I assume everyone at this point is aware of the recovery of Ms. Betancourt, the 3 American contractors, and 11 other captives from FARC guerillas in  the jungles of Colombia.

I bring this up because I can find no conspicuous mention of this dramatic story anywhere on TPM. For the record, it's certainly possible I missed it -  I only did a brief scan of headlines and titles, and a cursory search. It DOES seem fair to assume from my efforts that this has not been a major subject of discussion here at TPM, in the sense that it is not nearly that difficult to find references (for example) to FISA, or to Obama's Iraq position: These subjects are actually hard to AVOID.

It seems  to me (in sincere good-faith) that this revelation really MATTERS (at least a little), because it's another example of the tone-deafness of a certain important segment of today's Democratic Party. This would seem to be the ultimate, genuine "feel good" story: Good besting evil, in a potentially violent cloak-and-dagger  operation we'll surely see replayed in a Hollywood movie - a risky, complicated, audacious plan, executed to perfection, with the perfect Hollywood outcome. It has REAL action heros. It has inherent "grab",  in its fundamental appeal to so many aspects of our complex and diverse American character. 

I think our relative silence on this story gives a clue as to one of the reasons we've suffered so many recent ballot-box disappointments, in spite of having the best of the intellectual argument: We have become progressively and increasingly disconnected from too many of the things that excite the hearts of ordinary people. I think it is entirely possible to be appropriately RESPECTFUL of this dramatic development, without going completely over-the-top into Fox News hyperbole.

 I'll admit, I don't know it that dynamic still holds. The Bush Administration and its many enablers have made such a mess of things,  that we have a good chance to win by default, if for no other better reason. Still, I think it remains a potential source of danger for progressive thinkers. I can only imagine what the great communicators of our recent past would have made of this story - Reagan, or even Clinton. They would have grasped INSTANTLY that this is "win/win" in every sense of the word, and would have acted immediately to get ahead of the parade

It seems to me it would be not only a GOOD thing, but a SMART thing, if Sen. Obama and his supporters would unleash some of his considerable rhetorical skills to address this matter. It may not seem exciting in the classroom or at the policy seminar, but there are only so many votes you can get in those places. Many more are available in places where this story has positive power to legitimately stir people.

 As I understand it, Clark said approximately the following, on one or the other quote-factory Sunday shows (or maybe it was some other day, or some other place - I get a little confused by all this extraneous noise, and it doesn't matter anyway). Anyhow, somewhere he said that getting shot out of an airplane doesn't qualify you to be President. Close enough?

I continue to ask myself what is even remotely controversial about that self-evident assertion. Isn't this (at worst) just an unusually blunt rendering of something we all know is true? A mild rebuke to McCains's implicit and incessant claims to relevant miltary heroism (assuming one accepts the  proposition that what he did in Vietnam was genuinely"heroic",  in the normally accepted sense of the word?).  That is "news"? Something Obama should "respond" to, or "distance himself" from, and all of us should take to keyboards to "debate" or "defend"?

No, actually, it isn't. This isn't a "controversial" or even an especially debatable thing to say. We're being bamboozled yet again by a sort of TOPIC INFLATION:  In a lackluster Presidential campaign of unusual early torpor, this one pathetic little ember is all the chance we have at the moment of temporarily blowing-up a small, warming fire. I'm sure all the usual suspects are desperately puffing away at it: Chris and Keith and Sean and Rush and Bill and Wolf, and all the others  who must make a living trying to fan every mildly noteworthy moment of surpassing ordinariness into something "important".  I basically don't KNOW whether they are or not, because I have made a conscious decision to quit wasting my time on all that predictable gibberish. There are better places to learn what you really DO need to know, at half or a fourth the investment in time. Meanwhile, my yard looks a lot better,  my bills are paid on time, and I'm able to give a little serious thought to my OWN notions about priorities in this election.

Somewhere along the remaining Election 2008 path, there's BOUND to be some REAL news, as hard as that may be to believe at the moment - after all, we have to vote in November.  My suggestion is that you'll know that when you see it. Until then, avoid these monotonous, energy-sapping faux fights over nothing. Let the cable news hucksters do what they do in oblivion (where they belong), and go about the public duty of getting yourself truly INFORMED about the things that really matter, in places that really care about genuine information.

It's a genuinely patriotic decision that you won't regret.  Take my word for it.

