Impossible Scissors

With a Hitler-esque smiley face and the title "Liberal Fascism" gracing the cover, a casual political observer might view Jonah Goldberg's new tome as a work of contradictory hyperbole. But after reading the introduction, it becomes clear that Goldberg is laying out a serious and somewhat-scholarly argument that modern American liberalism is a sibling of the Fascist movements that swept Italy and Germany prior to World War II. His central thesis is that, while "fascism" is a political movement with no agreed-to definition, it can best be summarized as "the religion of the state." The book's title comes from a speech by socialist author H.G. Wells, and the cover illustration was suggested by George Carlin during the course of an anti-Bush tirade.

Part partisan-polemic and part historical exposition, Liberal Fascism looks at the philosophies that fed into American progressivism (from the French Revolution to the writings of Georges Sorel) and argues that the same beliefs underpinned the European fascists. Jonah Goldberg does not argue that fascism is inherently-evil; he simply claims that it is similar to the economic planning and government interventionism that are advocated by progressives and modern liberals. He also tries to dispel the belief that fascism and communism are polar opposites; that fascism is a nationalist-socialism while Leninist communism takes more of an internationalist flavor, but Goldberg argues that both are populist and leftist movements.

In response to Sinclair Lewis's anti-fascist It Can't Happen Here, Jonah Goldberg points out that it HAS happened here. Whether you call it Wilsonian war socialism, the New Deal, the Great Society, or Compassionate Conservatism, America has often strayed from its founding principles of limited government in the form of "smiley-face, nice fascism."

The book's strongest suit is the fascinating history it dredges up, exposing historical facts that have been swept under the rug (such as Nazi animal-rights laws, or Rexford Tugwell's admission that the New Deal was a logical extension of Hoover Administration policies.) But the demands of brevity and the need to selectively choose historical facts to fit the thesis often erode the historical discussion. Goldberg often speaks in generalities and omits concrete examples when making his points. His chapter on "Liberal Racism" and eugenics could have benefited by talking about America's flirtations with imperialism at the turn of the last century, particularly in regards to the Philippines.

In spite of its partisan pretenses, Liberal Fascism is an entertaining and educational read. The hyperbole suggested by the cover is kept in check repeatedly throughout the text with sober assessments and monologues on the points the author wants the reader to take away. I give it four of five stars, but I'd only recommend it to libertarians and conservative believers in small government. Jonah Goldberg argues very effectively that the Italian and German fascist movements sprang from the same progressive ideals that were active in America, albeit with a twist imposed by the cultural conditions that existed in Italy and Germany between the World Wars. While he attempts to label fascism as a movement of the political left, he inadvertently demonstrates how the labels of "left" and "right" are utterly devoid of meaning in our society.

In a major foreign policy address today, Senator John McCain called for a "League of Democracies" that would address the world's problems. It's unclear if this would be a formal alliance, but it would appear to offer a stark difference from the perceived unilateralism of the Bush Administration. But in a sense it represents a similar preference to President Bush's formations of "Coalitions of the Willing" rather than working with the United Nations.

Whether formal or informal, a "League of Democracies" has potential to be a much greater force for good than the United Nations. Because the UN has always grouped together nations with diametrically-opposed interests, it has rarely become more than a debating society or a humanitarian organization. The future of American foreign policy must see the country cooperating with nations that share our common values, in pursuit of common interests. Senator McCain foresees such a league as a means of fighting the global spread of AIDS, alleviating the suffering in Darfur, and even combating climate change (hopefully in a more equitable manner than the Kyoto Accord, in which China was relieved of all responsibility for fighting emissions.)

For the far right, the League of Democracies is one step closer to a "One World Government." For the far left, a League of Democracies undermines the UN (which assumes the UN is much more effective than it actually is,) and excludes "Illiberal Democracies." For example, Iran is nominally democratic, but the elected leadership serves at the pleasure of the clerical autocracy. And the appearance of democracy in Putin's Russia seems to crumble on a daily basis as freedoms erode. For that reason, I would favor an informal "League of Democracies" that is assembled on an issue-by-issue basis, rather than a standing body whose membership is open for acrimonious debate.

