"... Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation."

-- Paul Krugman (01/07/2005)

I was sitting in the middle of our trading floor, several positions already established, admiring the sun's brilliant rise over Brooklyn. Wall Street was beginning to buzz and it looked like it was going to be a beautiful day.

I was particularly at ease that morning and was waiting to see what the morning's data releases were going to unleash on the markets.

In the background, I could hear the guy sitting behind me chatting on the phone with his wife who was strolling past the twin towers only a few blocks away.

The morning was September 11th, 2001.

Though the Draft Clark people are taking a well-deserved break from their 2004 efforts and are unsure if they will pursue a 2008 Draft attempt, the Wes Clark train continues chugging right along.

Most significantly, it seems that Wes is now considering a 2008 run at the White House. According to U.S. News and World Report's Washington Whispers, Wes is mulling a second presidential bid.

But first things first.

First John Edwards, then Sen. John Kerry, and now 2004 hopeful Wes Clark is mulling a second presidential bid. Helping Democrats in the midterm elections is "the first step," he says. The next is the 2008 presidential election. And allies have been told to ready their boots and parkas for another trip to New Hampshire, home of the first primary.

Indeed, as the 'original retired general' courageous enough to be openly critical of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq affair, Clark has been supporting the cause by advising Senate Democrats on their flailing security message. If that helps Democrats take back the House and/or the Senate, Wes' resume would add a critical line that would assure his place in the list of serious '08 Democratic hopefuls.

Clark is well aware of the power he would hold as a Democrat with a resonating message on National Security -- in effect able to take the Republican's traditional perceived strength directly at them.

Bottom line: It seems the success of the Democrats in 2006 may be a determining factor in Clark's decision to make a run for it in '08.

It's good to know that, in his 2008 drive to the White House, Senator John McCain will refuse to pander to the various 'evils' of electoral reality simply for the sake of a few million measly votes... or will he...

The AP reports McCain says he no longer "considers evangelist Jerry Falwell to be one of the 'agents of intolerance' that he criticized during a previous White House run."

In 2000, as he sought the Republican nomination that eventually went to George W. Bush, McCain said: "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

McCain "will be the commencement speaker in May at Liberty University, the Lynchburg, Va., institution that Falwell founded in 1971."

On NBC's Meet the Press, McCain said, "I met with Reverend Falwell. He came to see me in Washington. We agreed to disagree on certain issues and we agreed to move forward.."

But what is it that McCain 'agreed to disagree with'?

Most Americans now agree that Bush and his Administration's policies have been a disaster for the nation.  Nevertheless, the tired refrain from the majority of Republicans continues to fault Democrats for the current mess.  That's chutzpah.  When your party controls the White House, both Houses of Congress, the courts, the electoral system, the Justice Department, the agencies responsible for administering the nation's business, the mechanisms for any oversight capability, as well as the procedures for correcting the overreaching efforts of all of the above, it's difficult, to say the least, to blame the other party for the current state of the Union.  To say the most, it's irresponsible, disingenuous, and desperate.

Even as I write, the BBC is reporting President Bush's insistence that Iraq is not, in fact, in a civil war.  Moreover, it's a problem HE won't have to deal with:

Mr Bush hinted to reporters that US troops would remain in Iraq beyond the end of his presidency in January 2009.
Asked about a timetable for the full withdrawal of US troops, President Bush said: "That of course is an objective and that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."

How's that for a "rosy outlook"?

In the wake of the 2000 and 2004 election seasons, charges of voter suppression by the GOP flew without mitigation. In response, Republican's couldn't scoff loudly enough, "How dare the Democrats make such baseless accusations. We are a party of compassion and high morals. We are the party of inclusion and tolerance. Just ask Condi and Colin...and also ask that gay fellow who heads up the AIDS office." -- or something like that.

As usual, the Republicans' talk is the virtual antithesis of the Republicans' walk.


Enter Condoleezza Rice...

Their latest PR push for 'inclusion and tolerance' is perhaps their boldest yet -- promoting the idea of a Republican, African-American woman as president in 2008 -- knowing full well there is not one chance in Hell that Condoleezza Rice would win the GOP primary, but understanding that the value of such a move would prove incalculable toward clouding the canyon divide that separates the pro-civil rights, and relatively tolerant, diverse political left with the anti-civil rights, intolerant, homogenous political right.

It seems, however, that their strategy might just blow up in their face, but not because Condi will actually win the primary -- or the presidency. Rather, because their activities inadvertently serve someone else who might actually have a shot at the presidency -- someone with whom most Republicans hold considerable fear and loathing.


Enter Hillary Clinton...

First Jeannine Pirro flamed out in spectacular fashion.  Now, Nixon son-in-law and well-respected and well-known lawyer Edward Cox has taken one look at the sheer and unforgiving rockface that is Mount Hillary, and decided to leave the climb to others: