Quick Pass at Posts You Should Have Read

Not a full-fledged blogroll, but a few of notable posts that you might have missed yesterday and should not have.

Avedon Carol again alerts us to the likely decline of our current political system and to other writers who explain why it's likely and what might follow, good or bad. I know bloggers on our side understood, if Dem leadership didn't, why beating back Bushnev's Court of Appeals and bureaucratic horrors, long before it got to Alito and Roberts, Bolton and Norton was important, but I don't think even they had the full comprehension of the long-term debilitation of our democracy occurring because of the full range of Politburo/Supreme Soviet appointments that have happened. As Tristero notes, the ABA's recent disapproval of Georgi's assumption of royal powers would have been seen as Onion material 5 years ago, but where were they at 2004 election-time? Will it take a new Constitution to recover? Would that open the door to more lunacy? We know that social systems with scarce resources are heavily prone to authoritarianism even with enlightened leadership. What happens with what Bushnev has put in place? (And Lou Dobbs seems to agree with me. I need a bath.)

Let's move on to happy thoughts . . . .

Well, maybe not. Digby admits puzzlement over Senate Dems calling out the Iraqi Prime Minister to condemn Hezbollah activity during his visit. I just see it as more proof of the venal whoring that that group represents. I know they're better than the Repubs, but we're really expecting anything more than mediocrity in a time of transcendent need from these characters? The times call for transformative leadership, the kind Dean and Hackett brought before party "leaders" asserted their superior wisdom. Maybe the Lamonts, Testers, and Browns will bring it (if they win), but it's hard to see it right now, especially when no major Dem is calling out (or can call out) the Israelis for the blundering that Billmon again nails (please don't go on a hiatus!!!). If this indeed is an historic shift on a "Serbia in WWI" scale, then the Dems will have only demonstrated again their cluelessness and vacuousness (which is why I haven't been a Dem in 35 years despite my fear and loathing of Repubs--see Exit, Voice and Loyalty on the left column there for why that's good). This party will bring us safely to the Second Republic Avedon links to above? Not seeing it. (And Nancy Pelosi seems to agree with me. I need a drink.)

And, finally, as further confirmation, Steve Soto does another masterly analysis of Hillary and, by association, her venal husband, now selling out the American Legacy stumping for Vichy Lieberman. I only supported Clinton because of his enemies, a point I believe I share with many and which "wiser" Dems (see above) have never clearly understood. We voted on the man twice and, with alternatives, never gave him a majority despite one of the "best" economies in our history. As Avedon notes,

Someone really needs to alert these people that the real reason the DLC "won" with Clinton in 1992 has more to do with the fact that the right-wingers hated George H.W. Bush and stabbed him in the back than it does with middle-of-the-road voters being enraptured by Bill Clinton's triangulated politics.

Yet, the wiser heads still cite him as a supreme vote-getter, just like Reagan was a "great communicator." Bullshit. I'll vote for Hillary over any Repub running, but she knows that and abuses all of us as a result. She's not an answer, any more than her "split the baby and watch me feel your pain" husband was. Like he was, she's just another pause that doesn't even refresh, a waste of air at an historical time.

But at least she's not Lieberman. Uh, . . . not completely. Yet.

(I need a new planet.)