In some ways, a League of Democracies already exists. It's called NATO, and its chief drawback is that it only applies to the US, Canada and Europe. I have long thought that NATO should be replaced with a new alliance between the current NATO nations and other democracies like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and India. Such an alliance would be better equipped to deal with the global threats posed by terrorism, rogue states, and humanitarian crises.

***********************************************************************************
Post script: Impossible Scissors is proud to add Meghan McCain's blog, McCain Blogette, to the blogroll. It's a quirky and somewhat-irreverent look from the inside of the McCain campaign.

The recent fighting between the Mahdi Army and US & Iraqi forces, taking place in key Shiite cities across Iraq, represents a critical moment in the recent history of that nation, and is probably the most worrisome point in that war in at least a year.

At stake is the cease-fire with the Mahdi Army that has helped to make the country more peaceful during the past six months. The current violence stems in part from the militia's resistance to US-backed operations against "rogue groups," the milspeak used for Iranian-backed militiamen who operate outside of Moqtada al Sadr's authority. At this point I am surprised that Moqtada al Sadr even considers the cease-fire to still be in effect.

The fighting in the southern city of Basra represents an effort by the Maliki government and the army to act against the militias in a way that benefits the Iraqi nation. The Iraqi Army must be able to pull off large-scale counterinsurgency operations, with little support from the US, in order for America to begin substantial drawdowns. The Faustian bargain here is that the Iraqi army and government are trying to assert themselves in a way that could potentially shatter the fragile peace brought on by the surge.

Tonight, PBS concluded its special two-part episode of Frontline which chronicled the battle for Iraq. One of the most striking aspects in the documentary recalls the instances in summer and fall 2003, when Jerry Bremmer and LtGen Ricardo Sanchez argued for an Iraqi-led operation to neutralize Modtada al Sadr. While the two men could agree on little during their service in Iraq, they both saw the once-obscure cleric as a ruthless killer who represented a long-term threat to Iraq's stability. On the other side of the token, both Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld (who, like Bremer & Sanchez, could find little common ground,) tragically let the requests to eliminate Moqtada fall on deaf ears. America now finds itself in a situation where this unpredictable and audacious cleric with Iranian backing is feeding off Shiite frustrations and challenging the authority of the Baghdad government.

If the cease-fire breaks, the results will probably not bode well for America's long-term plans. If past experience is an indicator, the Mahdi Army consists of zealous masses with little ability to make a military impact. They will take massive casualties and retreat until they seek shelter in religious shrines. But a large-scale Shiite uprising will dash any hopes of holding provincial elections this fall, and any chance that oil legislation will pass through the parliament that has so many Sadrists in its ranks. It will likely inspire simultaneous revolts by Sunni groups who are losing patience with America, and allow al Qaeda to take advantage of the chaos.

The Iraqi Government and Iraqi Army do need to assert themselves with victories over enemies that all Iraqis despise, like al Qaeda. But Moqtada al Sadr has too much popular support to allow the Iraqi Army to go toe-to-toe with his militia. He can only be discredited when the Iraqi Government and Iraqi Army rise up to meet the needs of the people.

"I Will Choose Christ" is a commonly-played Catholic hymn written by Tom Booth; it’s a personal favorite of mine. I think the song is particularly poignant because it refers to the choice we must all make regarding Jesus Christ.

For years I have struggled with what it means to be a Christian. For a long time I thought that it entailed standing in opposition to anything that went against traditional Christian teachings. But I feel much wiser now. Christianity is about our personal choice to follow the teachings of Jesus. If we are dour and condescending to people who do not choose the path of Christ, we are nothing better than "Cactus Christians," as a friend of mine would say. Our actions should instead serve as an example of silent strength, much as Jesus served as teacher to his disciples over 2,000 years ago.

