So sayeth Robert Reich. Actually, I think that it’s true in more than one sense of the word…

So sayeth Robert Reich. Actually, I think that it’s true in more than one sense of the word…

Bruce Bawer hasn’t caught Obama fever:

…on whom does Barack

Lileks:

I suspect that the impulse to bring all these untidy unhelpful examples of flagrant individualism under the steady hand of the Ministry of Rational Allocation has something to do with that fretful busybody insistence that people are simply not living right. If we had Star Trek replicators in every house that would conjure goods and meals out of boundless energy produced by antimatter teased from a three-micron fissure that opened into a universe populated entirely by unicorns who crapped antimatter in such abundance they were happy we used it up, and used their shiny pointy horns to poke more of it through the aperture into our dimension, columnists would bemoan the disconnect between labor and goods, and the soul-corrupting influence of endless ersatz vegetables. You can

Hillary seems to be quite confident that she will be the next president:

Couric asked, “How disappointed will you be” if she doesn’t win; Clinton replied: “Well, it will be me.” “Clearly,” the CBS anchor persisted, “you have considered” the “possibility of losing”? “No, I haven’t,” said Clinton. “So you never even consider the possibility?” “I don’t. I don’t.”

Really?

In that case, why not give up your Senate seat? You’ll have to quit next year, anyway, and you’d be able to devote full time to your campaign, and not short change the good people of New York of one of their Senator’s services. And the governor (at least until he’s indicted and has to resign) is a Democrat who would nominate another to replace you, so there’d be no change in the Senate party alignment.

What are you waiting for?

Or is it just an act?

The amusing thing is that it isn’t clear that such arrogant statements even help her. Novak, after all, calls it a gaffe (though I don’t know why he thinks it’s her first). I think that it will reinforce the negative feelings that a lot of people already have about her.

I have to say that, while I disagree with Mike Huckabee about almost everything, he is a good debater. He’s witty, and quick on his feet.

Unfortunately (and I don’t have a solution to this problem–it’s endemic to a republic) the qualities that are necessary to win the presidency are not necessarily those necessary to be an effective or good president. Bill Clinton is one of the most notable examples of this. Sadly, and conversely, Fred Thompson may be as well, though ironically, if he never becomes president, we’ll never get a chance to find out…

Are you sitting down?

Bill Clinton wasn’t completely truthful yesterday.

Unlike Jonah, I won’t go so far as to say he lied. I think that he manages to persuade himself at the time that whatever he is saying is true. It’s a trait of an effective sociopath.

I don’t know if this will help or hurt, but apparently, Rush Limbaugh said today that the only conservative on the stage last night was Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson wants to have some serious debates. I doubt if anyone will take him up on it, though.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Mark Steyn is frustrated with Fred:

Every time I see a Fred policy plan, he seems to have by far the best ideas, and the necessary zeal for reform, on taxes, Social Security and much else. But every time you see him in these TV debates he has the listless air of a bored grandparent at a dreary school play.

…What’s the strategy here? Why does he have great ideas but no campaign?

Similar to my own, from Joshua Zader:

As a libertarian-minded person, I