I see the theme constantly repeated in here that Sen. Clinton is dishonest, corrupt, morally reprehensible, etc. I've heard words like "witch" (and actually much, much worse) used over and over. For a forum such as TPM that likes to flatter itself as being a cut above the average in intellect and decorum, I've seen REMARKABLY little effort to offset this childish venom with more temperate, balanced commentary.

What can I say in response?  Just this: Sen. Clinton got nearly 18 MILLION votes, including MY vote. {Don't worry, I'm not entering the "popular vote" swamp: they got more or less equal totals, (and who cares, anyway?)}. That is a lot of votes, is my whole point.

Yet there remain those in large numbers on Sen. Obama's (barely)winning side, who CONTINUE to suggest that those of us who lost with Sen. Clinton were not just (barely) wrong, but something much WORSE: corrupt, or crooked, or morally deficient, or depraved. You don't just show insufficient respect for our losing candidate when you talk like that, you show insufficient respect for US - all 18 million of us.

Do Sen. Obama and his supporters seriously believe they can win this thing without bringing a fair majority of us along with them? If they believe (correctly, in my view) that they ARE going to need our help to a considerable extent, can someone explain to me how this holier-than-thou, incendiary approach is helpful in that regard?

People are more than just the sum of their "political" parts. Certainly, we all have our various political beliefs, and we tend to give these due weight in our voting decisions. It's EQUALLY true that being flesh-and-blood,  fallible human beings, our voting decisions are based  as well on more mysterious intangibles: We like or dislike someone. We like or dislike their  loudest supporters. Fear, prejudice, anger, PRIDE: All these play a role as well. Sen. Obama has a headstart with most of us in the pure "issues" element, but I'm not at all sure that that is enough just by itself. The basic chemistry of this marriage of convenience is going to have to improve, if its full potential benefits are to be realized.  There may be those who sincerely believe that doesn't matter. You won, that's your right. I respectfully disagree, and I think the bill for that miscalculation, if it is allowed to stand, will come due in November.

The bulk of recent polling seems to suggest that Sen. Clinton continues to fare better than Sen. Obama in a general election scenario. What ABOUT that?

So no one feels compelled to waste a lot of their time or mine on the packaged responses, let me stipulate the obvious: ALL such polls at this point are speculative. There are a lot of things still to be determined, and much water to flow under the bridge, prior to a final hardening of opinions in October/November.

Nevertheless, there they sit. In Electoral Vote projections in particular, Sen. Clinton (her many real interparty and national image problems not withstanding) polls notably better: I've seen data projecting her to carry over 300 EV.  First, WHY is that? Second, does that matter? Third, SHOULD that matter?

If Sen. Obama is the awaited one that so many of his suporters seem to think he is, why is he having so many problems getting on TOP of the tidal wave that everyone in chatter-town is sure will carry Democrats to total victory in November? Is it just possible that Democrats are too preoccupied with intramural navel-gazing to recognize that our chances in November are by no means a sure thing, and that Sen. Obama in particular may face serious obstacles in carrying the country?

Let me name just 3 such obstacles:

(1)Thru no one's fault in particular, the Democratic Primary has metasticized into a discussion about the grievances of RACE and GENDER. I think many everyday voters are (at best)  indifferent to that debate, and at worst, actively HOSTILE to it. I do NOT mean to say they are either racist or sexist.  It's just that we have $4/gal. gasoline; a war in Iraq;  and many well-documented problems in health care, home mortgages, inflation, and many other substantive areas of everyday American life.  I wonder if Americans aren't weary with all forms of high-minded moral crusade, and genuinely more interested in down-to-earth problem-solving?

(2)It seems almost certain that Democrats will make significant Congessional gains.  A good thing for the Presidential race? Maybe, maybe not: The public has often shown a certain cranky genius for getting things lined-up EXACTLY the way it wants them. What it often "wants'" is a little of this and a little of that - a course-correction, without throwing the whole machine into reverse. To quote Sam Rayburn, "When you get a really big majority, that's when you know you're in trouble." I think there is an important segment of public opinion that sees it the same way.

(3)The so-called "Appalachian" problem is a concern:  First, it isn't just something confined to a few remote areas in West Virginia. Something like 15 states touch parts of the Appalachian Region, and the "mountain" vote is an important factor in most of them. Second, the "problem" is essentially cultural. It relates more to a state of mind than it does to geography. Where Sen. Obama finds that reaction directly in the Appalachians, he is apt to find it indirectly elsewhere in the country.

I resort to "blogs" (Where on earth did that word come from?) because I like to write , and because I think I occasionally have something interesting to contribute to the discussion.