Regardless of your faith or whether you accept Jesus as the Son of God, I feel that He serves an an example for all mankind to follow. Let’s look at the historical Jesus for a minute. He arrived at a time when the Jewish people were growing restless about Roman occupation. Rather than coming as a militant revolutionary, He preached a message of love that would transcend his death and eventually overcome the Roman Empire.

Jesus taught us how to find peace within men and to build peace between men. His lessons were simple but revolutionary. Stand up to your oppressors without resorting to violence. Comply with civil authorities as long as you can maintain the faith. Forgive those who hurt us, and carry no grudges. Be kind, generous and sincere to others. Have faith that Our Father will cast off the chains of our suffering on this earth when we reach the next life. These lessons can be applied by all mankind for the betterment of our existence.

My realization of who Jesus really is helped me comes to grips with what Christianity should be. It’s not a cudgel for wielding against non-Christians, or those who wander astray from The Teacher. It’s a way of life that must be a conscious choice. How many times have I been quick to anger, or carry a grudge, or wanted to take things into my own hands?

I will be the last to claim that I am a model Christian, or even an acceptable Christian. But I know with certainty that my life would be even more miserable if I acted on all of my unhealthy passions instead of the level-headed responses that Jesus would preach to us.

From this point on, I will do my best to choose Christ in all my decisions. I am weak and erring, and I will undoubtedly stray from this path. But I intend to give it my best effort. I want to build peace within myself, and peace between myself and others. I hope I can set a positive example and do my best to walk in the footsteps of The Teacher.

Have a blessed Easter 2008, and may the teachings of Jesus be alive in your hearts.

Much has been written about how we are now entering the sixth year of Operation Iraqi Freedom (with some of the more insightful pieces here, here, here, and here; my favorite book on the subject can be purchased here.) The inevitable question is, now that we're this deep in, how much longer will we be in it for?

Before addressing that question, I wanted to look at where I was five years ago. In short, I was a naive child who believed America could truly improve the world by forcing the abdication of Saddam Hussein. I had mixed feelings about the operation as a whole, because our leaders didn't bring the full force of diplomacy to bear before entering this conflict. I felt that if we had made the right concessions and got the world community on board, we could have forced a peaceful abdication of the Iraqi strongman and rebuilt Iraq in an international fashion. But I bought into the hype of Saddam's imminent danger and thought that action now was better than no action at all. In the administration's view, I was a useful idiot.

As I began taking classes for my international relations minor, I cringed as the bloody lessons of the Philippines and Vietnam were willfully ignored by both the political and military leadership. I looked at the examples of postwar Japan and Germany, held up as examples of postwar nation-building, and realized that even if relative peace exists, it can take at least a decade to create a functional democracy.

For all the anger about Weapons of Mass Destruction (which, in spite of all the insinuations, was a ruse created by Saddam Hussein and believed by all the world's major intelligence agencies,) the American people should direct their anger at the ideological naivete of an administration that believed nation-building could be achieved quickly and cheaply, in terms of dollars and lives. This is all the more surprising in light of Candidate Bush's assertion back in 2000 that nation-building was not in America's interest.

But the American people should also look inwards and ask themselves why there was so little debate about the difficulties of nation-building in entering this war. Perhaps its because Americans are so ignorant of their history. The Philippine Insurrection of 1898-1902 is scarely covered in high school history classes, and the vast majority of education on World War II centers on the fighting rather than the rebuilding.

Another glossed-over lesson from history is the Soviet experience in Afghanistan from 1978-1988. While we may be well-intentioned in trying to bring democracy to Iraq, our situation is not too different from the one Soviets faced. At the same time, Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan started a chain of events that led to the collapse of Afghanistan's Soviet-backed government, civil war, the rise of the Taliban, and the 9/11 attacks.

