DIdn't know there were uranium contracts in Ossetia.

Maybe Putin can donate a bilion or two (ie ~2 months' cash flow from his secret oil trading company) to Bill's foundation?

...If I were in the Obama campaign I'd send Clinton off to make peace between the Russians and the Georgians and the Ossetians..

I guess that's the reason why you're not in it. You have the political finesse of a water buffalo. When's Bill speaking again? is it just before the speech of the V.P.?

Careful, Marty.

The Obama campaign is going to need every Hillary supporter they can get.

"Fed on Bile, Her Campaign Will Never Die...or Even Pause"

Sounds like the tag line for a bad horror movie.

I don't really like Hillary's idea.  I see why she'd want the recognition and she'd be certainly within her rights to ask for it, but it would really be highlighting party divisions at a time when it's important to highlight party unity.  Far from being cathartic, I think it would just reopen old wounds.

Also, I agree with basman.  Bill Clinton is rightfully getting a big-time speaking slot.  Aside from being the most prominent Democratic figure over the past 16 years, he's also one of the party's best speakers.  He made some ill-advised comments when he was stumping for Hillary, but he's not going to be speaking off the cuff here.

On the subject of convention speakers, I would really love to see Ted Kennedy have a big role (health permitting of course).

There is another catharsis that could happen which would make the Democrats truly united and ensure Democrats will capture the White House. Obama could announce that Hillary will be his running mate. It is Obama's call. Would he prefer thousands of delegates voting for Hillary during his moment of glory or everyone voting for him because the day before Hillary was picked to be VP?

Wouldn't Hill just love the recognition-catharsis to morph into a stampede for her to be the VP pick? If that happens Obamas future is as bright as Vince Foster's(sorry I'm a conspiracy  theorist).

jackson is absolutely right. Like it or not, acknowledge it or not, Obama will need every single Clinton voter which is why, if I were one of his advisors, I would be pushing hard to put her on the ticket.

peretz is just insane about the Clintons and cannot rationally and sanely discuss them without his own bile oozing out...

I say Obama/Clinton in 08...

If HRC is the VP nominee will the press leave Bill's personal and business affairs alone or will he also be forced to abdicate his speaking position at the Convention a la Edwards?

It is sad enough the Democrats have such a difficult time getting 50% in any presidential election even in a year that should otherwise be a slam dunk. Obama may just sqweak this one out . Please don't encourage the Right to rally behind McCain by elevating Billary any further.

So the battle in Georgia is worth nothing more than a joke about Clinton?  I'm not an expert on these matters, but I wonder if there is anything more we should be worrying about here?

Jack, Marty doesn't care if Obama wins -- in fact given all his "Israel needs to strike Iran" posts, I doubt he's really going to vote for him.  At a minimum he's not going to be pained to see McCain win.

fwiiw: www.politico.com/.../12406.html

"peretz is just insane about the Clintons and cannot rationally and sanely discuss them without his own bile oozing out..."

Well said.

"So the battle in Georgia is worth nothing more than a joke about Clinton?  I'm not an expert on these matters, but I wonder if there is anything more we should be worrying about here?"

It's really upsetting to see a splendid Olympic opening with its pretense of human brotherhood while Russian tanks and planes were invading a neighboring country.

At a minimum Putin shouldn’t have been allowed to attend the opening ceremonies.

I’d bet anything that if the US or Israel were involved in such actions no matter the justification you would have seen anti-American or anti-Israel demonstrations world wide.

So far the only thing that happened at the Olympics was the refusal of an Iranian swimmer to swim in the same pool with an Israeli athlete.

Jackson -- Russia and China are buddies, so it could never happen that they would deny Putin access. Why? Because he's a serial human rights abuser and an enemy of democracy? They are too!

I doubt they'd keep Shimon Peres from entering China if Israel re-invaded the Gaza Strip. China doesn't care enough about the Middle East to do that. The protests would occur regardless of whether Peres was allowed to attend the ceremonies, but I catch your drift.

If Clinton hadn't made him his running mate in 1992, Gore would have remained in the obscurity he richly deserves to be. No run for the presidency, no publicity for his insane over the top campaign to end the use of fossil fuels by 2018, no Nobel. Marty's infatuation and overblown affection for himself and Gore has allowed him to descend into insignificance and pettiness and take TNR with him.