At the best of times, I'm uncomfortable with the "mob" behavior so commonly exhibited on these sites .  When something like today's scarecrow "crisis"  - the Clinton/RFK "news" - inflates itself to crowd  all the air out of any chance for real thought about matters of real importance, I find myself doubly embarrassed. I feel like one of the pitchfork-wielding villagers in the old Frankenstein movies, just by virtue of the fact that ANY participation in this zoo exhibitit (even to oppose) feels cheap. My only consolation is that this balloon will burst in a day or two, and we can all get back to baling hay and feeding the livestock.

I'm reminded of the line in Yeats' famous poem:

"The worst are full of passionate intensity,
While the best lack all conviction." 

Sen. Clinton has an unfortunate habit, for a public political person: She talks too much in public when she's tired, and sometimes loses that self-editing function that keeps the kind of dumb things we ALL are prone to say confined to appropriate private settings. That is a serious political liability, and she is already paying a steep price for it.

What it is NOT, is any implication whatsoever that she wishes RFK's tragic fate on Sen. Obama. That is a criminal distortion of what was actually said. Anyone who is feigning indignation on that false basis to score a "point" is contemptible. (Not being a licensed physician, I have no adequate way of describing those who actually BELIEVE it).

I suggest (futilely I know, but in good faith) that we give it a break. We're making fools of ourselves. Any normal person reading this dialogue on this holiday weekend would cite us all for legal commitment. Let this thing blow over until something more substantial replaces it on Tuesday. Go grill a few hot dogs and drink a few beers.



.

Alexander the Great cut the Gordian Knot. He didn't try to untie it. Therefore:

(1)Select the person who (in the Presidential nominee's view) would make the best President.
 
When distracted from that purpose by the inevitable TV air-filling chatter of "experts",  intent mostly on showing us how clever THEY are:

(2)See #1 above.

 The last FOUR winning tickets avoided about 90% of the Chris Matthews-style kingmaker overload, and simply put a 3-wood in the center of the fairway with a solid complimentary choice. It's the LOSERS who invariably over-think it and strain for some kind of  phony"balance", or try (invariably forlornly) to steal a state.

Whatever you do, it's possible to either win or lose. Do either with your best game.

In the aftermath of Sen. Clinton's 250k win there, there has been considerable  commentary about various aspects of the state, the campaign, lessons to be drawn, etc. - some on the mark, more that is highly questionable, some comically ignorant. As one who has connections and roots in KY, and feels that he knows a thing or two about the place, let me try to address a few misconceptions as I see them -  I think it's important to base political strategy on actual TRUTHS as best you can, and not fall victim to perhaps comforting stereotypes, distortions, and myths:

(1)KY is not an "Appalachian" state, in the sense that neighboring WV is. KY has a large Appalachian region in its eastern third, but the remainder of the state is as different from that region as anywhere else in the country (in that sense, it has more in common with Virginia or North Carolina): Northern KY is basically Cinncinnati suburbs - the Ohio River is far  more of an influence there than the Appalachian Mountains. Louisville is widely regarded as one of the more progressive and cultured medium-sized cities in the country.  The central Bluegrass area around Lexington is either "college  town" , USA(7 or so in the general area), or alternatively, semi-aristocratic horse farm country. The approximate western third has its own culture and style, very different from the rest - almost Mid-Western in outlook.

(2)KY is not a "racist" state. Certainly there are racists there, but racial relations in general would stand well by comparison with either the Deep South or the big industrial northern cities.  It seems to me that this would be such a self-evident fact under normal circumstances, that I'm unsure how to debate it.

(3)KY is not a "Republican" state.  There has been ONE Republican governor there in the last 40 years (he was dismissed after one term in 2007).  The recent tendency in federal elections has been back toward Democrats, after a drift the other way going back to Reagan. The local apparatus (the Southeast excepted) is (and always has been) primarily Democratic. When the national Democratic Party gets a candidate in there who knows how to TALK to these voters (or even just CARES about talking to them), he wins. Bill Clinton did it twice. GW Bush (whatever his faults) did it twice as well. These guys know HOW to do it.

(4)Hillary Clinton most certainly COULD win KY, against Sen. McCain or any other Republican. To just dismiss it as "lost" for ANY Democrat is totally misguided.  I spent a lot of time "out there" during the recent Primary run-up. The Clintons in full campaign mode in that kind of setting are truly something to behold. I personally think Bill is more popular there than he ever was, and the Clintons (ALL of them) are the hardest working and most energetic political people I have ever seen. The 1992-2000 era is nearly universally regarded as some of the best times in the history of the state  (EXPLOSIVE applause every time it comes up).
 