Too many Americans are content to either forget the Soviet-Afghan war or believe that it can't repeat itself in Iraq. While al Qaeda and like-minded militants might form a small segment of the overall insurgency, their strength should never be underestimated. They have the zeal, resourcefulness, funding, and weaponry to create a Taliban-like enclave in Iraq. If left unchecked, they will succeed by intimidating Iraqis who have no will or means to fight back. Prior to the 2007 troop surge, this was exactly what was happening in places like Anbar, Diyala and Mosul. If America backs down now, al Qaeda will pick itself off the ropes and resume its war against anything it deems to be un-Islamic.

The question of how much longer America stays in Iraq will be determined by our leaders and their vision for what Iraq will become. But bearing in mind that the US Military still has significant numbers of personnel in Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea, the commitment could very well be open-ended. The goal should be to stay as long as Iraq's elected government will allow, in a capacity they deem necessary for the defense of the Iraqi nation.

Maintaining a large military buildup in Iraq over the long term is untenable from a budgetary standpoint, and virtually all Americans realize that. America deserately wants to shift into a smaller advisory role, while allowing Iraqi combat forces to finish off a weakened but pernicious insurgency. The balancing act is between drawing down too slowly (creating an Iraqi dependence on the US for security) and drawing down too quickly (watching Iraq collapse into chaos.) But it's very possible that there will be a sizable American presence (>60K troops) in Iraq for the next several years, and a token force (still over 20K) for decades to come. The answer to the question depends on both the resolve of America's leaders, and the zeal of the Iraqi people for rebuilding their nation and avoiding sectarian score-settling.

In the grand scheme of things, terms like "victory" and "defeat" lose their meaning in the face of whether strategic goals have been achieved. The Bush Administration created exceedingly unrealistic goals when invading Iraq, and has paid a heavy price politically. The goal of a true liberal democracy in Iraq make take three decades or more to achieve, if South Korea is an example. But the goal of creating a reasonably-stable Iraq with power-sharing between the warring factions may be achievable within the next president's first term.

In spite of Harry Reid's declaration that "the war is lost" and Barack Obama's mantra of "failed policy," the judgement on whether the United States should have overthrown Saddam Hussein and attempted nation-building in Iraq is one that may not have a clear answer for decades. President Bush believes that the war was worth it; for today's generation that has made great sacrifices because of this war, their answer is likely the opposite. But the generations who condemned Truman's fight for Korea have yielded to generations of Koreans who live free today because of it. We can hope and pray that the same is true for the land between the rivers.

During the primary season, libertarian-leaning Ron Paul won a surprising amount of support. Primarily this was due to his staunch anti-war views, stemming from a libertarian opposition to intervening in the affairs of other nations. The Libertarian Party has established itself as strongly anti-interventionism and anti-war; this stance is what prevents me from declaring myself a "Libertarian" with a capital "L."

Another libertarian argument in favor of the current fight against international jihad is made by Newt Gingrich in the following video. The most relevant and poignant argument comes late in the speech, when he cites how quickly Americans would be willing to sacrifice their personal freedoms in the aftermath of an unspeakable terrorist attack.

Some would argue that the PATRIOT Act and NSA wiretapping already represent egregious abuses of our civil liberties in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. While I feel this legislation has done more good than harm for most Americans, I can't deny that there have been abuses of federal power against American citizens since the crackdown on domestic terrorism began. And while I don't feel that the PATRIOT Act is particularly offensive, I can easily foresee a much more oppressive series of law-enforcement measures (perhaps even martial law) being passed in the wake of an attack involving nuclear or biological weapons against a major population center.

Picking fights abroad is not line with libertarian principles. But backing down from the fights we're already involved in should offend libertarians as well. Whether invading Afghanistan and Iraq was a proper course of action is not relevant to the current debate; the question is whether we're willing to risk further attacks by allowing those states to fail (as post-Soviet Afghanistan did.)

