The experience question is worth considering--but, in my historical opinion, experience rarely turns an election. No one voted for Bill Clinton over George HW Bush because of experience, or Kennedy over Nixon, or Bush over Gore b/c of experience.

If Obama is not ready now--I am not sure hanging around in the Senate for another eight years actually helps him much (or God forbid--the VP).

Great point, Evrviglnt. Nobody does oppo-research like Team Clinton.

Thanks, Aaron. Bill has a pattern of working hard, getting over confident, misunderstanding what makes him successful, stepping on himself, facing a fall, and then using his prodigious talents to right the ship of Clinton. I think he is wildly ignorant, most of the time, of what works for him and what doesn't. More than anything else (and this is only half tongue-in-cheek), he thinks of himself as Elvis.

Having said all that, the Demo base loves Bill--and that is a huge plus for Hill.

Evrviglnt: Great post. You identify the problems of public education, and you correctly assert that they pose a lethal threat to American culture.

However, I cannot support vouchers. As someone who has opted out of public education for my two sons, I am not willing to risk government involvement in the last refuge of traditional American learning. My fear is that once the government starts moving toward private education, there will be strings, regulations, mandates, and, finally, a complete corruption of the incredibly healthy system of parent-controlled schools. I am unwilling to take that chance.

Chris: It is a good point and a good suggestion. I think a locally based system of ID is more workable. The problem is getting the cooperation of 50 states in re high standards. Of course, that is not an insurmountable challenge. States working together makes more sense philosophically. But, bottom line, a standardized, nation-wide system (albeit locally controlled) helps us on a number of fronts.

Back to voting: it is not unreasonable to make voters prove they are who they say they are, as long as there is a reasonable and accessible system to obtain ID.

Brad: lighten up. By that I mean turn the melodrama down just a notch.

The good news for you: the nasty Texas fascists are going home soon, and, more than likely, the pure-hearted Democrats, who only want truth, justice, and the American way, are on their way back to total control of the Federal City.

Seriously, a rational Democratic president will be good for the country, as Democrats on the edge will have an opportunity to reinvest in the system--which is something we desperately need. Every dark cloud has its silver lining.

Brad, Brad, Brad. You seem like a nice fellow. Your blog is impressive. I will make it a point to read more and deeper in the days to come, and I will interact with you.

However, you are parroting a recent Demo talking point in re voter fraud. "Show me a case." See Hugh Hewitt's book, for starters. Regardless, can you really say seriously, that there is not one case of fraudulent voting out there? That is, there is a massive, systemic, Rovian GOP conspiracy to disfranchise Democrats on the one hand, but, on the other, there is not one case of Demo voter shenanigans?

Anyhow, this is a worthy dialogue--and I compliment you on your argument. I take seriously your challenge to produce evidence. I pledge to dig some, investigate further your charges and your "evidence" of GOP conspiracy, and continue ASAP.

One last thing: you mentioned a few posts back that Tanner was a Democrat. What is your speculation as to why he decided to turn to the dark side?

Brad: Lighten up. Voting ID restrictions are not extraordinary measures. Scores of democracies require voter ID. To suggest that Republicans are out dreaming up schemes to disfranchise legitimate voters is "disingenuous and foolish."

Americans (and by that I mean ALL Americans) have more access to the franchise today than at any time in our history.

Just for kicks: let me just give you one more nail in my fascist coffin. I think a national ID card is a good idea. National ID would help in terms of fraudulent voting, proving eligibility for work, and solve a host of problems at the airport.

As for the quote you reference, let me say what I wanted to say in a more straightforward way: there are a whole set of statistics and assumptions that have been in use for a generation. Generally, they benefit one side of the partisan divide. However, if you turn those stats around to make a counter-point, all Hell breaks lose.

One more thing: don't kid yourself. Tanner was a national page-one story over his remarks and the reaction to them--not about anything he did at DOJ.

Brad: Really, I think you make my point. This discussion, which is a good discussion to have, has nothing to do with the circus created by Tanner's comments. And thank you for telling me Tanner is a Democrat. Just so's ya know: most of the MSM stories and the Democratic members of the House Committee neglected to mention that. To hear them talk, you would have thought he was a Bushie. Lighten up a bit, Brad, and read the post again.

Chris: This is I can say for sure. Joplin said it after Kristoferson wrote it and Gordon LIghtfoot and Roger MIller had already sung it.

Nice work, Roger. Another thoughtful and provocative post. Any further thoughts on the potential for reform in Islam? Of course, your tone asserts a palpable pessimism. I suppose my question is: on a scale of 1-10 (ten being absolutely no chance whatsoever), how convinced are you that Islam cannot/will not grow into a more enlightened belief system?