"So the battle in Georgia is worth nothing more than a joke about Clinton?  I'm not an expert on these matters, but I wonder if there is anything more we should be worrying about here?"

Agreed. When I made my comment, I wasnt aware that the tanks had actually rolled in, but in view of the appalling escalation and the stakes here-- if that pipeline's blown up, then Germany at a minimum and much of Europe will be in Putin's pocket-- are so huge that I can only echo the astonishment of my fellow commentators.

TNR is the nation's pre-eminent journal of opinion. Why is there utterly nothing in TNR about this war that represents Putin's attempt to achieve what Andropov could not? (cf blackmail, W Europe of)

As TNR descends into bloggery and round-the-clock Obama-shmooping, someone needs to step in and remind the editors, There's a war on. Actually three, come to think of it, and this third one is about whether Germany in particular and W Europe in general are going to remain serious allies of the US, or part of Putin-Mobutu's Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere.

You'd think that's worth at least a teeny-weeny blog post, no?

For the curious, an overview of the stakes: www.timesonline.co.uk/.../article4486297.ece

ALANSP?  "Some ill-advised comments"?  That's polite.  None of his remarks were off-the-cuff.  He knew what he was saying.  He did it on purpose--whether or not it was off the cuff.  The Clintons are narcissists bordering on sociopaths.  They have no interest in seeing Obama reach power; they want it for themselves.  If these means making a parlay for 2012, so be it.  Or, as someone else noted, maybe they're going for VP.  Their recent remarks about seating delegates and whether Obama is fit to be president should tell you that.  Clinton didn't care that his remarks could be used in a Repug attack ad.  Or that they'd get--and did get--major cable play.  

Anyone who thinks she'd be a great bet as VP is nuts.  She would undermine her boss any chance she could get.  Maybe if she hadn't played so nasty, I'd believe otherwise.  And can you imagine Bill?  Whispering sotto voce all the time--so we'd hear every contradiction and disparagement possible.

Basman:  "Water buffalo"--hilarious.

Tep:  Agree about the lack of coverage re: Russia, but is TNR known for its rapid response coverage on on a brewing war?  Is anybody out there making a big deal?  Those aren't rhetorical questions.

"TNR is the nation's pre-eminent journal of opinion. "

it was until Peretz decided to endorse Obama, and then it became Obama land  24/7 and apres moi les deluge.

Hope it regains its sanity after the November elections.

Thanks for the link Tep to the article in the London Times. It was minimal, but at least it did offer an analysis.

Here is a link to another article in the same paper about Solzhenitsyn which I found interesting:

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/.../article4488745.ece

"I doubt they'd keep Shimon Peres from entering China if Israel re-invaded the Gaza Strip."

This is a silly comparison, rozenson. The Georgians have not been shelling Russians nor have they been kidnapping their soldiers or sending suicide bombers across the borders.

Let's keep it real.

mollysimon is right on all points.

jaunty & co: yes, we want the votes of the Clinton supporters, but remember that:

1. we already are going to get the large share of those, and

2. the people who will not vote for Obama unless Clinton is vp - let us call that number "x". The people who will votefor Obama unless Clinton is vp, such as my brother, let us call that number "y".

I think both x and y are tiny populations, although x is a pretty loud one, and the number that Obama will gain by putting Clinton on the ticket would have to be not x, but [x-y]. That might even be a negative number. I think he can do better and I don't want the drama.

JD writes:  Hope it [TNR] regains its sanity after the November elections.

You think John McCain is going to be president?  Just curious.  I mean, is your idea genuinely that a sane TNR would back McCain, or what?

The majority opinion at TNR -- including among its outside posters -- seems to be in support of the candidate who came from relatively nowhere to defeat the much-respected and apparently unbeatable Clinton machine.  Is that not sane?

molly - the stakes are enormous. While the US press, inclusing TNR, has been sleeping, Putin-Mobutu has moved to squeeze western oil majors out of Russia, including, most recently, expropriating BP's huge stake in the BP-TNK venture, AND bringing under state control the few remaining Russian private entities. btw, "State control" means making these extraordinary cash cows into funnels into the private accounts of Putin, his FSB minders, his pals from St Petersburg, and their families. Typically, Junior will own a trading company or other intermediary that serves as the conduit for the cash.