If quitting today's battles abroad leads to future losses of freedom at home, we are only playing into the hands of totalitarianism. America is all about freedom, America is too precious to cave in during the thick of the fight, and American freedom is worth the fighting for.

Barack Obama is taking John McCain to task for opposing the tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 but supporting them now. The question must be asked, is John McCain a waffle king, pandering to the Republican base now that he's their nominee? Or is there a good reason for changing his tune?

Back in 2001, the economy was still fairly strong prior to the 9/11 attacks. It was pretty clear the dot-com bubble was going to burst, but the market really didn't start to slide until Summer 2002, in the wake of major corporate collapses at Enron, Tyco and Worldcom. In 2001, there was a budget surplus. The question facing lawmakers was whether it was best to cut taxes, spend the surplus on a perscription drug benefit for Medicare, or pay down the national debt. While paying down the debt was the most fiscally-conservative thing to do at the time, Congress and the president settled on tax cuts first, followed by the perscription drug plan later.

By 2003, the economy was starting to show signs of improvement. Unemployment numbers were starting to go down and the market showed signs of life again. It's questionable whether the stimulus provided by the 2003 tax cuts played a significant factor in the strong economic years of 2004-2006.

But with signs of recession now sprouting up all around, we have to question the wisdom of repealing the tax cuts now. In a season when Americans have made the economy their biggest concern, is it wise to start promoting higher taxes? While Barack and Hillary will claim that it's a tax hike "for the wealthy," most Americans will not be able to escape unscathed from the sunset of the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts.

Other elements of the Obama spending proposals don't add up, either. While fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is placing a drain on the budget, it's unreasonable to think that the budget can be balanced by simply "phasing them out." The combined cost of the wars comes to around $170 billion per year, funding approximately 190,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assuming that all "combat" forces went home from Iraq, there would still be 60-80,000 troops left behind to perform limited, supporting missions. And if Barack Obama is serious about his rhetoric of escalating the fight in Afghanistan, the total reduction in deployed military forces could be even smaller than 80,000.

Even assuming that the number of deployed troops was cut in half, the total savings would be less than half the current cost. Much of that $170 billion cost is fixed, with little bearing on the number of troops who are deployed to the theater.

In this time of both economic stagnation and rising federal deficits, Americans have to accept sizable cuts in domestic spending if they want a strong economy and a balanced budget. You can't tax your way out of this recession, but you can't strengthen the dollar if you continue spending money you don't have.

I've been closely following the rebuilding the Chicago Bears have been doing in the offseason. Considering the "curse" that befalls teams in the season after losing the Super Bowl, the Bears probably beat the odds by finishing 7-9. But some of the offensive personnel moves they've made since then have me wondering whether GM Jerry Angelo and Coach Lovie Smith have a clear idea of what the strategy is for returning to the winning ways of old.

Quarterbacks
Kyle Orton should be the future of this team. Bear football has historically favored quarterbacks who hand-off more often than pass, and avoid making big mistakes when they do choose to pass. Kyle Orton showed this tendency as a starter in 2005, and his performance in the last three games of 2007 also demonstrated that his arm has developed.

In the same vein, Rex Grossman is not what the Bears need in a quarterback. If Grossman had entered the free-agent market, I doubt that any other team would have picked him up.

Trading Brian Griese doesn't make much sense if Kyle Orton is going to be your starter. He worked well with Orton during practices, using his experience to mature the team's future starter. But now Brian Griese has a chance to go back to Tampa and possibly regain his starting position from the aging Jeff Garcia.

I guess the Bears QB situation could be worse. They could spend a lot of money trying to acquire Donovan McNabb. While Donovan wants to return to his hometown and play, it appears that his best playing days are behind him. Then again, the Bears have a history of spending lots of money on players who have jumped the shark (Rick Mirer, Edgar Bennett, and Cordell Stewart, to name a few.)

