'08 is lookin' like a lot of fun ...

While the date of the New Hampshire primary and what the DNC plans on doing with it is on every political junkie's mind up here, things seem to be heating up out in the blogosphere. The hilarious Molly Ivins posted this column earlier this week: ["Not. backing. Hillary."]:

"Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges."

Boy, doesn't that say it all? Over at DailyKos, this column was a hot topic, with a slew of posters agreeing with Ivins, a few stating that Ivins voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 so why should anyone listen to her, and a whole bunch more drinking the "I'll vote for any Democrat" Kool-Aid Jim Jones style. Oh, they'll never learn. While she isn't a very powerful pundit, her column is a good wake up call for the Dems. If the Republicans nominate a moderate in 2008 and the Dems some war-monger pain-in-the-ass like Hillary, it could be 2000 all over again.

Down in Massachusetts, there is a bit of trouble for Gov. Mitt "Guy Smiley" Romney ... he's losing his consultant: ["Romney political strategist quits"]. He's breaking ties with Mike Murphy - the star consultant for Sen. John McCain in 2000 and numerous other campaigns. Murphy claims he is going to stay neutral if both Romney and McCain are in the primary:

"The deal is there's no reelect committee to work for, and I've made it clear all along that if there is a presidential primary campaign Mitt Romney and (Senator) John McCain, I'd have to be neutral in it."

Eh, yeah, right. I'll believe that when I see it. It is difficult for these guys to stay out of the fray when they don't have to. He would just have to pick one or the other. Of course, this is assuming that McCain is running and there is no guarantee of that.
As an aside, Murphy will make an interesting chapter in a book I may eventually finish writing some day. I can talk about how he sneaked into the 2002 Democratic convention on a press pass and how I tipped off a press aide for a treasurer's candidate to his presence. He was quickly booted from the auditorium - but not before I got some good information from him. Sorry Mike. I can also talk about his role in getting Romney to run for governor in 2002 after Guy Smiley promised he wouldn't run for governor. And how the town of Belmont used public funds for a Welcome Home i.e. political, rally. Trust me, it will be worth the read when the book gets done. I'm also waiting on a guy I know to do a document dump on Romney. We'll see if he actually ever gets around to doing it.

Then, there is Al Gore, who has truly become his own man: ["'We the People' Must Save Our Constitution"].

"Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the President to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.
But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government."

Americans who were polled after the speech believe Bush should be impeached: ["Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping"]. The problem here is that this is the same Al Gore who was a member of the Clinton Adminstration during the passage of the domestic anti-terrorism bill, the precursor to the Patriot Act. This is the same Gore who stood by Bubba when he bombed the Sudan to get Monica and her stained dress off the front page of the papers. The same Gore who didn't speak up when Sandy Berger, Bill Cohen, and Madeline "Not So" Bright were advocating regime change in Iraq on a pathetic college tour where they were summarily blasted and booed by the crowd. Creek, creek, creek ... that was Gore. No outrage at that time - when he was the vice president and had the power to influence policy. Still, I'm intrigued by Gore and what his motives are beyond getting time on C-Span. Maybe he has changed.

Will there be a Nader "factor" in '08? Probably not. Nader was shellacked in 2004 for no other reason than existing. He is aging; half his face is paralyzed; he still owes money from the 2004 race. But Nader may have a last hurrah, especially if this film, "An Unreasonable Man," picks up steam: ["indieWIRE"] and ["Ralph Nader to Attend Sundance Film Festival"]:

"I was so sick of people (mostly whiny Democrats) yelling at me about Ralph without having all the information. When discussing him, I too was conflicted. But most of all I wanted to tell the story of Ralph Nader's entire life and career so at least when people judged him, they would understand more about this American icon."

It is a wonder what would have happened in 2004 had the Democrats spent the millions of dollars they spent keeping Nader off ballots on their own general election campaign. Sure, Kerry probably would have lost anyway because he was - and is - a soulless yuppie. But Kerry didn't lose by that much when you look at the numbers. Sure, he gained New Hampshire; but he lost Iowa and New Mexico, states Gore won. There was also [silly] speculation that Kerry might win Arizona, Nevada, Virginia, and West Virginia, states where he probably was never going to win. But what if Kerry had spent that last $15 million in his bank account in those states? What if the Democrats had spent the $6 million they spent keeping Nader off the ballot in Pennsylvania in neighboring Iowa?

In a sort of political related note, check out this car: ["A 330 mpg car for everyone"]. The only problem with this is that I doubt it will be safe enough to take on the highway. Can you imagine getting front-ended by a Mac truck in that thing? They'll be lucky to find anything left of you!