As per usual, polls are showing that Hillary Clinton is a) leading the pack of Democratic primary candidates, and b) losing to the Republican front runners (who are, in the main in my opinion, a bunch of loons).

It has always baffled me that anyone can think that Hillary Clinton can be elected President, and this poll is just another example. I don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that she’s a woman, and I certainly don’t think it has anything to do with whether or not she’d be a good President–and personally, I think she’d be fine (and certainly better than the incompetent chowderhead currently occupying the Oval office)–I think it’s because too damn many people hate her.

Certainly politicians are good at deluding themselves–they probably wouldn’t be politicians otherwise–but Ms. Clinton’s ability to convince herself that she is electable has always struck me as profoundly self-delusional. I hope she goes back and looks at all the polls like this, and at the fund raising differences between her and candidates like Barack Obama (his has raised about the same amount of money, but his is coming from hundreds more small donations, indicating, to me at least, a much broader range of support), and realizes that she doesn’t stand a chance. And I hope that Democratic primary voters realize the same thing, or we could end up with a President Guiliani.

I suppose at this stage, and at my age, I should cease being surprised by the political grandstanding by politicians like Trent Lott–I grew up outside of Washington D.C. during the Watergate era, after all–but I guess I still retain enough hope and optimism to be disgusted by it.

In case you hadn’t heard, the Republicans in the Senate blocked the Senate from voting on a resolution–a non-binding resolution that would have forced absolutely nothing, mind you–of no-confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Never mind that the majority of Americans have lost their confidence in Gonzales. Never mind that the majority of Congressmen and Senators have lost their confidence in Gonzales. Never mind that Gonzales himself has given clear evidence that he is incapable of running a post office branch in east B.F. Kansas, let alone an important government agency. Nosiree, it’s critical for the Republicans to blat on about “the dignity of the Senate.”

And then Gonzales, bless his lying heart, has the temerity to talk about “protecting our kids.” Listen up, Alberto ol’ boy: I’ll protect my own kids, thank you very much. A guy who can’t even remember the details of a meeting he had in December where they talked about firing U.S. Attorneys is talking about protecting my kids. Yeah, that sure makes me feel good.

Gonzales is going to hang on as long as possible, because if he resigns, Bush has to appoint someone else, and then what is going to happen? Bush sure won’t find someone so loyal that will get through the Senate, that’s for sure. So he’s sticking with this incompetent boob, come hell or high water.

And the Senate, which is supposed to be on “the peepul’s” side, just wants to posture. Thanks, gang.

With regard to the Scooter Libby situation, I have to admit to a profound amount of disgust for people like Fouad Ajami, Joe Klein, and anyone else who is arguing for leniency in this case. I have three reasons for this, only one of which is (mildly) partisan:

• If it weren’t for Scooter Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice, who knows what we would have found out about this case? Would there have been criminal activity reaching into the office of the Vice President? The President? How high up would it have gone? Now we’ll never know, will we? Once again, a lower-ranking member of the Administration has taken a bullet for Bush/Cheney, and they have avoided paying for whatever it is they have done (and whatever it is they have done we may never find out about). Dick Cheney, in particular, who is all about avoiding scrutiny and accountability, has avoided it once again. The criminal justice system has been used to cover up nefarious doings; we should allow this to go unpunished?

• Let’s keep in mind the circumstances here: Judge Walton was appointed by Bush. Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed by John Ashcroft, Bush’s Attorney General. These are not exactly Democratic partisans here, people. When Clinton was being investigated, Kenneth Starr’s office leaked like the Titanic in the post-iceberg timeframe; what has ever come out of Fitzgerald’s office? No, the people who are whining about ill-treatment are those who would be whining if their ball team had just lost the World Series when all 7 games were played at home and they had gotten to choose their own umpires. I’m not exactly filled with remorse for a guy who lied to the FBI.

• Finally–and this is my partisan reason–why on Earth should the Vice President’s office be allowed to keep secrets when they are insisting that they have the right to know what library books I check out, what I buy with my credit cards, what movies I rent, and who I call on my phone? The Vice President is a public servant. It may honk Dick Cheney off, but he accepted the fact that he works for the American public when he took the job, and part of the deal is accountability. Sorry, Dick ol’ boy. And no fair throwing poor Scooter under the bus just to avoid scrutiny.

So that’s what I think. If Scooter Libby was Random Dork, he would have been sent to The Big House already. And all those folks who are whining that he’s being treated unfairly, let me clue you: the people being treated unfairly in this country are the ones who don’t have people like Henry Kissinger and Robert Bork writing them letters of commendation for them. It’s the people who had one beer too many and then stupidly drove home instead of getting a ride, and then drove to work on a suspended license and got caught. It’s the people who screwed up their governmental paperwork and got hammered by the IRS and now owe tens of thousands of dollars because they couldn’t afford an accountant. It’s the people who got in a messy divorce, had their ex-wife swear out a restraining order, and are now in jail because they just wanted to see their kids. Those people and other like them, are the ones I feel sorry for. Scooter Libby, who is covering up for a war criminal, not so much.

It’s not the primary season yet, but there are no fewer than 18 candidates (19, if you count Fred Thompson, and let’s face it, we should count him), so I can’t help but think of this as “primary season.” And I have a few random thoughts on primary season.