Running Backs
In order to return to Bears-style football, the Bears need a top-name halfback. Trading Thomas Jones was probably the worst mistake the team made after losing the Super Bowl. Cedric Benson just doesn't have what it takes to carry an offense. GM Jerry Angelo is being very diplomatic by saying that Benson will have to compete for the starter job.

Garrett Wolfe had a decent rookie season, and he holds a lot of potential for 2008. Adrian Peterson can really move a pile in short yardage situations, and he can take some of the pressure off the starting running back. But the Bears really need a big-name, veteran rusher. Michael Turner's recent departure for the Falcons is a major missed opportunity for the Bears.

Receivers
I don't view the departures of Muhsin muhammad or Bernard Berrian as big losses for the Bears. Moose didn't make too many receptions per game and was overpaid. Berrian was a good receiver whose inability to reign in crucial passes prevented him from being great.

Marty Booker is coming back to the Bears as a fan-favorite. Having been traded to Miami for Adewale Ogunlye in 2004, he comes back as an older but hopefully wiser player. Hopefully it will be wisdom, rather than fatigue, which characterizes Marty Booker's second stint with the Bears.

There's a possibility that Devin Hester will move up as a starting wide receiver. I do not want to see this happen. First, it will burn him out as the most explosive kick return man in football. Second, the attempts to use Hester for screen passes and other short-yardage plays last season didn't work out well. When defenses see Hester, they're going to smother him. Hester was most effective when he was used sparingly. Taking defenses by surprise, he could streak downfield, burn his defenders, and catch the deep passes. There was no better example of this than the first Vikings game, when Brian Griese tossed a deep bomb to Hester to tie the game late in the 4th quarter.

I also think that Rashid Davis will step up, and the tight ends (Dez Clark & Greg Olsen) will be favorite targets of either Kyle Orton or Rex Grossman. Greg Olsen had a great rookie season, and could fill the mold of the tough Bears tight end that was created by Mike Ditka.

Offensive Line
Rebuilding is definitely called for on the offensive line. Between John Tait, Fred Miller & Roberto Garza, the Bears lost hundreds of yards for dumb penalties.

Defense
Defensively, I think the Bears will be in good shape as long as they can stay healthy. Losing key defensive starters early in the season really hurt last year's Bears. Re-signing Lance Briggs and ending that media circus can only be good for the team. Brian Urlacher will be phenomenal once he's fully recovered from postseason surgery. But the Bears will have to do a much better job in forcing fumbles and interceptions this season, something they did well in 2005 & 2006 but not in 2007.

Conclusion
The Bears have historically been a franchise that has favored hard-nosed running on offense and stifling on defense. There is a chance this season's Bears will return to form, but it requires the right acquisitions on offense and a healthy defense. Neither is assured right now. The direction of the offense is currently being dictated by offensive coordinator Ron Turner, whose reputation is for running the same play s that get stuffed until they finally work. If Turner is replaced and the acquisitions can be made, the Bears could seriously contend against the Lions and Vikings for NFC North dominance this season.

I'm amused at all the Congressional anger at John McCain relating to the Air Force's selection of Airbus over Boeing for its new refueling aircraft. The rage seems to be coming mostly from Washington State and Kansas (homes to the plants where Boeing would have built its tankers) and Chicago (home of Boeing's corporate headquarters.) McCain's backing comes from Alabama, where final assembly of the Airbus planes will take place.

Implied in the criticism is that John McCain should have never scuttled the 2002-3 dealings to lease refueling planes from Boeing. But let's take a look at the history of the lease. Darleen Druyun, the top Air Force procurement official at the time, was secretly negotiating for a job as a Boeing executive. In court testimony, she admitted that she padded the terms of the lease as a reward to Boeing. She and Boeing's Chief Financial Officer, Michael Sears, went to prison for their gross violations of procurement laws.

Can anybody in their right mind tell me why it's John McCain's fault that Boeing isn't building tanker aircraft? As a taxpayer, I'm glad that Sen. McCain stood up against this prime example of wasteful spending and corporate welfare.

