NIXON ... When it comes to experience, I want you to remember I've had 173 meetings with President Eisenhower, and 217 times with the National Security Council. I've attended 163 Cabinet meetings. I've visited fifty four countries and had discussions with thirty-five presidents, nine prime ministers, two emperors, and the Shah of Iran...

CHOTINER (privately) Jesus Christ, has he told them how many push-ups he can do yet? What the hell happened to him?

In last night's debate in Austin Texas, Senator Clinton sounded like the scene from the film Nixon.

Don't get me wrong. I like Hillary, but last night in the Austin debate with Obama, she bombed.

Hillary suffers from the malaise of resume-itis. It's what books like, "Getting into the Job Market Past 50" warn us about ... we have too much experience, most of which won't resonate with the young and restless who are interviewing us. Moreover, if she's got all this experience, "where's the beef?" It's all so passive voice, with her, without technically being passive voice. All these things she's worked on, in, with, and through. To what end?

I am old enough to remember JFK when he ran against Nixon who had been Vice President under Eisenhower, and thus Nixon campaigned on having more experience than did the challenger, Senator Kennedy. The more Nixon told of his accomplishments, the more satisfied Nixon seemed. Kennedy did not question Nixon's "resume," but rather underscored that this was more of the same-old, same-old, whereas we needed a New frontier. He said in the first debate with Nixon, "I am not satisfied ..."

This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country; and this is a powerful country but I think it could be a more powerful country.

I'm not satisfied to have 50 percent of our steel-mill capacity unused.

I'm not satisfied when the United States had last year the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized society in the world--because economic growth means strength and vitality. It means we're able to sustain our defenses; it means we're able to meet our commitments abroad.

I'm not satisfied, when we have over $9 billion dollars worth of food, some of it rotting even though there is a hungry world and even though 4 million Americans wait every month for a food package from the Government, which averages 5 cents a day per individual.

I saw cases in West Virginia, here in the United States, where children took home part of their school lunch in order to feed their families because I don't think we're meeting our obligations toward these Americans.

I'm not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are.

I'm not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid, or when our children go to school part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system second to none.

I'm not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa, in charge of the largest union in the United States, still free.

I'm not satisfied when we are failing to develop the natural resources of the United States to the fullest. Here in the United States, which developed the Tennessee Valley and which built the Grand Coulee and the other dams in the Northwest United States, at the present rate of hydropower production--and that is the hallmark of an industrialized society--the Soviet Union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are.

These are all the things I think in this country that can make our society strong, or can mean that it stands still.

I'm not satisfied until every American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby is born, and this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities, he has about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He has one-third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has about a third as much chance to be a professional man, and about half as much chance to own a house. He has about four times as much chance that he'll be out of work in his life as the white baby. I think we can do better. I don't want the talents of any American to go to waste.

When Hillary cites her resume, she seems satisfied with where things have gone and the implication is that we can expect her to dish up more of the same.

Obama's supposed inexperience is going for him since he can say that he's not satisfied, no matter how lofty Hillary's resume makes her.

But let's face it, Obama has the power to attract. Again from the film, Nixon, when he speaks of RFK,

Bobby's got the magic, like a goddamn rock star. They climb all over each other just to touch his clothes!

Obama has that magic. He is not running on his resume. He is running on his vision and frankly he comes off looking more presidential than Senator Clinton.

I could see Hillary as a CEO of one of the Dow Jones Industrials, but not of the United States. She defends her ability to get things done, but what things need doing? A set of programs is not inspiring when there is no vision.

Her high point in the debate was when she did not let go of the topic of health care. Kudos to both candidates, especially Hillary. Her low point was the plagiarism argument against Obama. Hardly presidential.

Hillary does not have a vision. She has facts at her fingertips and plans that are ready to go. Yet, does the United states need a Strategic Planner, or does it need a leader who can rally everyone? Not as long as her resumes lacks real accomplishments.

Hillary does not have the tragic flaws of Nixon, but I close on one last scene fro the film,

PAT: You want them to love you ...

NIXON (interjects) No, I don't. I'm not Jack ...

PAT But they never will, Dick. No matter how many elections you win, they never will.

Unlike Nixon, at least the fictional one, Hillary could get to be loved, but she's got to get away from the resume, and the past, and her satisfaction with things as the were and the looking backward ... the question remains, has she run out of time to show us that side?