The reason this is so important is that when the last independent source of FSU energy to Germany is brought under the control of Russia's state thieves, Germany will effectively become a vassal of Russia.

irony - yes, I do believe John McCain will eb elected president. Millions of independents and moderate Dems will, in the privacy of the voting booth, seek to avoid giving control of this nation's tax and spend policy to Nancy Pelosi. The virtue-of-divided-gov't argument will put McCain over the top with the silent suburban moderates whose votes will decide this election.

I guessed that to be the case, tep, so my question was actually for JD.  But I don't get something very basic here.  You seemed to be arguing (at least up until now) that health care was the most important issue bar none, and a promise of major reforms would (a) win the election and (b) have a number of positive effects for both individuals and American society.  OK.  So, given that McCain has no new ideas whatsoever on that issue, and that public opinion is very much in favor of large-scale reform now, in what way do you see a McCain presidency as advancing us toward the UHC goal, and in what way do Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats stand in its way?

"You think John McCain is going to be president?  Just curious.  I mean, is your idea genuinely that a sane TNR would back McCain, or what?"  Irony

Your first question has nothing to do with your second question.

I don't know who is going to be President; however, TNR shouldn't have turned itself into a campaign appendage to one of the candidates.

They can express a preference and they should certainly endorse someone, but that is not the same thing as working round the clock to promote one of the candidates.

As a journal of liberal ideas (in the non political sense of the term liberal) TNR should stay above the political fray.

"I think both x and y are tiny populations, although x is a pretty loud one, and the number that Obama will gain by putting Clinton on the ticket would have to be not x, but [x-y]. That might even be a negative number. I think he can do better and I don't want the drama."

psantillana if its a tiny minority of people who are not going to vote for Obama than you have nothing to worry about, do you.

Molly Simon is wrong about TNR.

It isn't a "rapid response" journal, but as a blog it's been responding with remarkable speed to contemporary events dealing with the Obama campaign.

Surely, the Russian invasion of a neighboring country is just as important as a transitory event such as an election in the US?

"You seemed to be arguing (at least up until now) that health care was the most important issue bar none, and a promise of major reforms would (a) win the election and (b) have a number of positive effects for both individuals and American society.  OK.  So, given that McCain has no new ideas whatsoever on that issue, and that public opinion is very much in favor of large-scale reform now, in what way do you see a McCain presidency as advancing us toward the UHC goal, and in what way do Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats stand in its way?"

Since tep answered a question addressed to me I guess I can answer a question addressed to him. I am sure that tep will have his own take on this issue. Here is mine, though.

I will be voting for all the Democratic candidates in November except for Obama.

I expect that the Demos will take over the Congress. I also expect McCain to be amenable to compromise on a Democratic bill on health care as on other issues.

I don't have faith in an Obama Presidency. Given that, I don't know why I should vote for him if I don't think that he will be able to deliver on any of his promises.

Besides we just suffered from a two term President who didn't know what he was doing. I am not ready to vote for another candidate who will need on the job training.

jackson I think we might be agreeing, heaven forbid. I meant a tiny minority of Clinton supporters, though, not "people". And yes, what we have to gain by appealing to them by making her vp is offset by the people who would vote for Obama UNLESS she is the vp. So it's even a tinier net gain than just adding the [aforementioned] tiny population of PUMAs or whatever they are.

And by "we" I mean the exclusive, as you are of course not voting for him no matter who he picks.

I also think you agree with molly, jackson, as she did agree with tep about the lack of coverage on Russia. Then she asked a question, which she stated was not rhetorical. Slow down! Accuracy before speed, as they say in typing class.

irony - given her track record and skills, I don't think Nancy Pelosi would a) craft it intelligently, b) sell it intelligently to skeptical Americans, c) fund it without screwing up tax policy during a recession. Best case would be she does no harm; worst case would be another Pelosi debacle/overreach that would energize the right a la 1994. Neither she nor Obama has the leadership chops to get the baby delivered without breaking the forceps and damaging it at birth.

I'd bet that there will be at least 2 million Dems nationwide who vote as jackson dyer does, splitting their ticket. If McCain gets >200k such Dems in FL and PA, and another ~100k in OH and either MI or CO, he wins. Shouldn't be too hard to do when Pelosi's in charge of Congress and reminding nervous suburbanites why a strong, experienced president who can rein her in is such an important thing.

I agree on the issue of divided government. No possibility of checks and balances without it. Bush plus a Repub congress was a disaster, particularly since the Dems were such cowards in opposition on everything from taxes to Supreme Court appointments.

