Conventional Wisdom

Nobody who was paying any attention at all is surprised that DNC Chair and Mean Girl Emerita Debbie Wasserman Schultz was seriously pulling for Hillary throughout the primary process, so those who appear to be amazed as well as aggrieved either are complete political infants or playing games of their own.  Hillary wasn't in on it because she didn't have to be— everybody just assumed it was inevitable because it was, well, inevitable.

The Russian connection is amusing, but I can't see any reason to suspect that the Tr*mp campaign had any part in the hacking of DNC emails — mostly because the campaign has been too inept to pull off anything quite so ambitious.  Yes, Paul Manafort did represent former Ukrainian leader and Putin sycophant Viktor Yanukovych, but the hacking began long before Manifort was hired by Tr*mp.  The timing of the release of the emails just before the Democratic convention also does not indicate Tr*mp involvement.  Of course Putin would like to have an irrational incompetent at the helm of Russia's main adversary, if only for the comic effect.

I'm beginning to get the idea that nobody actually is bothering to listen to Tr*mp anymore — not after that high decibel rant instructing all of us to be very afraid and to believe that He Alone can save us from ravening hordes of dark-complected cop killers.  Those who believe will continue believe, but I don't see any practical way for him to expand his base.

I'm anxious to hear what Bernie has to say tonight.  The right speech can leave a great many establishment Democrats in his debt.

Whither the Berners?

Now that everybody agrees that Hillary is the Democratic nominee, and Bernie has fired most of his staff, some are wondering what will become of Bernie's supporters — especially the young ones, previously not especially interested in matters political.  Well, it depends, I suppose.

To what extent did their support for Bernie lead those young people to educate themselves on policy matters?  I haven't seen any data, but I suspect that most of the Berners were paying attention to his message and not merely along for the exciting ride.  Hopefully, many went beyond Bernie's campaign materials for their education.  Campaign materials are necessarily simplistic, and the emergence of a new and better progressivism in the USofA requires more than slogans.  Encouraging is that some are speaking of becoming politically involved at the local level, where Democrats (as well as Republicans) are inclined to be hacks beholden only to local special interests.

There is enough sophistication among them so that some will support Jill Stein of the Green Party, but only if they live in a dependably Democratic state.  This year, though, it may be harder to determine "dependability."  I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and Ralph Nader in 2008, but I have certain qualms about New York this year — and some other states as well — given the general craziness of 2016.

All of us on the left would be a lot happier with Hillary if we could be assured that we won't be seeing yet another "New Democrat" administration like Bill's.  In his enthusiastic pandering to alleged "centrists" who would have been dependable Republicans fifteen years earlier, Bill Clinton did more to set back progressive politics than even Ronald Reagan.  A lot of us are afraid that Hillary will give us more of the same, and would love a strong commitment to true progressivism on her part.

Filing for divorce would be a good start.

Fear and Loathing

If this has become a battle between fear and loathing, it appears that Republicans who know both candidates are deciding they’d rather be afraid. — Gail Collins

It's true.  Ted Cr*z is making Donald Tr*mp look reasonable by comparison, and that's extremely problematic.  Cr*z, after all, is despicable, genuinely despicable.  Even John Boehner — not the world's cuddliest man — calls Cr*z "Lucifer incarnate."  The danger of a Tr*mp who appears "reasonable," of course, is the possibility of President Tr*mp in 2017.

Hillary is hard to like, even now that Bernie has pulled her far enough to the left to be significantly out of her comfort zone.  She's the consummate politician, and we don't like politicians.  People just don't trust her.  (I don't.  Maybe I'm wrong to tar her with the same brush as that lying, plutocrat pandering husband of hers, but I can't forget Bill promising us "Two for the price of one."  Two of him?  Just kill me now.)

Anyway, I'll be reaching out to any young, idealistic Bernie supporters I encounter, and trying to teach them the hardest lesson of politics: sometimes you just have to hold your nose and swallow.

Some women in the news

Dilma
By comparison with those impeaching her, Dilma Rousseff is not especially corrupt.  It seems that even while she was head of Petrobras, the national oil company, she didn't steal.  Granted, I'm somewhat prejudiced in favor of trained economists who once fought in socialist-inspired guerilla armies, but I still think she's getting a raw deal.