Enough said. God forbid this should sound like one of those Chamber of Commerce brochures -  I'm personally indifferent to "image". People who live or spend time anywhere know it for what it is, and aren't much swayed by testimonials. My purpose here is plainly and simply to shine a light on some of the pertinent facts as I see them. If  I succeed in that effort, then Sen. Obama's advisers can't say they weren't told.

I no longer intend to weigh in on the "contest" aspects of Obama/Clinton. I have made my position clear on that (it is settled), and I won't recant.

I do reserve the right to come in here on occasion and try to answer any particularly egregious distortions that fall my way. One such case is the idea gaining support in here that Obama was beaten in West Virginia PRIMARILY because he is black, and was therefore done-in by "racists":  Lazy, junk thinking

Like almost any analytical point that can be made in these socio-political matters, this is partly true. The same is undeniably the case (in more or less degree) anywhere that  voters of ANY race gather anywhere in the country. How does one explain Obama's 90+% margin with black voters? "Issues"?  It's equally true that this greatly over-simplifies things on all sides, and leaves out a lot more pertinent information than it includes.

Such as (in Sen. Clinton's case):

(1)Sen. Obama hasn't TRIED. To a greater degree than most, politics in these areas is highly PERSONAL.  You'll get a lot further by getting in on the ground and demonstrating the type of everyday MAN you are, than by relying on TV ads, position-papers, or endorsements. People in West Virginia have to hear from YOU.

(2)LOYALTY is a stronger force in this region than in most other places. People in these often-disadvantaged areas remember Bill Clinton, and retain the good sense to think highly of him. He delivered, by simply helping them a little with some of their most pressing problems, and giving the impression that he genuinely understood them and cared about them. Much of what troubles more sophisticated types about the Clinton "brand" doesn't make much of a dent in the hill regions: Highly sophisticated in their own elemental way, people there have long ago lost any exalted, elevated ideas about "politicians", as about pretty much everything else in life. You get it done, or you don't. When you do, they don't forget.

Given more time,I could go on . I hope I've introduced just enough reality to serve as an antidote to the cartoons I see portrayed in here: Urban stereotypical pop-psychology, poorly disguised as genuine insight.

If you would really like to understand what goes on there (or anywhere else), GO there. Live there. Talk to actual people. Quit staring at your TV set or your computer screen, and get OUT there  and see something - ANYWHERE.
 
That's how you get real knowledge of real life to help you make practical judgements.

Some of you who follow TPM closely know that I have supported Sen. Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination.  I have made a dedicated effort on her behalf, in the sincere belief that in spite of her accompanying and even obvious disadvantages, she would on balance make the better President among the remaining candidates. I  believe that now.  Millions of others believe that with me - just not quite enough, in the final analysis.

Now is the time and here is the place to end it. There is no acceptable way left to get there from here.  Last night tipped all of us over a divide on the risk/reward scale. To soldier forward in  the face of this latest concrete evidence holds a certain romantic appeal to which I am as temperamentally inclined as anyone, but finally - no.  I could evaluate the numbers and produce a mathmatical "answer", but it's not about numbers. You  just get a feeling. Day before yesterday, my feeling said, "Maybe?" Today, it says, "No."  It's that simple.

Let me congratulate all the Democratic candidates for their participation in this dramatic and historic event. We have broken new ground. With a lot of hard work (and just a little bit of luck), we have a respectable chance of carrying this revolution all the way to the White House.

To those who have been with Sen. Obama all along, you got  it right, so far. So far. My sincere congratulations to all of you as well. You've earned an honest triumph. It's your game to win or lose now. Get to work, and Good Luck.

To those who weren't with Sen. Obama, give him a fair chance and the honest benefit of the doubt. He has successfully completed arguably the most historic and perhaps the most improbable primary campaign in history.
He vanquished the legend of modern Democratic politics in a fair fight. Whatever the perceived defects that kept you from him in  the first instance, it's clear he is enormouly gifted. He must be doing something right. Try to put aside your differences, and understand what that is.

Best wishes and best of luck to you all.

I think this is an essentially MINOR "issue", to be 100% honest. It is a brief opening salvo in the coming serious and comprehensive debates on overall Energy Policy. It will probably not be enacted. It would have minor impact in EITHER direction if it were (although I guess it's hard to argue with  the, "every little bit helps" school of thought). It won't bankrupt the highway fund. The media herd will lumber off after something else before very long.

