I finally had some time to watch HBO's "Recount" last night, and it's remarkable how the events of November and December 2000 were predictive of the presidency we got. From the incompetence and corruption on the state & county level to the intellectual dishonesty at the Supreme Court.
Incompetence, corruption, intellectual dishonesty. That's pretty much the Republican brand. Anybody paying attention to McCain's campaign the last several weeks sees more of the same. He really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, he's up to his eyeballs in K-Street lobbyists, and he just makes no sense when he talks about the economy or the war. I think it's also important to note that the Clintons differ from the Republicans in that they are more competent and not as embedded with the K-Street system, but in their intellectual dishonesty they are right there with them.
It was hard for me to imagine how anyone in his right mind could take the Bush act seriously. I feel the same way about Clinton. Both the Clintons have become a national embarrassment. No, her presidency would not be nearly as bad as Bush's, but Bush's is the worst in American history. He'll be hard to beat for decades to come. Indeed, his administration is the full flowering of Republican incompetence, corruption, and intellectual dishonesty. The DLC and Blue Dog Democrats differ from the Republicans in essentials only in that they are likely to run the government more competently. Look at the people she has surrounded herself with. Can anybody seriously want this crowd running the White House? In what way do they offer a real change from the modus operandi of the Republicans?