I confess that I have not progressed (?) to the point where I no longer expect “public figures to be admirable people.” I don’t expect them to emulate the most ascetic saints, but using interns as comfort women, and then mobilizing the executive branch to conceal the sleaze, all the while lying, giving perjured testimony and obstructing justice– yeah, I do draw the line there.

I agree that many of us– liberals, conservatives, undecideds– “had been a little lulled to sleep by the seeming peacefulness of the post-Soviet world.” That seeming peacefulness might have been more real and more lasting if more capable people had been in charge of American diplomacy and strategy from 1993-2001. And we might all have been a little less “lulled” if we had been guided by leadership not quite so “Willfully Blind” as McCarthy’s new book would have it. But the Clinton Administration, by and by, was willfully blind, and the landscape of Lower Manhattan was significantly altered as a result.

What needs clarification - that I identify myself as a conservative? Has Clinton hatred become a prerequisite for membership in the conservative club?

Three principles of modern American conservatism, as adapted, I believe, by Jonah Goldberg: small government, strong defense and cultural decency. I’m for all three, and voted for the current president twice. I also voted for Clinton and, though I was more liberal in those days, it’s worth remembering that Clinton came to power as a DLC centrist Democrat, an antidote to McGovernism. If there’s anyone who hates the Clintons more than some on the right, it’s the Alexander Cockburn left. As for Bill’s trashy sex escapades (always excepting the unproved rape charge), I’m long past expecting public figures to be admirable people. I was certainly glad that a wussy boomer narcissist like Bill wasn’t in charge on 9/11, but I think many of us had been a little lulled to sleep by the seeming peacefulness of the post-Soviet world.

To me, it’s the left that claims to find ambition, individualism and combativeness repulsive. That Hillary Clinton has battled her way toward her (apparently) unobtainable prize as ruthlessly as Arnold in THE TERMINATOR is a point in her favor. I wish my children equal tenacity and grit in achieving their goals. We used to call that system free enterprise.

Of course, I don’t hold with many of the ideological principles of Hillary’s candidacy, though I find her more appealing than the vacuous, cult-leader smile of her chief Democratic rival.

“Democrats will begin to rally around Obama..” Yes, of course most will. And all those polls that will start to show massive support for him, and big leads nationwide, reflect additional votes in states Obama will likely win anyway, like NY and CA. But he still gets the same electoral votes that Kerry got in these states. There is no prize for running up the tally in any given state. The question is will others rally around Obama: centrist/conservative Dems, Repubs unhappy with Bush, and indies. I don’t think so.

“In addition, it’s hard for an incumbent party to win a third term, particularly in an environment in which voters are longing for change, where the President’s popularity is extremely low, and where 80 percent of the country believes the nation is on the wrong track.” That usually applies when a Vice President is running for the third term (although it didn’t in ‘88), but that’s not the case this year. McCain has positioned himself as the anti-Bush in the party and Americans often believe we’re very much on the wrong track, so neither of these nostrums apply either. On the ‘wrong track’ question, how many of these folks in key battleground states are actually going to get off their couches and vote?

“A disturbing sign was that last weekend the GOP lost its second House seat in a special election in two months…” Please. The number of people who vote in these special elections is incredibly small. People just don’t get energized about them, period. The only election of concern to them is the big enchilada this fall.

“Obama also has a realistic chance to carry Rocky Mountain States like Colorado and Nevada.” Given the demographic problems you outlined just above this sentence, I’m surprised: neither Denver nor Las Vegas have big black populations, most of CO and NV are rural or suburbanized with less affluent voters compared to the rustbelt northeast. Are Hispanics in these states going for Obama who has no serious rapport with them, or McCain, who has far better rapport with Hispanics? NV might be closer than I think, perhaps, but CO stays red this time.

And McCain has appeal in many blue states that never seems to get serious consideration.

The reasons Peter gives in the latter part of his post are why McCain will likely win. Presidential races are mostly about the people running, not party ID or vague campaign slogans like change and hope. The demographics of the Electoral College favor McCain.

“but I remain one conservative”

This needs clarification.

What always irritated me about the Clintons were that they seemed ineffectual and amateurish, unable to keep their own party in line and given to lies that were easily exposed. Hillary’s health care plan was massively overcomplicated and probably impractical, among other things, but when its critics made some ridiculous accusations against it (remember when Betsy McCaughey, who rode it to political fame for about ten minutes, accused the Democrats of trying to push everyone into HMOs?), I was stunned how inept the administration was about defending it.

When Bush II began, people like Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney seemed to banish the student-council-president ineptitude of the Clinton years, just in time for 9/11. Alas, the specter of incompetence proved to be down but most assuredly not out.

The electoral college favors McCain, and the vocal minority who skew polls and news media reports cant change that. Neither can fraudulent polls. I don’t think there are enough racist Blacks, naive kids and politically correct moonbats out there to put Obama in office. Nobody else supports him.

Continue to be puzzled and amazed that anyone could find Obama talented, except in the most limited and empty sense of having a good radio voice and a decent though not extraordinary presence. He’s got the heft of a dim, junior congressman when he attempts to deal with any issue of substance. Extremely unimpressive.

One of the most important questions is will what now passes for a “press” in the US manage to get through an entire presidential campaign without asking one of the candidates any serious questions, as they have so far. The jaw-dropping performance of the media in 2004 will probably be surpassed this time around, hard as that is to imagine.

On the Right is, uh, right - the VP choice, at least on the GOP side, is unusually important. There doubtless will be some (many?) McCain voters among the majority that puts him in office doing so with the conscious hope and expectation that he won’t serve out his full term, and thus the No. 2 slot will be critical.

Well, I suppose we could plunge into a long discussion about the semantics of the word destroyed, but for my part I will agree the word might be more accurately replaced by “smeared” (Jones), “used” (Lewinsky), “persecuted” (Tripp), “intimidated” (Willey), and, as BigM partially admits, “raped” (Broaddrick).

I never thought of the Clintons as a “demonic force” and do not think that the Bartleys, Tyrrells, Hydes, and Starrs of the time sought to portray them that way. I do think those four men– among many others– perceived the Clintons as exceptionally ruthless and dishonest people, for whom truth and falsity were interchangeable tools, to be used as weapons against anyone who got in their way. I agreed with that perception, both then and now, and applaud the Bartleys et al. for their efforts to educate the public, even in the face of extreme and personal vilification by the Clintons, their enablers, enforcers, and other partisans.

Ken Starr was “destroyed” as a public servant for telling the truth and doing his job. A one time short lister for the Supreme Court and one of the most decent men in public service was endlessly defamed and now blackballed.

Again, in all honesty, I ask for a single name of someone “destroyed” by the Clintons - not someone they called a bad name, or said something nasty about, or even fired (many presidents fire people, even presidents I like). We conservatives are supposed to be a tough bunch, not subscribing the politics of victimhood - when we say destroyed, we should mean DESTROYED. Who?

The creepy cult that surrounds Obama views practically any political opposition to their savior as Satanic and racist; naturally, they have adopted this Van Helsing view of his chief Democratic rivals. But to step back and take an adult view for a moment: what, realistically, is so devilish about the Clintons? What “folks” have they “destroyed?” What makes them the slightest bit worse than any ambitious politician - including Barack Obama and George W. Bush?