Most importantly,it won't confirm the worst fears of Sen. Obama and his supporters: (ie, That the rubes will rush-out en masse, keys in hand, to go vote for Hillary, and then spend the rest of the day oblivously cruising the strip in their 4WDs).

In really sustantive terms, it is pretty much a tempest in a teapot. There IS a certain symbolic value to it: It does tend to reinforce the vague idea that Sen. Clinton is a down-to-earth "doer", in touch with the masses, while Sen. Obama is a head-in-the-clouds "talker", more worried about the bean-counters than the problems of ordinary people.

It may move a few votes one way or the other, but it is unlikely to be decisive. No matter what happens, I'll be suprised if we're still discussing it in 2 weeks.

That said, I get a little tickled at the mass noise campaign to discredit the poor little fellow. It seems out of proportion to any possible substantive importance it might have  Its' value is basically political, in whatever sense you look at it. It's hard for me frankly to understand the commotion it has apparently caused.

When I make frankly cynical points, I'm even more than usually glad to be a Clinton supporter.  We're SUPPOSED to be cynical, so we get some slack for it.

Now to the business at hand:

(1)Lawyers choose language very carefully. When Sen. Obama says, "(Rev. Wright) is not the man I knew TWENTY YEARS ago.", what are we to take that to mean?  Am I alone in concluding that this is an artful way of letting the Senator off the hook for as far back as the last 19 years, right up until the day before yesterday?

(2) Let me state the obvious as a way to preface this next point: Sen. Obama (whatever his other merits and talents) is a political man in an intensely political situation. By definition, he MUST make political judgements about everything he says or does. Whatever other factors may justifiably be in play in his response to the Rev. Wright, it's surely plain to see that the POLITICS of the matter has to weigh heavily into his thinking. His decision (at this time, in this place) to overtly and publicly part ways with Rev. Wright is, first and foremost, a tactical political decision. He has actually been ADVISED to do so (for openly political reasons) by at least a half-dozen  commentators on this site alone.

No complaint here.  That's in the nature of the business, and one does what one must do to try to cut losses and trim liabilities. Now, here's the good part, keeping in mind that lawyers choose language very carefully: How does the Senator EXPLAIN this highly political act? Loosely paraphrasing, he says that he (Obama) got angry because the Rev. Wright suggested that he (Obama) was "political".

It doesn't get any better than this. The concept was highly artistic, and (so far, at least) very competently executed. He takes the somewhat obscure opening that Wright gave him in a passing remark, and focuses on it to blunt the anticipated obvious criticism he would get for "playing politics". Not only does he NOT do that (in his rendering), it actually angers him to the point of breaking a long-term relationship that anyone might even think he COULD do that.

Beautiful. Almost Clintonian.

In the event of a complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq:

What is Sen. Obama's specific policy with respect to the protection of Iraqi nationals who have either actively collaborated with, or otherwise provided  assistance to, American interests during the Iraq War?

I have heard former President Clinton adress this problem specifically and categorically on every occasion when the subject of Iraq comes-up.  He invariably makes the point that we have a moral obligation to these people, and that we must do everything necessary to assure their safety as a pre-conditon to disengaging from the country. I agree 100%, and I believe that is one of the most difficult issues to answer when we say (in effect), "Just get OUT!"

I have not heard Sen. Obama's position in similar clarity. I took the trouble to search his web-site, and found this issue mentioned (if at all) only obliquely and in vague generalities. Would someone with detailed knowledge of his positions please enlighten me? I would personally find it extremely hard to support ANY candidate for President who did not recognize and take detailed account of this obligation in any plan for Iraq.

Thank you in advance.

The obsessive over-reading of the most minute details of  the most obscure polls (and the conclusions we strain to draw from that activity) seems a little silly to me. It strikes me as similar to the "angels on heads of  pins" arguments that preoccupied an out-of-touch Middle Ages clergy. I suspect most of this kind of discussion tells us more about the commentator's observation and analytical skills,  than it actually tells us about the actual election.

That said, let me cut to the heart of the matter: I do not accept at this point that it is not possible for Sen. Clinton to get the nomination.

