates him, they go for the next most appropriate guy.

As far as I can tell, the primary system gives about 80% of the power over who runs for president to the press. By that I mean they have 100% of the power in the Democratic race, and 60% of the power in the Republican race. Voters are even less informed and rational in the primary than they are in the general election. It's all - and I mean ALL - about who the press likes the most.

If John McCain was 10 years younger I would have bet half my life savings on him being the next President. The press just loves him in so many ways. But they may decide he's too old.

I complement Labs's comment without even seeing it first. Ok seriously, Labs, get your cock out of my mouth.

Apo may be getting ready for Aunt Dot's monthly visit, but that's no reason to discount his opinions.

We're never rational when Aunt Flo comes to town!

165: I don't like Clinton != 'OMG she is t3h antichristastic whore of babylon'

At least admit, Ogged, that you're impressed that I can type this way.

Cala, did you just say "antichristastic"?

As far as I can tell, the primary system gives about 80% of the power over who runs for president to the press.

And to the cranky, pampered people of Iowa and New Hampshire.

I really did have a professor in college who confided that women can't be good philosophers because they get irrational once a month.

I merely said that *I* like her, and when asked, said why.

And then you said you didn't understand why other people didn't like her, and apo, who doesn't like her, explained why.

175: But which states do not have large populations of cranky, pampered people? I can't think of one.

So I sez, BitchPhD, that is SO not true!

Yes, I did. And it's not a googleorphan! Or, it is, but it doesn't point to Unfogged.

176: Your prof., his name was A. R. Istotle?

How many teeth DO you have, cala?

Huh?

Confidential to Teo: in fact, I'm not. Just visiting.

Didn't Aristotle make a claim about men and women having different number of teeth? We've talked about this, but I'm lazy and won't look it up.

Oh. Um. I'd have to count. I have all my wisdom teeth, though. One, two, many, lots.

166: The point is that the saying is "sauce for the goose," so I reversed it.

172: The "antichrist" thing was a joke. As was the froth thing. Which joke was made because I had dropped the argument many comments back.

Jeez, people, chill. At least wait to jump my shit until I actually am playing the bitchy feminist again.

I demand a citation, Labs. I maintain that that's apocryphal (not as strongly as I maintain that the Hegel planets story is apocryphal, but still)>

As for text adventures, Inform 7 is the bees' knees: writing text adventures in adventurey text! If you are the sort of nerd who is infinitely charmed by such things, you will be infinitely charmed.

(On the president thing, I actually know some game artists who voted Bush in '00 because of the Lieberman-vs.-games thing. But that's a tiny demographic indeed.)

wait to jump my shit

The meet-up is nigh. These are mere rehearsals, I'm told. (By w-lfs-n.)

Hey, I think my refusal to check some easily-confirmed empirical claim puts me squarely in the Aristotelian tradition!

Hillary does set the blood to boilin'. I theorize that it's because she seems somehow anointed, but no one seems to actually like her. Then you come along, say you like her, and we're all, SO IT'S YOU!!

"where the party has a vote for who its next leader will be, and then if the public hates him, they go for the next most appropriate guy."

this process seemed stalled at the moment in England.

Does your cock have JSTOR access, Ogged? I'm having trouble with the interface.

191: Me and Hill, against the world.

Not looking good. It's a Russell quote, meaning it's probably made up:

Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.

I theorize that we all sort of feel defensive about the Clintons, so we have to defend her and take her on as our own, though she can kind of be a pain.

Hillary blows for all the reasons Apo said. Plus, her retail skills suck. Cripes, first she kills healthcare, and now she's going to have a go at the Democratic Party. I'd hold my nose and vote for her, if she were the nominee, but...ugh.

It never occured to poor Aristotle because Russell was fucking the wives!

193: It's not USB-compatible?

It's cuckolded husbands all the way down, for Russell.

My firewire isn't working, and Ogged doesn't support plug-n-play.

Wow, I'm lame. Hey, Cala, I just accepted Jesus as my personal savior, and I've got some bad news: you're going to hell. Sorry.

Ok, I found it. So I maintain that Aristotle didn't actually write that one.

