Reality and Fantasy

I guess you are right about the Dems also playing politics to advance their political -- rather than a policy -- agenda. And you have it right on the way they have taken on Bush, re: Iraq. Still, I think that the GOP version of politics is just meaner and less concerned with results other than who is in power than the Dems' version. And your point about hitting singles and doubles confirms my perception, I think. The several instances where the Dems have actually tried to get good legislation -- relatively speaking -- passed, the GOP has simply blocked it for no other reason than that they could.

Immigration is the prime example, of course. Here was legislation that most thought was a reasonable compromise. It would have made some progress on the issue, even if it left some particular problems unsolved. A vast majority of Dems voted for it and a vast majority of GOP against it. The only gain the opponents could have been seeking was blocking good (again, relatively speaking) policy to stick it to the Dems. There is no way that there is going to be better legislation -- better, in their view -- passed in the forseeable future. The only gain they were seeking was the loss of the Dems; they didn't care about the issue itself. Then the GOP and its noise machine turn around and blame Dems for the inaction.

And, BTW, the press is largely complicit in this game, often reporting failed legislation as the fault of Dems, rather than the GOP minority which has a filibuster-proof majority, which it uses relentlessly. (There was a graphic I saw the other day which showed that if the current pace keeps up there will be about triple the number of filibusters -- or threatened filibusters -- as any time in modern history.) Unless the public starts to understand exactly why Congress has been so ineffectual, the Dems will continue to lose in the court of public opinion. The press, IMO, has a responsibility to make this point crystal clear, but they fail to, time and time again.

As to the debates, I honestly haven't watched them much. I agree with you that Clinton has come across as capable, smart and moderate -- all the qualities that I think are in high demand in this election cycle. Overall, though, I must say that I think, for me, it is Obama who consistently hits the right notes. I am concerned he lacks experience and that his ideas and personality are built more for campaigning than governing -- much as we are experiencing here in Mass. with Patrick -- but I do think that he has the right balance of candor (or at least what seems like candor), depth and, frankly, attractiveness to win over a lot of votes. I'm not convinced I'll be voting for him, but I do remain intrigued. That said, I remain highly skeptical that a black man can win the presidency and, espcially, a man whose middle name is "Hussein" and whose last name is one letter different from Enemy #1. The 5% of the public that actually makes the decision in presidential elections -- the least informed, most swayable portion of voters -- just will not be able to look past that totally irrelevant fact.

OK. So here's my fantasy -- a fantasy that will never happen, but, in the very, very, very, very unlikely chance it (or something akin to it) does, then I can at least say that I predicted it would. (Of course, I could also make the same argument about predicting the Blue Jays to win the World Series.) In October, Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize. He decides then to put his hat into the ring, but first he makes a phone call. He calls Obama and offers him the vice presidency and promises to serve only one term. I don't know if a pres. and VP candidate can legally run together in the primary, but they do figure out some way for Obama to pledge all his $ and supporters to Gore in the primary. Obama cannot win on his own in the general, but Gore cannot win in a head-to-head-to-head against Clinton and Obama in the primary. It seems a win-win for both.

There are so many reasons why this will not happen, but the reason why I have devoted time to the fantasy is because these two politicians strike me as the best hope the country has for overcoming the very phenomenon you note: the public's disgust with placing politics ahead of sound policy and governing. Perhaps that very notion that leaders can have that much power to change culture is a fantasy in itself (not to mention the fact that these two men are the right ones to do it), but, certainly the way that our current "leader" has so poisoned politics, I'd like to think it can work in the opposite direction, as well.

And that, my friend, is how the mind of an idealist who has lost all hope operates.

BTW, if you have a chance, check out Josh Marshall's video of Gonzales's testimony yesterday (at www.talkingpointsmemo.com). If anyone has any doubt about the poisoning of our politics that this president has wrought, the literal -- not legal -- contempt of Congress the AG shows is one more piece of evidence.