One thought is, I’m dead sick and tired of all the talk about electing men folks would be “comfortable having a beer with.” We can see where that’s gotten us in the last six and a half years–in a world of trouble. I don’t want to elect an “ordinary guy” who I can have a beer with; I want to elect an extraordinary guy (or woman) who I feel comfortable seeing the Queen of England having a white-tie dinner with. When we think back on Presidential greatness, we’re not thinking of the “ordinary guys,” we’re thinking of Lincoln and Washington and Roosevelt, who were extraordinary.

So all you people who are voting for someone because he seems “likable?” You’re idiots, and you helped get us into this mess. Next time, vote for someone you think will do a good job. You’re not electing your next housemate here, you’re electing the leader of the free world. Get a grip.

As the primaries are lurching into view, we’re seeing the usual round of stories about how unfair it is that the big states like California are trying to move their primary up so that it actually, heaven forfend, counts for something. Lots of stories about the evils of the “national primary,” and so on.

The logic here seems to be that everyone should get a chance to meet the candidates, that a long primary season gives people a chance to weed out the obvious losers, and that the problem with a “national primary” is that there won’t be a chance for everyone to have a chance to make their choice among a bunch of different candidates.

Punditocracy, let me clue you: I lived in California for 25 years, and by the time the primaries rolled around to us–the most populous, diverse state in the Union, mind you–there were no choices. The primaries were done. Do you really think that if California had the first primary in the nation rather than New Hampshire, Mondale would have been nominated in 1984? Or Dukakis–Dukakis!–in 1988? Please.

If you pundits want to blame someone, stop harshing on the people of California, and lay your blame where it belongs, on those stubborn Yankees in New Hampshire. Why on Earth does it make sense for a state with a population of just over 1 million, with a median income of over 57 grand a year–highest in the nation!–and a population that is overwhelming white–over 97%–to have so much influence on who is President for a diverse country of 300 million people? More influence than California? Or New York? Or Florida? That’s idiotic. It’s time for the pundits to stop blaming the residents of the other states for trying to gain some influence, and start turning their collective gimlet eye on New Hampshire and ask the obvious question: what the heck makes them so special?

And don’t even get me started on Iowa.

I don’t have anything personal against Iowa or New Hampshire. Honest. I have relatives in New Hampshire, and my Mom was born there. I just think it’s insane that politicians spend more time there than, say, Texas (population 21 million).

David Broder, the “dean” of the White House press corps, has been demonstrating his out-of-touchness for quite some time (his famed “Bush Bounce” column being an all-time low, of course), so I don’t know why he continues to surprise me, or indeed why I continue to pay attention. Perhaps I’m just a masochist. But I do pay attention. And yup, he’s done it again.

There are many things that I don’t understand about the Democrats and the current “debate” about the Iraq war and the funding thereof. The first thing I don’t understand is, why is the debate even going on? The argument seems, to me, absurdly simple. We won the war. Saddam is dead. There are no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis have elected their own government. The Iraqis want us out of there. The majority of Americans want us out of there. Why is there even a debate at all? Why is this complicated?

(To those who say, “But the situation could get worse if we leave!” I respond, yes, indeed, and the situation could also get worse if we stay. We’ve stayed longer, now, than it took us to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan combined, and the situation hasn’t gotten better. Hell, we haven’t even secured Baghdad after all this time. Why shouldn’t we leave and see if it doesn’t get better?)

But another thing that confuses me is why everyone continues to acquiesce in the dishonest and disingenuous debating tactic that the White House engaged in, which Broder is putting forth. Their argument goes like this: cut off the funding, and the troops won’t get food, or bullets, or gas for their HumVees, and it will be your fault, you evil, evil Democrats! They will run out ammo in the middle of a firefight!

What rubbish. And Broder, of course, is buying right into it. Equating cutting the funding and finally denying Bush his blank check with “deny[ing] arms and protective equipment for the troops” is of course utterly absurd. Would a general go into battle without arms and protective equipment? Would a lack of funds not create push-back on the Administration to actually consider a different plan other than their insane holding pattern (which they clearly intend to keep hanging on to until January, 2009)? It’s laughable. But Broder, most other pundits, and most politicians have bought into this insanity.

The second thing is Broder’s assertion about a “precipitous withdrawal,” an alarmist phrase guaranteed to make readers think that, hey, presto, the troops would magically disappear off the battlefield and reappear in their own living rooms. Broder’s lack of knowledge of military logistics is apparent in phrases like this (or he is being deliberately misleading); if Bush were to order a U.S. drawdown today, it would take several months, if not a full year, to remove all our forces and equipment from Iraq. I doubt sincerely that anyone would consider that “precipitous.”

Hopefully, the Democrats will look at the polls, both their own since they caved on the Iraq funding bill, and Bush’s (how much more lower does he have to go before they get some courage?), and they’ll show some ‘nads in September. But frankly, I’m expecting September to be the beginning of yet another Friedman unit.

I gave up.

It’s not that I’m not opinionated enough to have a blog; I have opinions up the wazoo. But I have, previously, confined my opinions to letters to the editors, letters to other blog writers (which they have occasionally posted), articles on various forums and web sites, and the like.

But now, I’ve given up.

I don’t know if I have the patience, staying power, or wherewithal to maintain a blog. We’ll just have to see. But I do know that I simply have too damn many opinions to allow them to be filtered through Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan, Salon.com, Time magazine’s editors, or whoever. So here we go.