Here we go again?

In 2000 enough people, at least in Florida, believed Ralph Nader when he said there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush that we were able to find out just how wrong he was. Well Ralph is at it again:
Is A Nader Candidacy On the Horizon?

Ralph Nader, the nation's best-known consumer advocate, launched a website Wednesday to announce a national exploratory committee to test support for a possible fourth run for the presidency. Nader, who has been derided as a spoiler who helped elect George W. Bush in 2000, said he will decide in about a month.

I think that we can all assume that the Republican nominee will be John McCain. We can also assume that in spite of the hostility towards McCain the Republicans will get behind him. On the Democratic side there is incredible hostility towards Hillary Clinton. I have made it clear that neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would not have been my first choice. But come November a vote not cast for the one who wins the nomination is a vote for the Republican. If you think it wouldn't matter if it was Hillary Clinton or John McCain in the White House just think about the Supreme Court - think about two or even three new Alitos on the Supreme Court replacing two or three solid liberals. Sorry ladies but Roe V Wade is the least of my worries. I'm thinking of an ever powerful unitary executive, the continued loss of rights guaranteed under the constitution, increasing influence of radical Christianity in the government and increasing power of corporations pushing the US closer to the classical definition of fascism - government by and for corporations. Do you still think that Hillary would be no better than John McCain. If so you deserve the tyranny you will get. Unfortunately your children and grandchildren don't deserve it but will get it anyway.

I'm not finished yet. If John McCain does indeed unofficially at least become the Republican nominee shortly after Supper Tuesday the Republicans will be able to begin attacking the Democrats at once while the Democrats are still attacking each other. A brokered convention would all but guarantee a Democratic loss in November. John Edwards realized this and realized the importance of this election and that is why he quit the race. It is essential that the Democrats decide on a candidate a quickly as possible and quit attack each other between now and then.

Over the line!

As I said below the Clinton's have made it increasingly difficult for me to defend them. I have been sympathetic in part because of the misogynistic attacks by the bobble head DC pundits. My support for Hillary has been the result of my belief that it is essential that a Democrat be elected in November not because I like her (or Bill). John Edwards would have been my first choice but he never seemed to be in the race. I still see Obama as an empty suit who will not be able to withstand the Republican assault he will receive in the general election. While I don't really have a problem with the confrontations that have been part of the campaign I do have a problem with Bill Clinton's role as hit man. So does Josh Marshall and he explains why in The Problem With Bill 2.0.

And yet I cannot deny that I've felt a mounting sense of unease verging into disgust with Bill Clinton's increasingly aggressive role in the campaign over the last couple of weeks. So I've tried to figure out just what it is that's gotten to me. To give you some perspective, I don't think there are many people who are bigger fans of Bill Clinton than I am or who've expended more ink defending him and his presidency. Nor am I particularly sold on Obama's candidacy. Transcendence isn't usually a big sell for me in politics. And I continue to have my doubts about whether Obama is tough enough or savvy enough to withstand the avalanche the Republicans will throw against the Democratic nominee this fall.

Josh goes on to explain the ex President Bill Clinton is the unofficial head of the Democratic Party. Now we would expect him to support and even campaign for his wife but he should not be the front man in what amounts to Rovian style politics. And Josh makes another excellent point:

But before I finish there's another part of this that is I think even more important. With the exception of a few days in early January I've gone on the assumption for many months that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. But I think Bill's actions have greatly diminished her. He has put her back under his shadow where she hasn't been for years.

For the moment, I doubt either of them is losing much sleep over that. Get through today and then worry about tomorrow. But I think she looks much smaller now. He's dominating the race. And that makes her look like a weaker figure -- something that will not wear well in the general election. And this campaign really suggests this is going to be some sort of co-presidency. When Hillary's getting knocked around by the folks on the Hill is Bill going to go Larry King to knock her enemies around? Will he be going off to foreign countries on his own little diplomatic missions?

I had assumed he'd remain a step in the background as he has through through most of this decade. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If the constitution allowed it, I'd happily have Clinton back. I'd happily have Hillary in his place. But I don't want them both.

The presidency is a singular job. It should stay that way. And it's precisely because I'm looking forward to supporting her if she is the nominee that I hate seeing her being overshadowed by her spouse and having her husband bigfoot the process which diminishes her and makes me think her presidency could be a 4 year soap opera where Bill won't shut up and let her have a shot at doing the job.

Now I still think it is essential that a Democrat get elected, I still don't see anyway Edwards will get the nomination and I still have serious doubts that Obama can win a general election against John McCain. But I'm about ready to take my chances anyway and hope that the Republicans nominate someone other than John McCain.

They're Everywhere!

Have the theocrats infiltrated the Democratic Party as will? Steve Soto has a disturbing post up over at The Left Coaster with some excerpts from a Mother Jones article to be out on Tuesday. Go over and read it but I'll give you a few teasers to get you interested.

According to the current issue of Mother Jones magazine and reporters Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet, Hillary Clinton has been participating in bible study and prayer groups since she came to Washington in 1993, first as part of a Washington wives group while she was First Lady, and then as part of an exclusive weekly Senate prayer group when she joined the Senate.

[.....]

But what may startle people, including her supporters, is that the group she has associated herself with since 1993 which sponsors these groups as well as the National Prayer Breakfast is very conservative and exclusive. Known now as the Fellowship, it is a group that reporter Sharlet knows very well given his past investigative pieces in Harper's Magazine several years ago, and a Rolling Stone piece about Sam Brownback in 2006.

And this excerpt from Mother Jones:

When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian “cell” whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the antiunion Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat. Clinton’s prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or “the Family”), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to “spiritual war” on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship’s only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has “made a fetish of being invisible,” former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.

Steve points out that John Edwards has also been involved in this group and that Obama is questionable. I don't know about you but the scares the hell out of me. Go read all of Steve's post.

I don't think so

At this point I would find it very difficult to support Hillary Clinton or John Edwards as president. Digby explains why for me here and here.