It's in paragraph 3.

Thesis: 'It's Ω all the way down' no longer applies to infinite regresses, but any primitive or underlying properly basic principle.

'With Leibniz, it's monads all the way down.'

Ogged, you bitch, I just found that too.

http://www.exclassics.com/arist/arist37.htm

Win some, lose some. Funny, exbeforelast and I constantly argued about Aristotle, but in that case, she would defend him, and I'd go on about how terrible his influence was. But I'm not going to take that shit from you lot.

You know, I bet he checked some women's teeth, but they'd probably had kids and lost some teeth due to the decalcification that happens during pregnancy.

I bet he just pulled it out of a cavity.

We found different things. Yours looks like something a high-schooler wrote up in an afternoon.

Also, Aristotle liked to punch women in the mouth.

You go, Cala. Of course he fucking checked. Dude cataloged hundreds of species of animals; it's not like he was averse to going out.

It's really a good thing I gave this stuff up.

The point is that the saying is "sauce for the goose," so I reversed it.

Swell. Whichever direction you run it, I can't get behind a reading of it that justifies "bullshit done to me is bullshit I can do to you".

See, I really don't like the "shrill" maneuver.

What do you want off JSTOR, Labs?

212: There is a tendency to conflate 'Aristotle was wrong' with 'Aristotle never observed anything', isn't there?

Should I bait Ogged about Aristotle, or SB about becoming earnest? Hmm.

I have JSTOR, slol, I just wanted a cock joke.

Moveable walls suck, by the way.

You could try converting again. Or we could argue about the principle of sufficient reason. Or turtles. There's a cafepress shirt that has turtles all the way down.

The shrill maneuver.

Sorry, B. I wasn't trying to jump on you. Clinton just drives me absolutely crazy because, based on her voting record, she might well be the single most conservative Democrat in the Senate but inexplicably retains a reputation as a communist. There just doesn't seem to be any principle she won't throw overboard for the sake of political expediency.

I also think she'd be in deep shit as the Democratic nominee because if you think our craptacular national media hated Gore and Kerry, man they REALLY hate her.

Yeah, that was off the top of my head, Ogged. I was wrong about the Energy Bill, though. She voted Yes on the first version, then No on the final version.

Why is the turtles thing the only thing you philosophers remember about William James?

Crap, if I screw up the principle of sufficient reason, Ogged won't ever let me live it down, and I've already botched the Eric Stoodle.

I'm done, bait away. I won't be sucked back in!

SB, on the other hand, needs to change SBself's name and officially become the resident little bitch.

Slol-- because it's in Russell's "Why I am not a Christian (instead I am a Big Doofus)"

Huh, I was sure it was William James. Okay, now I have to find it.

Slol, it might be; as an analytic philosopher, I took a vow to ignore everything Wm James ever wrote.

222: Not so inexplicable. It's because she's a high-profile feminist. Which means that of course she wants to murder babies and require the little red book in every classroom. The fact that her feminism is pretty conservative (which is fine by me, since it's also consistent) doesn't matter. Y'all know how scary we girls are.

James was awesome.

You know what? I'm gonna go for a walk. And when I come back, if you guys haven't picked the Democratic nominee for 2008, I'm gonna take a crap right on my floor.

I hope your floor gets a lot of sun, Stanley because otherwise your plan is pretty half-baked.

222: Actually, that's a good point. HRC will get the red meat lunatics out to the polls faster than a hundred gay marriage flagburning trigger law referenda.

233: Exactly, which is one reason why I worry so damn much about people on our side tearing her down. If she *is* the annointed nominee, we're gonna have a hard fucking time backing her if we're on record saying she sucks.

That happens in every primary season, though, and in bigger things than comment boxes. Run attack ads, then concede and hug and throw in your support.

229: What? She's nightmare, and her failed candidacy will probably set back the effort to get a woman into the Executive. On top of which, she's a high profile Dem who didn't just watch as the thugs in the Executive beat the shit out of my country, she actually applauded. Fuck her.

235: Well, I hope so, if it comes to that.

Sometimes I hate the Democratic party.

Isn't it time to vote against Althouse again?