Hillary
Nobody is terribly surprised that Hillary Clinton seems certain to win the Democratic nomination, and I expect to hold my nose and vote for her in November, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out just what kind of economic policy she might pursue in office.  She's muddied the waters by claiming over 200 economic advisors, including Joseph Stiglitz (great), Gary Gensler (okay), and Alan Blinder (eh), but I can't help thinking that some Robert Rubin protégés are lurking in the wings.

Elizabeth II
Happy 90th birthday to her nibs, who has juggled the British crown jewels with noteworthy skill for over sixty years.  As a national symbol, she has a much tougher job than the bald eagle.

Harriet
Harriet Tubman will replace Andrew Jackson on the twenty, which is a nice gesture, and some feminist leaders will find a place on the back of the ten.  Too soon for Margaret Sanger?  Duh.

President Tr*mp?

I'm beginning to think it can happen.

True, the Donald has very high negatives.  So does Hillary, though, and it will be just as hard to prevent Hillary from winning the Democratic nomination as it will be to prevent Donald from winning the Republican.

Matched in a general election, Hillary will be the Establishment candidate, Tr*mp the "outsider."  Since Americans are justifiably sick and tired of the way their government operates, the "outsider," however potentially dangerous and patently bizarre, has the advantage.  The outcome might surprise a lot of people.

Hillary's disavowal of free trade pacts certainly is suspect, reversing decades of enthusiastic support.  How many of those working class Sanders supporters will switch their allegiance to Tr*mp if their alternative is another Clinton?  Labor will reflexively "endorse" the Democratic candidate, but how well will a former Wal-Mart board member serve Labor's interests, and how many rank-and-file union members will play "follow the leader?"

What will happen if voters, who tend to stick to a single party line on their ballots, fail to return the Senate to Democrats?  Who would Tr*mp nominate to the Supreme Court?  (Nobody has even a vague idea of the answer to that last question.)

Nobody seems to have asked any of the candidates how they might fill jobs like Secretary of the Treasury, chief economic adviser, Chair of the SEC, etc.  Tr*mp, hopelessly ignorant of the actual workings of government, would have to depend on "advice" from the likes of Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions.  Clinton is most likely to return to the charlatans of her husband's "economically successful" administration, meaning more acolytes of Robert Rubin.

Frankly, I think Bernie Sanders is America's best bet, despite the fears of Establishment black, labor, and "liberal" figures.  Compared to Hillary, Bernie is far more likely to win.

Less Evil?

Corporate America doesn't care whether or not blacks get equal justice, nor whether or not women have access to abortion services. It is okay with current immigration law, but wouldn't mind if it got more or less welcoming.  It has made peace with Dodd-Frank, well aware that a law is only as good as its enforcement.

People who plan to "make do" with Hillary Clinton for fear of some ideologue from a dysfunctional Republican party winning the presidency are playing right into corporate America's hands.  If Clinton becomes president, the revolving door between the SEC and Wall Street will remain firmly in place.  Some petty criminals may serve five-year sentences instead of ten, but corporate executives guilty of enormous financial crimes will continue to avoid any threat of jail, paying impressive sounding but realistically negligible fines out of the pockets of stockholders.

Military contractors will continue profiteering as our new president continues to prove her figurative "balls" by encouraging military adventurism.  (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton overcame objections from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to take us on our ill-fated adventure in Libya, and is likely to take us back there again.)

If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I, personally, won't have to decide between her and, say, that little turd Rubio.  I live in New York, so I can keep my conscience clear by voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party (again.  My friends are familiar with my politically incorrect reference to Barack Obama as "Clinton in blackface."  Hillary will be "Obama in a pants suit," only more hawkish.)

In today's Times, Elizabeth Warren stopped short of endorsing Bernie Sanders, but discussed some of the political problems we would continue to face under President Hillary.  It's worth a read.

Demarcating Dems

Last night's debate might have had a real impact on undecided Democratic voters had any of them been watching it.  Somehow, though, I suspect the audience was comprised primarily of persons already committed to either Bernie or Hillary.  Might any of them been swayed towards the other side?  Maybe.  Probably not.

Partisan towards Bernie, I thought my candidate did an excellent job of casting Hillary in the role of toady to the rich, with special emphasis on big banks and big pharma.  Hillary did well portraying Bernie as soft on the NRA; but gun control is far down the list of important issues to most Democrats.  Martin O'Malley (whom I do not believe is angling for a vice-presidential spot) joined in on both attacks, and will be a man to watch in 2020 or 2024.