If you're like me, there's a certain amount of spam that you notice, even when you've got good spam filtering. For a while it was from people in Nigeria who were, like Diogenes, looking for an honest man (to help them get millions out of the country.)

Then there are the stock market tips followed by the fake-o sites where software is available.

But of late the turn is toward viagra and various way to enlarge the male organ.

This leaves me wondering ... is that what men worry about? I thought breast enlargements were a result of women wanting to please men because men were focused on that sort of thing, but have the men turned this onto themselves .. that is, thinking a woman is going to want to date the man with the biggest piece of equipment?

Yet judging from the amount of spam out there, there are some who believe that that's what males are thinking and the products they offer will cure these ills.

It's not how to be a better lover, but a "bigger" one, with pictures what would make a porn star blush. Like a fisherman who shows the size of the "big one that got away," the photos flood the internet with the claim, but we never actual see this "fish," and frankly I am not sure any of us want to.

Viagra continue to be seen as a one-pill-cure-all for fragile male egos.

Perhaps there are some women who want to be with someone of epic proportion, but I don't think it's the women who want to meet the man as much as the man who wants the equipment. Perhaps it has something to do with male competition that translates into our foreign policy as to which country has the biggest missiles.

Perhaps when some of our politicians stop sublimating their fears and anxieties, we'll have a foreign policy that is best on who's got the biggest arsenal.

Until, the spam keeps rolling on.

There is a strangeness in Washington as we return to the two-party system. Like Moses leading his people in the wilderness, the Democrats are slowly returning to power. Was it any different in 1994 when the tables were turned?

The conservatives say, at least in some circles, that the Republican defeat was not all that bad and in two years the people will come to their senses and re-elect a Republican government like we've had since 2000. Perhaps. But, that's not the interesting story.

For two years, we will have a different voice in Congress and this will be a chance for the Democrats to re-frame the issues.

I think of when Rush Limbaugh could be a foil against a Democrat Congress, or at least against President Clinton, and though he had his own personal problems, I think what really killed it for him was that the Republicans got into power. His rage really had no place to go, except kicking the people who weren't in power.

Now the strangeness comes back. The two-party system might have a chance, and two of the first losers are Steven Colbert of the "Colbert Report," and to some extent Kos of "The Daily Kos." "Does their schtick still work?" asked a friend. The Daily Show is not as invested as Kos and Colbert in the brand of anger in the case of Kos and humor in the case of Colbert.

I don't go to Kos any more, but I have peeked in on and off, more on than off, on Colbert, and suddenly his feigned right-wing stance falls flat. Nothing against Steve. It's just that in a matter of a week, the entire humor base has shifted along with the power base. In the case of Colbert, his humor worked when the Republicans were the only party in real power and his feigned support was great counterpoint. Now the Republicans are a minority in Congress (slim though it may be) and the President is a lame duck. Not as funny to be a feigned zealot.

Colbert and Kos suffer the fall out. Their base has a place to go for real power, just as Rush found out.

We'll see where Washington goes in the next several months, but the new balance of power has unexpected consequences in the strangest of ways.

The Republicans have a reputation for being disciplined and that reputation extends to the Republicans members of the House and Senate. The GOP Congressional members move largely in formation. Today that formation resembles a bunch of lemmings moving to perdition.

After a huge layoff, if I still had my job, but many of my colleagues did not, irrespective of the industry, when I got to my desk the next day, I would have to take a long and hard look at my own survivability. I would close the door and sit down and rethink what career issues were at stake for me. If I was a GOP member of Congress (or a Dem, too) I would take a long, hard, and frank look at myself and wonder if I should walk in lock step with anyone, except for those who determine whether or not I keep my job. I would look at those who no longer around and take a lesson.

Did the voters who put me in office put me there to be a GOP rubber stamp? I might have been swept in by a GOP tide and my State or District may have gone for George W. Bush, but did they want we to be one of the lemmings? When does discipline begin to become corrosive?

The Democrats are very far right of where they were a generation ago. It isn't that the country has suddenly shifted to "liberal" values. No. Then I look at Lincoln Chaffee, and he's out. It's not about the politics. It's about the party. It's about the way that Congress isn't doing its job. It is no longer behaving like one of the branches of government.