In the aftermath of the lease's collapse, the Pentagon decided that buying aircraft outright would be more cost-effective, and sponsored an open competition between Boeing and Airbus. The Air Force source selection board felt that Airbus offered an all-around advantage to the people who will actually be using it to fly and fight. Blast that John McCain for playing a small role in getting a better airplane to America's airmen!

There are tradeoffs involved in any selection of this nature. The 767 production line will probably shut down soon. Jobs may be lost, but many of them can transfer to the new 787 program. Jobs will be created in Alabama, and it may form the basis of continued domestic assembly of Airbus jets. Kansas-based aerospace workers will probably be hit hard, as Boeing's contractors in that state planned on performing the conversion work to turn a 767 into a tanker.

America is a capitalist system that is supposed to see the superior product win in competition. John McCain is being blamed for choosing competition over protectionism. If Boeing is to survive as a competitor, they will have to dust themselves off and offer up a superior product. If they had offered a tanker variant of the larger 777, they might not be in this situation. If they come back with a tanker based on the 787, they might have a shot at future production.

A resurgent Hillary Clinton won Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island last night, showing to her fellow Democrats that she's not done yet (despite Barack Obama's lead in terms of delegates.)

As a McCain supporter, I've become more sympathetic to Hillary because I perceive she would be an easier opponent in the general election (her polarizing nature would energize Republicans who would otherwise not be motivated to vote for John McCain.) But as a logical voter who realizes that both Barack and Hillary have a good chance of being our next president, I prefer Hillary on the basis of her experience in federal government.

As we march towards the conclusion of the Democratic Primaries, it appears that Barack's delegate lead is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. It would appear that Hillary's narcissism is running directly against the best interests of the Democratic party. If she truly can't win, she should step aside so Barack can focus on the general election (which will be close, despite what the pundits say. After all, John McCain can run against the lack of action taken by Senate Democrats over the last two years.) But Hillary badly wants to be president. She might want the presidency so badly that she would sabotage an Obama candidacy, just so the door will still be open to a Hillary run in 2012 against incumbent President McCain.

At the rate the primaries are going, the Dems won't know who their candidate will be until the conventions later this summer. For the first time in my lifetime, the nominating convention will be more than just show. The smoke-filled backrooms will be relevant again, with all manner of shady deals being made in order to get the magic number of delegates. Not only will the vaunted "superdelegates" be in play, but the delegates from states like Florida (which were penalized for holding an early primary) might come back into play.

It's a political junkie's fantasy, and a Democrat-partisan's worst nightmare, playing out on our televisions. This will be a presidential campaign for the ages. But with so much at stake in the next election, the drama is understandable.

Even as a Bears fan, I was saddened to learn that Brett Favre is retiring after 17 seasons as an NFL quarterback. While he was the engineer of many a Bears humiliation (especially during the Wannstedt years,) he played with a lot of character and resolve. Overcoming the ill effects of a car accident, the subsequent addiction to painkillers, and his wife's cancer, he shattered records (including the career touchdown passing record,) won three MVP awards, won a Super Bowl and played in a second one. Yet the most courageous moment of his storied career was probably the Monday night game following his father's passing, when he put on a memorable showing in a Packers' rout.

Brett Favre's retirement is all the more surprising when considering the momentum he built over the last few seasons. After going a dismal 4-12 in 2005, he led his team to an even record in 2006, then made it all the way to the NFC Championship in the season that just transpired. After coming so close to the Super Bowl, most commentators (myself included) believed that Brett's will to win would convince him to take another shot and play for another season. But Brett knows what it takes to succeed in this league, and I think he believes last season's Packers peaked out in terms of their potential.

Nevertheless, Brett Favre will be sorely missed on gameday. His last season was a record breaking and memorable one, driven mainly by the sheer force of Brett Favre's desire to win.