Is Hillary being honest when she says Bernie wants to "destroy Obamacare?"  No.  He'd like to replace it with a far superior single payer system, but nobody in her right mind could think he wants to first cancel the Affordable Care Act and only then work towards "Medicare for all."  Would Bernie be able to get his ideal single payer system if he were elected?  No, but if nobody even is willing to talk about single payer, it will never become a real possibility.

Bernie stands against kleptocratic plutocracy, which pulls the strings of our alleged "government by the people," and has been with us roughly forever.  Okay, maybe it is inevitable, but that doesn't mean we have to like it, nor just roll over and accept it.

Hillary is a better option than some others — pick any of the Republicans — but she should not go into the election thinking of herself as the ideal Democrat.  (O'Malley is working hard to win that title.  Yes, definitely keep him in mind for the future.)  Personally, I think Bernie actually could win the presidency if matched against many of the Republican contenders.  Maybe he would have a very frustrating one-term presidency, but it would signal an historic shift in American consciousness.

Now that the Republicans are tearing themselves apart, why should the Democrats step in to take on the role of defenders of corporate dominion?  (Answer: so Democratic politicians can dig their hands deeper into the corporate goody bag.)

Why is he still running?

Many of the few who watched last night's Democratic debate doubtless are asking the same question:  why is Martin O'Malley still running?

Answer: In the event that Hillary happens to explode in an unanticipated blast of Clintonian craziness, the party establishment will have an alternative.  O'Malley is handsome, intelligent, articulate, and not Bernie.

Speaking of business interests, Sanders said "they ain't gonna like me, and Wall Street is gonna like me even less."  O'Malley, on the other hand, would get along just fine.

The Clinton Conundrum

Hillary or Billary?

Hillary and Bill have been a political team from the start.  Remember Bill's "two for the price of one" comment?  We can't be sure how much impact Hillary had on Bill's presidency (except for the health insurance screw-up); similarly, we can't be sure how much influence Bill will have should Hillary become president.  Are they ideologically similar — even interchangeable?  Are they ideological at all, or just political?  Will another Clinton administration be, well, another Clinton administration?  Is there any way to know?

At the most recent Democratic debate, when Bernie questioned Hillary about her financial backing from Wall Street, her "9/11" response was laughable at best — but what would be her relationship to the financial industry?  Would it be Robert Rubin redux, or are her recent leftish gestures for real?

When Bill Clinton climbed into bed with Phil Gramm to create the deregulation that brought us the financial crisis of 2008, was Hillary keeping his feet warm?*  Can "today's" Hillary be trusted to represent the interests of the non-billionaire classes?

I think the best we can hope for is that she will opportunistically take some actions to mollify the liberal Democratic base while never going quite far enough to alienate her plutocratic backers.  While I'm doing my best to stay sworn off predictions, and also doing my best to believe in Bernie as hard as children are asked to believe in Tinkerbell, I'm not especially optimistic about post-Obama America.

*  (Phil's wife Wendy certainly was keeping his feet warm.  She is best remembered for deregulatory agitation from the Mercatus Institute at George Mason University, and as an Enron board member.)

Briefly...

The Democratic Debate
All the Democrats gave the impression of being more serious and sane than any of their Republican rivals, which was not hard.  Hillary came across as human, and held her own, especially with a little help from Bernie.  His endorsement of the fact that the Bengazi/email inquisition is purely political may have been the high point of the evening.  Bernie was on the defensive regarding gun control, even though everything he said made perfect sense.  I don't think it hurt him at all.

Palestinians with Knives
Netanyahu can't blame Hamas or any of his other boogeymen for the recent attacks on Israelis by young Palestinians who armed themselves from their kitchen drawers.  None of them even was particularly religious, so it's not "fundamentalist extremism."  The attackers are understandably frustrated to a point of hopelessness by the Israeli apartheid state, and only the rights and privileges of citizenship can make a difference.  The "two-state solution" is dead.

Tamir Rice
I watched the surveillance video, and listened to the 911 call.  Tamir's movements in the video are those of a boy playing a game, so I believe identifying him as a child from the much closer vantage point of the police should have been easy.  On the other hand, the pellet gun looked very real.  Most disturbing to me was the incompetence of the 911 operator, who seemingly failed to process what she was told by the caller, and failed to communicate to the police the caller's clear belief that the suspect was a child and that the gun "probably" was a fake.  I believe the district attorney should give a jury the opportunity to decide if the shooter was at fault.

