I do agree that the Clinton’s have managed to self destruct and particularly in Bill’s case have mangled their reputation beyond repair. Otherwise, I have to agree with patco(?). I think that people are tired of the primaries, but I don’t think that the Clinton’s have done enough damage (although they have admittedly done damage) to enable the Republican machine to distance itself from the immense damage that the Bush policies have done to this country, indeed throughout the world. As Ralph Nader said when asked recently if his running in 2008 would be a replay of 2000, or even 2004, “...if after the last eight years...the Democrats don’t win this election hands down, they need to pack it up, go home and rethink who they are...”. The Democrats had plenty of ammunition in 2004, but apparently not enough to shift the discussion away from gay marriage and swiftboating and toward the misdeeds of the Bush administration. But much has changed in the climate of the country since then, and Barack has to keep the connection between Bush and McCain strong and alive. It ain’t gonna be easy, but certainly possible. I do have a question: your statement “...Look on the bright side, perhaps when McCain is President we’ll witness the war crimes trials of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice...” (the trials for which I still hope on a daily basis), seems to imply that we wouldn’t see that without McCain in the White House. Were you speaking simply of the time period following the Bush regime, no matter who occupies the White House? Or is it dependent on who occupies the White House in 2009?
My other question is this: do you think that the October surprise is going to be unauthorized attack on Iran?
Check out this free 
(; 
;