President Bloomberg?

I'd be interested in a Bloomberg run.

How Bloomberg could shake up '08

If Bloomberg ran, he would be my favorite Republican or independent candidate.

Interesting what he has to say in the video interview about Mitt Romney. I've heard this a lot. Mitt does have some important accomplishments in Massachusetts. But running to the right has probably seriously hurt him in terms of general election electability calculations. I happen to think the Massachusetts health care legislation that he helped pass was a bad piece of legislation, despite its decent intentions. But Bloomberg is right that, given his record and how most people feel about the accomplishments that Mitt has as a Governor, it is surprising that he's not doing better nationally. He is a Mormon and he ran hard for that religious right vote, followed the conventional wisdom out of Washington about primary elections, and lost that bet.

Maybe candidates should just be honest? Except that the cynics in Washington are always undermining that route as well.

It would be refreshing to have another more honest candidate in this race. I hope Bloomberg thinks more seriously about a Presidential run than he is now. It'd be good for America and the world if he would, I think.

Newsflash: Hillary Clinton follows political winds; would lick the bottom of ash trays for votes

Whatever the political winds tell her to say in the moment. That is the mantra of the Clinton candidacy.

Jeffrey Lewis, the always brilliant Arms Control Wonk, writes a far too generous piece about Clinton's flip-flops on nuclear policy last Thursday.

More Senator Clinton on Nuclear Weapons

As one of his commenters noted, Clinton shape-shifts so much on the campaign trail, I don't trust her anymore, in office or as a leader, generally. Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the worst President ever (she's got some steep competition with the likes of Ulysses Grant and Richard Nixon). But I'd hardly call her fine Presidential material. She's got work to do to demonstrate that capacity. And that Foreign Affairs article doesn't cut it for me. To be fair, Obama's article is not terribly strong, either, by my lights. But at least Obama is trying to think America out of its foreign policy ruts, right now. If Clinton is thinking, seriously, she's not sharing it. And then she wears her failure to dig deeper for solutions as a badge of ignorance to flatter the pride of every dumbass, foolish, incurious Joe-Schmoe she can hoodwink into voting for her.

That kind of arrogance is scary, it's not just stupid.

People just get used to politicians lying. They forget that's what they're doing. Jeffrey is just too used to the lying.

But I'm not.

And I'll call that lying bitch on her bullshit every fuckin' chance I get. I wouldn't speak that strongly on the matter, except that I don't like it when more honest people get muscled by liars and bullshit artists. And Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic pack are most definitely getting muscled by the junior Senator from New York.

Hillary Clinton needs to sit out this Presidency. David Geffen is right. The Clintons are far too skilled as liars. And Hillary and Bill need a serious comeupance.

At this point, I don't care who gives it to them. I would prefer Obama. But I might settle for Rudy.

No wonder that pair's relationship is so fucked up. They wouldn't know an honest impulse between people, anymore, if it came up and bit them in their big, fat progressive asses.

You make me choose between the lesser of the two evils, you better make damned sure that you're the lesser. Because in Hillary Clinton's case, there's no way to tell anymore.

Calling the bluff on Iran

How do you handle the Administration's threat to attack Iran? Call the bluff.

Jim Hoagland tries to act like the threat to attack Iran is for real and is, thus, an argument for sanctions to cool off the pressure for military attack.

How to Rein in Iran

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I both think sanctions would be counterproductive. And we're right. And there is almost 4 years of experience with failure with that strategy to support that point of view of advocates of that approach would just look more squarely at their failure.

I say blow off that threat. I'd call the Administration on that bluff.

They don't have the military manpower. They don't have the political will. They wouldn't have the support from Congress. They wouldn't have the support of the IAEA, the Security Council, the United Nations or the international community.

You can only work off of a bluff for so long.

Bluff called. Hawks lose.