What's with Hillary?

I imagine many of us are looking forward to the Democratic debate next Tuesday, but I suspect Hillary Clinton may be less enthusiastic than some others.  Just the same, she certainly seems to be getting ready.  First, she came out in opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline; then she expressed strong reservations about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, leaving herself just the tiniest bit of space to change her opinion when the full text is published.

Clearly, she'd like to enjoy the sort of approbation Bernie Sanders has been receiving from the enthusiastic crowds at his rallies, but I wonder if there's more to it than that.  I wonder if she's finally working at putting some sunlight between herself and her longtime consort and cohort, Bill; and, if so, whether it's reflective of real differences of opinion or just the usual political cupidity.

Back in 2008, I preferred Clinton to Obama, in large part because I thought he was more like Bill than she was, but also because I instinctively distrust glowing, amorphous promises like "hope and change."  True, my own political leanings are very nearly an exact match for Bernie's, but I still can't help hoping that a real liberal might burst forth from Hillary's uncharismatic husk.

Fast-track

I was pleasantly surprised when Democrats in the House blocked Obama's route to fast-track trade negotiation authority for the TPP.  Maybe I needn't have been quite so surprised.  After all, what had he ever done for them?

I've already explained my own reservations with the TPP here, so I won't go into them again.  All I can add at this time is that the more that's emerged from the shroud of secrecy, the less I like it — and I was especially pissed off by Obama's overtly personal attacks on Elizabeth Warren.

Now, we have to wait for Hillary, whose "people" must be desperately measuring and weighing public opinion and the views of her corporate backers, since she rarely seems to have opinions or principles of her own.  If Hillary backs Obama, I expect enough votes will swing to saddle us with all the unpleasant surprises certain to be contained within the terms of the TPP.  After all, many current members of Congress won't want to get on the "wrong side" of the "next president."

Sadly, I suspect she'll back the president, taking union support for granted.  The unions won't have much of a choice if she's running against, say, Scott Walker.

Where's Hillary?

 

Hillary has been making some of the right (actually, left) noises lately, but it's hard to tell what connection there is between what she says, what she will do when elected, and what she actually believes (which probably doesn't much matter.)  If nothing else, the Clintons have been consummate politicians, defined as saying and doing whatever is likely to bring the greatest political advantage.

When Bill's pollsters told him that American voters had swallowed Reagan's "welfare queen" routine hook, line, and sinker, Bill decided it would be advantageous to "end welfare as we know it." Sadly, though, just satisfying voters is not nearly enough to guarantee political advantage.  Bill also signed on to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which freed the big banks first to loot and then to collapse the American economy.  Political expediency does not, by any means, guarantee good outcomes.

Can we use Bill as a guide to how Hillary might act if she becomes president?  No, not if we expect her to do the kinds of things her husband did (pandering to the so-called "centrists" as a "New Democrat.")  On the other hand, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that she will do and/or say whatever seems most likely to ensure her victory in the Fall — and then, as president, do or say whatever seems likely to ensure her re-election.

Big money is bigger than ever.  Can we believe anything politicians say, ever?  I'm with most of America on that, and the consensus opinion is negative.  On the other hand, if she feels it is necessary to commit herself to some more progressive positions, she just might feel obliged to carry through.

Please! NOT Hillary!

We have had more than enough of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).  Moving the Democrats to the "middle" (into the clutches of Wall Street) may have seemed like "a good idea at the time," but that time, if it ever existed, certainly is over.

Obama has been nothing but Clinton in blackface.  In case you hadn't noticed, Obama actually is not black.  Maybe a lot of blacks may not have noticed that yet, but it's true.  Raised in a middle-class white family and educated in a series of hoity-toity white schools, he's no more black than that asshole friend of his, Arne Duncan (who went to private schools, but occasionally played basketball with so-called "brothers".)  I don't know if the low turnout of black voters in the midterms indicates they've figured out the "not so dark" secret or not, but it's a distinct possibility.

Regardless of whether she will be elected or not, Hillary will be a disaster for progressive Democrats.  There really are progressive Democrats, and they deserve a shot at the presidency, even though they quite possibly might lose.