If this were a corporation, it would be equivalent to terminating an employee who is content to just sit around and sign off on everything without adding value. We've seen it in industry where the Board of Directors or the top management team kowtows to the boss. The word in my parent's generations for this was "being a yes man."

I would realize on the morning after that there is a way to disagree while still being loyal. I would recognize that the electorate (beyond the base) had come out to register their displeasure with those who did not demonstrate that they had a bit of a spine. I would understand that George W. Bush is a lame duck. I would know that "staying the course" has been repudiated at the polls, although I would know there are those who will continue to advocate it until the bitter end in November, 2008.

The vote on November 7, 2006, was in part a message to Congress that ideology was not as important as getting to work. If I were a Senator or Representative, I would know that a wakeup call had been sent out for us to get off our collective duffs and do the job we were getting perks and pay to perform.

I would know that George W. Bush and his inner circle are marching into history, but that my own career might span a number of terms well beyond that.

At one point coat tails can turn into anchors and loyalty can backfire if it appears I am not thinking for myself and not listening to the electorate.

I would know that in two, four, or six years I would be measured by what I had done and not purely on loyalty to the White House. The clock would be ticking and it would be the first day of the rest of my career.

The 1979 film, "Apocalypse Now," based on the Joseph Conrad novel "The Heart of Darkness," is well know to film goers and/or readers of American fiction. The story is about someone who descends into the darkness and is changed by it, not the other way around.

I resist making the comparing the President and the current Administration to Colonel Kurtz, the Marlon Brando character who deep in the Cambodian jungle starts to mirror the butchery he encounters in his enemies, and then some. And when he finally starts to mimic it, calling it "genius," he loses everything that he ever stood for.

But I will compare the United States as a Republic, collectively sinking into the heart of darkness. That we would dignify torture in a Congressional debate and have rules of torture spelled out, shows that we, like Kurtz, have seen the "genius" of our enemies.

The President's Administration have been a disaster. He has destabilized the Middle East. Writing in The New York Review of Books, William Pfaff writes,

President Bush and Karl Rove, his propaganda packager, preferred the global cold war model—the "long war" —capable of being presented to the American public as a communism-like "struggle for the world," so as to mobilize Americans around George Bush, wearing his flight jacket.

Iraq now seems all but certain to be left broken as a state, immersed in sectarian violence and terrorism, in far worse condition than it was under Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship (which would have come to an end when Saddam died, or when he was overturned by a coup, or a revolt, as has happened to all of modern Iraq's previous leaders)

Indeed, we have lost Iraq and may well lose more in this struggle. But there is more here, as well.

For those who like conspiratorial explanations, involving oil and Israel, consider that now Iraq will produce little or no oil for the United States, or anyone else, for years to come, and the Saudi monarchy and the Gulf oil-producer governments are newly threatened by fundamentalist militants.

Saddam Hussein has been eliminated as a distant threat to Israel, and a ring of aggressive Shiite states and movements has been substituted, with Hezbollah having already brought Israel under rocket fire, and humiliated the Israeli army. Iran's influence in the world has grown larger than ever.

These results are due in part to the amateur geopoliticians of the neoconservative New American Century initiative, and their Washington allies. Israel needed no such friends, nor does George W. Bush, who with their help, on the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, looked more than ever as though he'll finish his term as the most disastrous president in American history.

One more thing, though that this has caused our people. We have been lead, however unwillingly, into the heart of darkness.

According to unconfirmed reports, Osama bin Laden is dead, according to a UK story that quotes alleged French and Saudi sources that were leaked.

If this is the truth or a red herring is not certain at the moment.

The Administration is comparing Iraq and Fascism. Images of World War Two are used, but not Vietnam. Communism is mentioned, but the fact that the world's most populous nation is also a Communist state, slips most people's minds. We are busy making sure we are in good standing with the biggest nation, let alone the biggest Communist nation, that we no longer say that "Communism doesn't work."

Why is this relevant? Well, the Administration is talking about how the United States fought Fascism and Communism. It declares victory.

We are told we have to fight the terrorists "over there," otherwise we'll have to fight them "over here." This used to be called the "Domino Theory" during Vietnam. If we let Vietnam fall, we'd be soon fighting Communists at home. Instead we're importing Communist goods and setting up factories in Communist China.

No longer do we hear slogans about how Communism doesn't work and that we're fighting Communism. The war against Communism is largely forgotten, except for Cuba and Korea.