Here's my case: 

(1)Using the CNN delegate-tracker program (that's all), I've projected an admittedly hypothetical, but certainly not impossible outcome for the remaining primaries. (When I have no feeling at all about what might happen in a given state, I assign it 50/50):


Guam  50/50
NC     53/47  O
IND    52/48  C
WV    61/39   C
KY     64/36  C
O        50/50 
PR      58/42   C 
Mon    50/50
SD     50/50

Super Delegates: 308

This scenario puts Obama at 1910, Clinton at 1803

(2)If a Super Delegate is sitting there on June 4th looking at that outcome, what does he see? He sees that Obama has won ONE primary of  TEN held since March 12th:  A fairly close call, in a state he was supposed to win easily(NC). He sees that Clinton has won FIVE in that same interval, several in blow-out fashion. He recalls in his mind that Clinton actually DID win both Florida and Michigan, delegates or no - that is a "fact on the ground" that may or may not be a factor, but certainly cannot be forgotten.

(3)What is to prevent just 221 of those remaining Super Delegates (71.8%) from deciding that the landscape has shifted, and that the dynamics of the earlier part of the primary season no longer apply?  They have every right to do so if they choose, being under no obligation except to cast their vote in the best interest of the Democratic Party as they see it.

Before everyone  starts quibbling over different states, etc. let me again stipulate that this is only a hypothetical projection. I fully realize others may see it differently. The point is not that I claim to KNOW what is going to happen, it is the this seems to me a PLAUSIBLE possibility. I could actually make it potentially even better for Sen. Clinton, but I think this example is a place I can get to without too much stretching.  

So what's wrong with this? It seems to me to make as much sense as projecting any OTHER outcome.

If I were a gloating type (I'm truly not), I guess I would be fighting that urge right now.  I know that there is a certain vocal segment of Sen. Obama's support who just cannot accept the fact that this nomination is still an open question. I understand that there are those of you out there who sincerely believe that the notorious Clintons are on the verge of stealing Sen. Obama's rightful possesion right out of his pocket. If so, they have 1.3 million co-conspirators right there in Pa., and many more down the road.

I don't know what to say to you, except to quote Emanual Lasker, the early 20th century World Chess Champion: 

Commenting on the Grandmaster tradition of the "won game" (the idea that the trailing player concedes in a clearly "lost" technical position), Lasker said (some liberties for mild paraphrasing), "Rubbish! There is NO SUCH THING as a "won game". Every chess game is a battle from start to finish, with CHECKMATE the final arbiter. No one gets any points for what he 'should' have done."

I don't know if Hillary Clinton ever played chess or read Lasker, but I think she gets the idea. So do I. Everyone has their excuses, good reasons why they should have and could have done better, but the book says +10 for Sen. Clinton, and it's time to move on.

It's bound to get REALLY ugly. Say what you will about my candidate, she's a fighter who doesn't know the meaning of "quit", and who is already thinking about getting up as she is headed to the canvas. Your candidate is going to have to prove that he has those qualities, too.  I'll probably say some things in the heat of anger that I'll regret. I assume some of you will do the same. Let's just console ourselves by realizing that we in the midst of an epic, probably historic battle,with implications for years ahead  -  it doesn't get much better or more fun than that.

...whether anyone else does or not. I know that is not a popular position to take in this forum, but no matter.  I am  indifferent to being thought of as "popular", here or elsewhere. If I were to be acquire an interest in being regarded that way, this is not the place I would target to confirm my reputation to myself or to others.

Anyway,

Bill Clinton is to me the finest President of my life-time. I think it is entirely possible he has slipped a step: He has had serious health problems, and he is in his 60's. That said, he continues to perform at a level that few of us can match, either intellectually or in terms of pure physical stamina. He starts early, and stays very late. All the while, he deals with the kind of benign chaos that routinely follows his every step. He manages his foundation work, and  I suspect - knowing him - many other things that are properly  his business, and some things that probably aren't. In the many thousands of words he has recently uttered in the service of his wife's campaign, he has made a few mistakes. That is the price of being "IN" there, and actually trying to DO high-level things in the public arena.

Now, I hear utterances like "...sad...", or "You're better than this".  I don't like these condescending insinuations, not least because they sound CANNED to me - the sort of thing that would be covertly e-mailed around as a kind of "acceptible" way to shiv the former President. They are more than a little patronizing as well, directed toward one who has achieved more positive results in  his most slack months than the great majority of the rest of us will achieve in a lifetime -  and who (even in his more limited current status)  has forgotten more about public policy matters than the bulk of us ever knew to begin with.

Like I say, I'm indifferent to what follows here. Comment if you please, but try to do so in some detail, or with some kind of intention of an honest dialogue, or to make a sincere point. Don't waste your time or mine on snippy little high-school asides for the bleachers, or the predictable, repetitive boilerplate we've all heard a thousand times, and long ago made-up our minds about.  If I see something I think I can onstructively comment on, I may be back, but I make no promises.