Obama plus a Dem congress will be a disaster also, but not as bad because the Repubs are tougher in opposition. They made  Clinton back off early on with gays in the military issue and health care.

Like Jackson I believe  McCain plus a Dem Congress would be the best choice in 2008. The dems will have to come around on energy and McCain will habe to come around on health care. I also trust McCain on Iran and Iraq, whereas I don't trust Obama on these vital issues. Nor does the public at large.

Tep, that's the second time you've supported your argument by referring to Pelosi in such vague terms as to make her eating breakfast sound like a negative.  I have to say I don't know what to make of that.  What major disaster or catastrophic inadequacy are you basing your criticism on?  As far as I gather, you've noticed that people who often vote Republican don't like her, or something like that.  That doesn't exactly take one's breath away.

I'd also like to point out that, no matter who wins the White House, "strong" has several meanings and executive experience is not the first qualification that either candidate can offer.

"...and executive experience is not the first qualification that either candidate can offer."

How about just plain old legislative experience? Obama  was a State legislator for about 6 or 7 years, and a Senator since 2004 and in that time he has spent half the time running for President.

McCain,  has been a legislator since 1982 and he would know how to deal with  Congress in ways that it would take four to eight years for Obama to learn.

She's that once-in-a-lifetime combination of extreme flakiness and extreme rigidity. A dope who's as stubborn as a mule. W's mirror image on the left.

tep, I meant evidence, examples, that kind of thing.  But just going on your own word choice, I do see a little rigidity in Pelosi, which may be due to her being over-aware of being the first woman in that position and/or having more than a touch of that old-time ethnic ward politics from her father, but I really don't see the flaky.  Hence an example or two would be nice.

If you needed any proof that Barack Obama was prepared to negotiate (generously, by the way) with the

I suppose this is as good a thread to ask as any (and I address this mostly to jackson and tep):  What exactly is it that one learns during years 5-8 in the Senate that makes one qualified to be President.  JD sort of implicitly suggested this through his contention that Hillary had sufficient experience, and tep made the point explicitly (something along the lines of Obama being to green and needing to "toil away" in the Senate for another 4 years.  I could find the exact quote if you really want).

The fact, though, is that experience  is utterly irrelevant unless you learn something important from it.  So I'm asking what specifically you think Obama has left to learn and why you think he will learn it in the next four years.

hadn't reloaded the page before that last post, so I didn't notice that jackson did me a favor by explicitly making the argument that I was attributing to him.  My question still stands

Come on, ironyroad, tep doesn't like Pelosi and that's that.  You are not going to change his mind.

Me, I don't care if she is "rigid" and "fickl," If indeed she is rigid and fickle.

She is one of hundreds of Democrats in the House and if she ends up being too rigid or too fickle they'll kick her out.  You can't too the same with a rigid as well as bungling Prez, alas.  If you could life would be simpler and I might even vote for obama.

The Spine said:  "If you needed any proof that Barack Obama was prepared to negotiate (generously, by the way) with the..."

I think The Spine just hiccupped.

"What exactly is it that one learns during years 5-8 in the Senate that makes one qualified to be President."

You can't develop a record of leadership in 2 years in the Senate. That institution respects seniority; you have to pay your dues and move up the ranks if you want to have a major impact on several major issues.  

No less important, you can't earn any serious battle scars in 2 years. You've barely gotten your feet wet during that time; you haven't even endured a re-election campaign where you have to justify your record.

Look, Obama's campaign has played this brilliantly, ie made his absence of a leadership record into, perversely, a source of great strength, from a campaign perspective. He's the mystery man who can't be attacked. He's a lefty to lefties, a moderate to moderates, a religious neolib to the evangelicals and a leftwing culture warrior to the MoveOn/Wright/The Nation crowd. Me, I think it's bad for the country to elect a stealth candidate, whether he's a former baseball club owner and president's son, or a former "community organizer" with a couple of years in the Senate.

irony - the energy and drilling debacle speaks volumes. This was a major abdication of responsibility on a crucial issue for the nation. She weaseled out and then whispered to felow Dems that, in view of her complete failure on this policy, they could-- just between us friends!-- oppose her on the issue that she showed no leadership on.

rozenson - I disdain Obama and his cultists. I like the Times, like most of the traditional, non-bloggerish non-MoveOnner Democrats.

tep, you accuse the Pelosi and the Democrats of "a major abdication of responsibility on a crucial issue for the nation."  I find that nothing short of astonishing.