More to the point, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Administration have it wrong about World War Two. Why doesn't the current Administration look at Lyndon Johnson's War in Vietnam? The comparisons are striking beyond the Domino Theory. In the 1960s, Americans were also told to "stay the course" insofar as Vietnam and that "victory is just around the corner," and "we're seeing light at the end of the tunnel."

Today's pundits blame Democrats for being "soft" on national security. Most are too young to recall the slogan, "The Democrats are the party of war and the Republicans the party of depression." Many people fail to remember that World War One and World War Two were fought during Democratic administrations. The standoff during the Cuban Missile Crisis was under a Democratic Administration. This is not to say Republicans are weak despite the stalemate in Korea and Nixon's pull out in Vietnam.

Author Tammy Bruce, a once progressive convert to Reagan, gives a lesson about how World War Two happened and she advises that "Mein Kampf" tells the story, but those who have actually read it find its is largely an anti-Semitic tract. Yet the United States declared war on Japan, not Germany, after Pearl Harbor. It was the Germans who declared war on the United States through a Japanese-German Treaty because America had declared war on Japan. America was not a member of the League of Nations and Americans did not broker much, if anything, in Europe during the Hitler's rise to power or the carving up of Europe.

It was Zbigniew Brzezinski who said,

I am also somewhat inclined to feel that their criticism of our hysterical approach towards Iraq, viewing Iraq as another Nazi Germany, Saddam Hussein as another Hitler is not without merit. I think we have lost our sense of proportion.

Surely we should stop terrorists, but miring America's Army in an overseas civil war is not going to stop, for example, British citizens from plotting to blow up planes. Using the name of Hitler and the Domino Theory has little to do with the real threats.

The best comparison to a war of the past is America's involvement in Vietnam ... a Civil War where the enemy blends into the populace, where raw military force cannot crush the opposition, where we are told to "stay the course" and told that if we don't, the Domino Theory will mean we end up fighting them here.

And yet, history has proven that staying the course did not win us anything and yesterday's enemies, Communist or not, are our big friends.

GOP pundits have misremembered and misread history in hopes that the same forces that destroyed the Democratic Party in 1968 don't repeat themselves, this time with the Republicans getting swept aside. Maybe Ramesh Ponnuru was not yet born; maybe David Brooks was too young to remember it well; maybe George Will's memory has failed him, but in 1968 the Democrats were destroyed because they were PRO-war, not anti-war.

In recent news panels, Ponnuru, Brooks, and Will, have each said that in 1968 the anti-War faction of the Democrats lead the Party to defeat, yet in 1968 the Democratic standard bearer, Hubert Humphrey dared not cross his boss, Lyndon Johnson, and take a strong anti-War stance. Thus, it was Richard Nixon who claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war, who left the albatross of Vietnam hang around the neck of the Democrats.

Orson Wells in his "The Begetting of the President," a sort of biblical take-off on the politics of the time, reads the story from "The Book of Hubert" (Job) and it is sad and ironic and it hit the point, smack on. Hubert dared not speak against LBJ, or "charge foolishly." His loyalty was being tested and hence the standard bearer could not speak of the mistake of Vietnam in the way he needed to and early enough.

The real tragedy for this nation was the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy won the 1968 California primary and on the night of his victory he said, "now it's on to Chicago and let's win there," (at the Democratic National Convention). Moments later he was shot through the head by an assassin.

Of course these things can never be proven, but had Kennedy lived to go to the Democratic Convention, he may well have won there and taken the election. Kennedy may well have been able to end the War sooner than Nixon and with less cost.

As it was, the anti-War Democrats did not lose because their policy was wrong. They lost because their standard bearer was murdered. Robert F. Kennedy would have had no problem at all saying Johnson's Policy had failed.

Today the pundits of the GOP are misremembering the lessons of 1968. In fact, we see a similar foolishness with Lieberman who unlike Humphrey is not beholding to the President, does not charge "foolishly" and in being pro-war has painted himself into a bit of a political corner.

The lesson of 1968 is not that the anti-War wing causes Democrats to lose elections. In my view it is that rhetoric about the war being right and let's not talk against the war is a way to lose.

The GOP is following in the footsteps of LBJ and the 1968 rout.

November draws near and time will tell.

Is history repeating itself?