We deserve a clear choice in 2016.  We deserve clear policy choices, not just "tired old lady" v. "hot shot right wing demagogue," or "safe favorite of the plutocrats not aligned with Hillary."

A pox upon all their houses.  I'm tired of casting protest votes.  Give me a real choice.

Hillary

I suppose you've heard about the Atlantic interview, where Hillary went all hawky and dissed Obama.  Personally, I'm not fond of either one of them, but I'm happier with Obama's foreign policy than Clinton's take.  Minimalism makes a lot of sense to me, after the past thirteen years.

So, I'm trying very hard to think of somebody who might present the Hill with a credible challenge in the Democratic primary.  I like Biden, but I don't think he could win.  I like Warren, but she says she won't run, and she's not a liar.  Still, I think we need a woman this time — I just can't think of whom.

Maureen Dowd, who shares my view of the Clintons (hyperpolitical shitheads), did a very nice "fuck you" column in today's Times.  Still, I don't think we could get Maureen Dowd to run.  Suggestions?

Chris Christie

I have been laughing my ass off at the great Fort Lee New Jersey traffic jam.  Granted, I was not one of the poor saps trying to get across the George Washington Bridge during four days of needless lane closures intended to "punish" Fort Lee mayor Mark Sokolich for his failure to endorse fat boy's run for a second term.

Is there anybody, anywhere, who believes in the governor's claim to have been out of the loop?  If he was, than he's far too incompetent to run his state — hell, he couldn't even manage his staff!  And why were the emails released to the press so heavily redacted?  I say, guilty until proven imbecilic.

Anyway, the situation should kill any chance he had of winning the presidential nomination.  I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.  Might the Great American Public have elected a sleazebag bully from New Jersey?  I don't have a clue.

Now if Hillary would only get back at Bill by having an affair with Mitch McConnell, well...

One lives and hopes.

Changing Direction

Okay, I was kind of obsessed with the evils of religious belief last month, but the holiday season has a way of doing that to me.  Despite John Kerry's current attempts to make progress towards Israeli-Palestinian peace, I will not obsess over the concept of the "Jewish (apartheid) state" for at least a month or two.

So, instead, let's try to parse the significance of Bill DeBlasio's inauguration as Mayor of New York City yesterday.  His address was both populist and progressive, but there was a bit of weirdness involved.  For one thing, he was sworn in by Bill Clinton, the man who led the Democratic Party away from its progressive ideals and into the pocket of Wall Street — the alleged "Democrat" who signed the bill to "end welfare as we know it," would not consider the regulation of derivatives, and signed the bill that ended Glass-Steagall.

Was it a signal?  Hillary was there too.  Did the Clinton presence signal that Hillary is ready to move the Democratic Party back towards the left if she gets her turn to run in 2016?  And if she runs as a progressive, will she follow through if she wins?

Also present was the not especially progressive Democratic Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, also mentioned as a potential candidate in 2016.  Since he currently holds office, if he means to make a progressive turn he'll actually have to do it, right out there in public.  (It also would be nice if he could follow through on his promise to clean up the Albany cesspool of corruption.  New Yorkers used to look down on New Jersey as a cesspool of corruption.  These days, it's kind of a toss-up.)

Andrew's father, Mario Cuomo, anticipated DeBlasio's use of the "Tale of Two Cities" analogy a few decades ago, when he delivered the keynote address at the 1984 Democratic Convention.  To me, it remains the greatest convention speech of modern times, far surpassing the 2004 Obama speech (which turned out to be, largely, bullshit.)  Andrew ought to give it a listen — and so should you.

Clinton v. Christie? Oh, crap!

It's more than two years until the Iowa conventions, but the pundits, of course, have to say something.  Chuck Schumer, the senator from Wall Street, also has weighed in, along with a bunch of Hollywood assholes on  behalf of Hillary.  Christie is not yet endorsed by any big shot Republican PACs, which demonstrates that big shot Republican PACs are not quite so dumb as Hollywood assholes, but the pundits don't much care.

We've already had another Clinton, a slightly darker complected "first Black president" by the name of Barack Obama.  We certainly don't need another.  This time around, we need a liberal.

Christie, on the other hand, is just another opportunist with a gigantic ego and a tendency to dissemble.  I would like it, of course, if the Red States advanced Ted Cruz, but only if the Democrats had somebody who was a real Democrat to oppose him.