SB, on the other hand, needs to change SBself's name and officially become the resident little bitch.

It's getting to the point where I'm no fun anymore.
I am sorry.

232: Crap.

James alludes to the story here, only for him it's rocks. Not nearly as picturesque, I grant you.

You make it haaAArrd!

Sometimes it hurts, so badly, I must cry out loud.

doo-doo-doo-doo-doot, doot doot doo-doo-doo-doot

Dern, cross-posted.

DAMMIT OGGED. I was about to make the CSNY joke.

C'mon, people, think of the pigeons.

Pigeons crap, too.

(That was a crap joke.)

Well, it wasn't funny.

While you guys were all making CSNY jokes I was doing important research in the hoohole for some thread which I thought was proximate in time to the origin of o-earnest in which ogged says he likes Southern Cross despite it's earnestness. But no luck yet.

251: Or so the Hillary PR shop would have you believe.

I'm beginning to believe I hallucinated that thread.

No, it was real, but now I can't find it either, w/d. Off to bed for now, maybe I'll find it tomorrow...

It's [redacted], w/d. (Warning: "Innocence")

Shit, please redact that link.

Labs should add "Cited by [Hilzoy's real name] for my revolutionary work on kids with machete's" to his résumé.

Because as we all know, having blog readers is just like being peer reviewed, except that it's much better.

I redacted that shit.

Thanks, redaction fairy!

[redaction city]

I totally composed 260 before seeing 259.

I submit that "I redacted that shit." should be the new hovertext.

The part of of SB's link that doesn't need redacting is:
ogged on Southern Cross.

Thanks, md 20/400. Thanks for selling me out.

Now you're making one-twentieth of a doctor feel bad, SB.

For those playing along at home, it turns out that standpipe is actually the ghost of Button Gwinnett.

But thanks for finding the link. I only have Innocence memorized through comment five, so I'm not quite up to that part yet.

[redacted BECAUSE I CAN]

Look, I'm ready to redact the shit out of any comments you want, but you have to be pretty clear about it, because I'm tired.

Or, as an Althouse commenter put it:

Wishing death and suffering on your enemies may be how the left conducts itself, but for the civilized, humanity has to come before politics at some point.

Yeah, redact 269 and 261. Better to be safe on these things.

Thanks!

Lord knows I don't wish death on Althouse, as her suffering is far too entertaining.

Let's not get too redact-happy. Every time I see I redaction, I die a little inside.

And lapse into Roman numerals, it seems.

Sorry, apo, I was just following orders.

Oh god, my [redacted].

It's time to hang it up, isn't it? I've had a good run, and a person of mystery who can't hold his/her mystery is a pitiful thing.

I kind of feel like I missed my chance to know something more about Standpipe, but I was honor-bound to do it while averting my eyes, like that time I had sex with the Queen of England.

I completely missed it, SB, if it's any consolation.

Also, Aristotle liked to punch women in the mouth.

I hear his dick was frighteningly large.

Why is the turtles thing the only thing you philosophers remember about William James?

The only thing I remember about him is that he had some sort of buzzing bloomers confusion.

Hi, I'm Betty, I'm from St. Louis, and it's been a blast persiflaging with you all.

This is the most overkilled overkill that ever was. Except for those other times.

It may be overkill, but think of the mystery.

I cannot believe I am still awake at 0235 (-5). I have a meeting in the morning too.

This piece on colonoscopies not very reassuring.

I thought medical professionals knew all.

think of the mystery.

Unfogged has but few remaining known unknowns to me. The unknown unknowns are limitless, and it is these which I contemplate.

They discovered that those who slowed down and took their time found more polyps.

You don't say.

Given that there are a limited supply of gastroenterologist-hours, it could, depending on how the numbers work out, be better for mean risk of colon cancer if the doctors see more patients and do a worse job per patient. Or it could be that spending at least eight minutes per patient wouldn't stop them from seeing just as many, in whch case fuck that wanking from the previous sentence.

So I thought [redacted], but you know how [fucking redacted], so instead I [what the fuck makes you think you have the right to say that, asshole?].

And a gratifying time was had by all.