Historian A. J. P. Taylor once remarked that there comes a day when students learn from books what is within the living memory of the instructor. I am no instructor, but I vividly recall when the United States was embroiled overseas in the midst of a foreign nation's civil strife - where American troops could not tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" because the enemy could simply melt into the environment.

I recall how that war had been popular and that the President had won a second term in his own right because he would be better at handling threats to the United Sates than could his opponent.

And yet, it wasn't long before the American people rejected the war policies of administration, but someone had to stand up to the President, and even if by proxy, people had to have the mechanism by which to have a quasi-referendum on the war, and that turned out to be the 1968 Presidential Primary in New Hampshire.

LBJ was challenged by Senator Eugene McCarthy. McCarthy went neck and neck with Johnson and soon the entire nation knew that being against the Vietnam War was not unpatriotic nor were those who opposed it alone.

We read in The Union Leader 1968: McCarthy stuns the President.

On November 30, 1967, Senator McCarthy announced for the Democratic nomination for President, stating, "My decision to challenge the President's position, and the administration's position, has been strengthened by recent announcements out of the administration — the evident intention to intensify the war in Vietnam and, on the other hand, the absence of any positive indications or suggestions for a compromise or for a negotiated settlement. I am concerned that the administration seems to have set no limits to the price that it is willing to pay for a military victory."

The rhetoric of Iraq is different. Our Defense Secretary isn't calling for winning "the hearts and minds," or the "Iraqification" of struggle, but it seems events in Connecticut and the defeat of Joe Lieberman by Ned Lamont.

Like LBJ, Bush has squandered much of his political capital for little, but the way this has played out so far is a bit different. Lieberman has decided to go it alone. It may not be fair that the race turned into a referendum on the war, but voters do find a way to register their resentments. Alas, Lieberman was caught in the crossfire.

What LBJ realized in 1968 was that he had spent his political capital foolishly and no longer had the popular support. Instead he gave speeches on military bases where the audience was more or less vetted. But it is said that this deeply wounded a man who was used to having popular support. And so, in March 31, 1968 ... barely four months after McCarthy announced he would run, Johnson made an announcement which stunned many of us,

I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.

And in that four months, America had turned a corner.

We are about to turn a corner like that again, and we shall see if Lieberman is as wise as Johnson was.

This morning Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald writes an article with the headline Al Qaeda endorses Joe Lieberman.

Another quarter has been heard from in Connecticut’s senatorial race. The crucial al-Qaeda endorsement.

This pack of political activists -- thuggish, given to strongarm tactics -- just endorsed Joe Lieberman.

The Lamont crowd, narrowly victorious in Tuesday’s primary, had forgotten about this part of the body unpolitic. The part that wants to kill us.

Ned Lamont, like Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the one-issue Left, thinks the enemy is George Bush. They think George Bush is the greatest threat to world stability and individual rights. They think he is the one who wants to kill us and enslave us.

Is Crittenden channeling Anne Coulter?

Surely the headline is one that means to shock, but not enlighten. A more apt headline might be, "GOP endorses Joe Lieberman."

In Lieberman's defense, I see how he recoils from the Bush kiss (of death?). You think Lieberman is offering his ear and not his cheek. "The Pres. wants to say something over the roar of the crowd. I'll lean closer to hear ... What! He kissed me ... no wonder we need a Constitutional Amendment about the sanctity of marriage."

But that kiss was Lieberman's undoing because it embodied a closeness to the President that has haunted Lieberman.

The crucial al-Qaeda endorsement.

This pack of political activists -- thuggish, given to strongarm tactics -- just endorsed Joe Lieberman.

Don't look now, Jules, but what do you call the Bush/Lieberman exchange?

Lieberman is likable enough and might stand a chance, so he doesn't need the "help" of Crittenden's smear of Lamont, or of "Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the one-issue Left." No mention of Alan Schlesinger, the candidate who'll bear the colors for the GOP.

And yet, in this odd turn of events, where Lieberman cannot seem to bear the news that he was beaten in the primary, the Connecticut senator soldiers on because some sort of internal guidance system has taken over. The game plan called for Lieberman to run for re-election and Joe simply has not gotten a grasp of the facts.

In the meantime as the right runs to Joe's side, Lieberman is tapped in a Byzantine drama that has all the makings of a tragedy. As the old saying goes, "with friends like the GOP, who needs enemies."