Yes, I dream of Elizabeth Warren, but that probably won't happen this time around.  Too bad.  Warren v. Cruz would offer voters a real choice — kind of like DeBlasio v. Lhota.  Okay, I apologize.  Lhota is not nearly so bad as Cruz.  If he ran against Hillary, I just might vote for him.

Somebody get that king some clothes!

While Hillary Clinton runs around the world kissing ass, I've been entertained by the latest wikileaks. It's always amusing when people get caught talking behind other people's backs — provided, of course, that the tongue wagger is not oneself — but so far I haven't seen any startling revelations.

Sarkozy's, Merkel's, and (especially) Berlusconi's "character flaws" have never been especially well hidden, and the State Department employees who decided to enshrine them in diplomatic cables should be reprimanded for wasting time belaboring the obvious. Russia under Putin is a mafia state, as any Westerner who has done business there can tell you, and it doesn't require much imagination to infer that the Sunni leaders of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are not at all happy about the prospect of Shi'a Iran having nuclear weapons. And, yes, both Maliki and Karzai are corrupt. Big news.

It also wasn't much of a secret that the Obama administration has been bribing foreign governments to accept internees from Guantanamo. (Kuwait's interior minister, by the way, came up with what I think is a pretty good idea for getting rid of the ones who are dangerous, but can't be prosecuted because of fuck-ups by the Bush administration: drop them off in an Afghan war zone where they are likely to be expeditiously killed.)

We await further revelations — although the New York Times, which received the documents in advance and is participating in their recission, let it drop in an editorial today that this time, at least, there's nothing about torture or rendition. If the Times isn't lying, that's good news.

The Road to Obamastan

It certainly is a wonderful moment in history not to be Barack Obama. His approval rating is down to about 50%, and I wouldn't be surprised is a lot of those who still approve are sticking with him out of pure cognitive dissonance, having made significant emotional and public investments in him during the campaign. Trapped by conventional thinking, many of the news media seem to assume he's losing people from the center, and hence losing them to the right.

Maybe they're right, but I don't think so. There is a vast amount of anger on the left, and the decline in his numbers started well before the health care fiasco was fully formed. The peace movement, civil libertarians, the LGBT groups, and plenty of others on the left were sick of him well before he let Rahm & The Boys convince him that any health insurance legislation would be better than none – and that one that kept the contributions flowing from major health industry lobbies like AHIP and PhARMA would be best of all.

I despise what's become of American politics over the past thirty years, and I'm just too pissed even to vent my feelings right now. Instead, I'll head straight to the latest impending catastrophe: Afghanistan.

The generals are whining for more troops. The Afghani police and army are useless and corrupt, and the numerous militias are loyal to local leaders, not the central government. The Karzai government is even more corrupt than the police and the army, and its legitimacy rating is hovering somewhere around zero. The Taliban, also corrupt, looks honest by comparison.

If the US pulls out its troops, the right will accuse Obama of "knuckling under to terrorism." If the administration sends more troops, assuming they ever can be successfully withdrawn from Iraq, our NATO "allies" can be depended on to extract their troops as rapidly as ours go in. The current proposal for "winning" in Afghanistan is to "protect" Afghani villagers against the Taliban. Needless to say, there are far too many villages and there never can be nearly enough troops – especially since what the villagers want most is for everybody to go away and just leave them alone to grow their opium.

Isn't there anybody who has Obama's ear old enough to remember Vietnam? The notion of "protecting" villagers sounds a hell of a lot like the Vietnam "pacification" program – which was an abysmal failure, of course, and wouldn't work in Afghanistan either. Doesn't anybody around the president remember how debilitating the escalation of the Vietnam war was to the Johnson administration? Isn't it time to bring Hillary Clinton home from Africa or Latin America or Antarctica or wherever they have her now and get some advice from an adult?

The route out of Afghanistan is, in my opinion, fairly simple. In Afghanistan, what we call "corruption" is called "standard operating procedure." Let's forget about "democratization" and all its associated bullshit, and just bribe our way to peace. Provide the tribal leaders with Hummers, Viagra, and whatever else will keep them happy, and stop trying to "unify" a geographic region that never even remotely resembled a modern state, and is not likely to become one any time in the foreseeable future.

And the Taliban? Bribe them too. I'm sure we can offer them considerably more than Al Qaeda can – and it's bound to be a hell of a lot cheaper than fighting a war that can't be won.