This is from the recent debate/skirmishing on oil and energy:

"The president has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, 'but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower,' " Pelosi said. "That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence."

I find nothing to disagree with here, and in fact Pelosi sums up the basic situation very well.  In the fantasy world that the GOP inhabits, a quick bit of macho drilling and a stiff finger to twenty-five years of environmental legislation will lead to cheerful oil companies shipping the gas to the pump to the clapping of the happy American consumer as the price drops to $2.20.

Unfortunately, we live in reality.

tep,

Those are aspects of experience that are important *within* the Senate (seniority etc.).  It's a good argument against making Obama, say, majority leader, but really doesn't speak to his ability to be successful as President.  The "you haven't even endured a re-election campaign" line seems particularly silly, given the relative scrutiny one comes under in a Presidential campaign compared to a Senate campaign.

Jackson claims that McCain, in virtue of his time in the Senate "would know how to deal with  Congress in ways that it would take four to eight years for Obama to learn."  At least this acknowledges the basic premise that the importance of experience is what you learn.  Again, what "ways" are you talking about and why is this the time frame to learn them?

Clinton (1992-1994) proved that twenty years as governor means nothing dealing with national legislative agenda; Bush and Carter demonstrated that years as chief executive mean nothing as to either competence or sound policy while President; Lyndon Johnson was the most experienced (in legislative terms) President this century and yet he was a disaster when it came to making war policy; Ike had been a middling general and was a middling President; McArthur had been a great general and would have been a disastrous chief executive; Wilson had been governor of New Jersey, no? disaster in dealing with Congress; the list goes on.

JD does not like Obama because he does not trust Obama on Israel.  Whatever I think of JD - not much - or Obama's policies on Israel, that at least is a policy difference.  Tep does not like Obama personally - "I disdain Obama and his cultists", is what he said - and UHC, Pelosi, experience, Man on the Moon or whatever other argument he comes up with are, in salesmen's terms, "objections".  He'll have one argument after another so as not to admit that his animus is personal.

ick - oh, please, spare me this BS. I've made it clear again and again that the man's simply not ready to be POTUS. He simply doesn't have the leadership chops. Maybe in 2016, or even in 2012, but he's just _not there yet_. Can we cease with the nasty personal attacks? thx, t

Tep

"I disdain Obama and his cultists." These are your words.  "Disdain" is, my dictionary tells me, quite a lot stronger than merely "not there yet".  

As for "nasty personal attacks" ... There was nothing nasty and very little personal in what I wrote.  Calling Obama's supporters as "cultists" or "kool-aid drinkers" might appear to you as harmless fun, but some have objected to that.  I can only suggest you grow a thicker skin - or, at least, stop "disdaining" people with whose choice of political leadership you disagree.  Peace

The "cult" accusation is justified by, among other things, what we've seen on this very website. TNR.com used to have robust and intelligent, freewheeling discussion. In the All Obama All The Time era, it's degenerated into another blog characterized by groupthink, denunciations of apostates, tribal cheerleading and juvenile attempts at Jon Stewart imitations. Me, I think that's a loss, and I chalk it up to the farewell to skepticism that characterizes the Obama-shmooping on these boards.

irony, you misstate things.  Americans approve of drilling by 2 to 1, and Pelosi won't let the bill come to a vote.  Now there's some ledership for you - her position is that she needs to "save the planet."  Maybe that plys in SF, but not many places otherwise.

However, I fervently hope that she continues her policy.  McCain doesn't have much to run on, but energy is one thing, at least.  It's not about fantasy - fantasy is believing that by "fast-tracking" altenative sources, we can get off oil before mid-century.  Wind and solar can help, but we will rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and I hope Obama knows it.

Finally - is it just a coincidence that this Congress is at about 9% approval? Way behind the dumbest man in the world, according to many hereabouts, by about 25%.

Tell me again about Pelosi as a leader?

Given the alternative -- McCain -- I'd say Obama offers the dizzying possibility that intelligence, thought, and rational analysis might have a place at the table for the first time in many years.  Intelligence -- the one thing leadership can't do without (much as the Republicans have tried to convince us of the opposite!).

Peter Brown is among the shrewdest observers I've read, His latest summation:

"“It’s not that people think McCain will win – it’s that they are realizing that McCain could win,” says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter Brown, whose surveys show tight races in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. “This election is about Barack Obama — not John McCain — it's about whether Barack Obama passes muster. Every poll shows that people want a Democratic president, the problem is they’re not sure they want Barack Obama."

Yeah Tep, Brown is shrewd because you agree with him, and the rest of the gang at TNRland are cultists "characterized by groupthink, denunciations of apostates, tribal cheerleading and juvenile attempts at Jon Stewart imitations."

He he, no personal attacks there, just robust discussion, eh?

Peace

No, he's a serious nonpartisan analyst who looks _objectively_ at his data and then, using reason, draws his own independent conclusions. I don't expect objectivity or independence all the time, but I also don't expect the kind of ridiculous emotionalism and cheerleading that made otherwise intelligent people here think that this election would be anything other than extremely close. Or that Obama is not a candidate with serious drawbacks.

"I also don't expect the kind of ridiculous emotionalism and cheerleading that made otherwise intelligent people here think that this election would be anything other than extremely close. Or that Obama is not a candidate with serious drawbacks."

So far as I am can see, we do not disagree on this point.  I have not seen, in TNRland, anyone who suggests this is going to be blowout election for Obama or who thinks Obama is perfect.  For the candidate, elections are about electioneerings, however, and for the voters, about binary choices.  Obama and Clinton could electioneer better and managed to rise to the top of the heap, and there was a choice as between the two.  Hillary forfeited her claim on my moral support because of her campaign and because of her mismanagement of that campaign; Obama's planning, in purely electoral terms, impressed me in the same measure precisely because this was never going to be an easy election.  As between McCain and Obama, many here (Blackie, Wandrey, etc.) expressed initial warmth for both, but many have also been turned away by McCain's campaign strategy.  I never had a warm spot for the old coot so the decision was easier to make for me.

It advances discussions not one nanometer when you dismiss and disdain.  Read your own characterisation of supporters of Obama and tell me if it is not, in itself, marked by "ridiculous emotionalism".

I'd also like to add to Ick's comment that a normal human being, even a politician, can work toward, as hopefully Obama is doing, minimizing his drawbacks and fixing his inadequacies and generally improving as a candidate (as indeed he did between November and May).  The thing that, above all, makes me realize that Obama is writing a new script for these electoral times is that he is, more than anyone I've noticed on the political scene, capable of viewing his mistakes realistically, learning from them, and moving on with greater awareness.

Not exactly the worst quality in a president, wouldn't you say?

Obama is a nice man, means well, writes well, reads (from the teleprompter) well.

Seems like an advance on the last eight years, anyhow.  As noted, however, Obama's not just talk and writing.  It's the striking ability to think and formulate ideas, which seems to make some Americans nervous these days.

It's not like we've had too much of it.

He'd make a great Writer in Chief. Or Talker in Chief. C-in-C, not so much.

The C-in-C aspect gets too much play nowadays.  We aren't a Prussian-style military state, and there are many crucial aspects of the U.S. presidency that urgently need something other than military-inflected thinking.  In fact, we've been having too much of the latter (as a military answer for everything is the drug of choice for some American) and could do with a little intelligence and imagination.

Also, tep, I'm surprised you think that writing and talking have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the presidency.  Put it this way:  I don't believe that Bush's inadequacies in those areas have brought us a lot of benefit.

And I come back to a point I made earlier today somewhere -- whatever about Obama's inexperience, lack of "achievement," and yada yada yada, he is distinctly the candidate who's able to handle a steep learning curve and assimilate his experience.  In contrast, McCain seems to be rapidly unlearning what had once made him an interesting politician.

More on Nancy the Brave: thehill.com/.../pelosi-indicates-openness-to-offshore-drilling-vote-2008-08-11.html

"Pelosi had previously said she would allow a vote on drilling and then backed off. On July 30, the last day Congress was in before the August recess, she was interviewed by the Capitol Hill press corps. She was asked if she could envision a vote on drilling in new areas this year, and she answered, “Of course.”

"But her aides later released a statement saying she was not announcing a change in her stance on a drilling vote."

And now, after creating a needless legislative impasse, handing the opposition a golden stick to beat Dems with, she says she's going to hold a vote.

That's tep -- answer one comment with a response on a different topic!  Whatever works for you.