* Defense - (who's not in bed or on the board of a Defense contractor???)
* Agriculture - Jim Hightower
* Homeland Security - Gary Hart
* Interior - Robert Redford
* Energy - Mark Farber
* Justice - Ralph Nader
* Commerce - Paul Krugman
* Health and Human Services - Hillary Clinton

heh.

Wait! I've got it!

Sect'y of Defense - Mike Tyson!

He can't have ties to ANYbody or anything; the guy went through 300 million and came out empty-handed...

...which is sort of the perfect qualification for head of DOD.

I can't say I agree with all your choices, Shark, But Tyson now ... pure genius!

Justice - Eliot Spitzer
Interior - Al Gore

So far this is what I really like:

Defense - Colin Powell
Homeland Security - Gary Hart
Interior - Al Gore

Startin' to look good, folks!

How about State?

I think one of the key things that should be done immediately is to get into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as "honest brokers" again (no neocons need apply).

If we can do that, we can move a lot of the Arab world back towards our side.

I think one of the key things that should be done immediately is to get into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as "honest brokers" again (no neocons need apply).

Could always give Clinton another shot at that, he's come as close as anybody. Plus our traditional allies like him, maybe he can glad-handle them into giving us some better trade deals.

Clinton is good (and far better than Albright).

Secty of State: George Mitchell?

Forgive me, but I mean this honestly. These are jokes, right? Sometimes I really can't tell with you folks.

That is all.

Maybe Kerry will pick Jane Fonda as Secretart of Defense and Alan Dershowitz as Attorney General.

That's about as likely as anything these guys have picked...

"Commerce (let's do something about the trillions we owe the world)"

What the hell does this mean?

So, the theme of this thread is, "left is right, right is wrong." Just as boring and trite as the antonym. Thanks for nothing.

The record-setting trade deficits are financed by the rest of the world.

China could shut us down if they called in their debt. Obviously, that would harm them so they won't, but there's a precarious balance that has to be maintained, and record trade deficits year after year after year are a problem.

The theme of this thread is, as Bush says, RESULTS MATTER and Bush has had lousy results in any area of governance you care to name.

As he also says, "we have turned the corner" with the result that we are headed in the wrong direction so it's time for change.

I'd like to see Gen. Wesley Clark get Rumsfeld's job.

Sure, I can't wait to see the results a Naderite DoJ would bring. Could it be anything other than anti-corporate witch hunts at the exclusion of all other business? I'm with Booey- I hope these are jokes.

Hal, Clinton? Since he's left office, he seems to agree with Bush on foreign policy far more often than the left would like. In fact, the entire Democratic party seems to not react at all when he speaks. Last night, on Letterman, he said the terror alert wasn't political. I'm a little tense about how often I've agreed with Clinton over the last year.

You're right about Clinton on policies in general, and actually he was already there in many areas when he was in office, a "mini-me Republican" like Lieberman in some ways.

He's part of the "Democratic Leadership Council" gang (as is Lieberman) and they've decided that they need the money from big coroporations to get elected. The overall result is that they pretty much agree with Republicans on most governance issues that affect big business but disagree on cultural issues (e.g., abortion). The evidence of that was when Clinton signed NAFTA and effectively thumbed his nose at labor.

That's really a topic in itself (and then some) but you can get a good picture of what's going on there from Thomas Frank's What's the matter with Kansas. Frank has also written some op-eds and was on PBS so you should be able to Google him and get more.

For the specific issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though, Clinton's other politics don't matter. He has shown that he can deal honestly with both sides there, and that they do at least give him an ear.

Showing America to be an honest broker again could have a profound effect on everything that's happening in the Middle East, including support to help "win the peace" in Iraq.

He's a good choice for this specific mission.

Reading your note again, Justene, do I detect that you think I'm a hard-core Democrat? I'm not.

I'm not of, with or for any particular party, although I know it looks different at any given time.

At the moment I'm posting a lot of stuff that looks like it's anti-Republican, but that's only because they're in power and they're doing stuff I don't like.

Wait until Kerry is elected and I'll be posting anti-Democrat stuff. I could do some of that now, with people like Baucus (the worst) there, but that's secondary to the harm this administration is doing so I'm focusing on that.

There are a couple of strong political views I do hold.

One is that the neoconservatives are un-American and in fact anti-America, changing the meaning of what America is in a profound way. I believe they need to be stopped, and the changes they have made need to be reversed. Looking at this pragmatically, the only way to start doing that is to at least change the President to one who is not beholden (and in thrall) to the neocons. A Democrat is the only practical choice based on electability.

Another is that I don't like big government, and this administration has not only increased the federal payrolls to 3 million (while millions of citizens watched their own jobs shipped overseas), they have used the scam of "privatization" to build up another 6 million or so employees who don't show up on the books. "Bad administration, bad." I'm still mulling a detailed post on this. Part of the issue is that the companies that get the privatized business then increase their campaign contributions to the party that gave them the business - it's back to Tammany Hall and patronage (see Florida for the worst examples at the state level).

And another is corporatization of government, which got a shot of steroids with this administration. Examples are privatization, subsidies to agribusiness and other big businesses, pushing protectionism behind false claims of "free trade" to benefit big business, off-shoring jobs behind that same false claim of free trade and tax subsidies for off-shored jobs, more than a hundred federal appointees to oversees industries which they lobbied for, etc. etc. etc.

My capacities are limited so I first focus on the biggest and baddest problem, will try get to the others later.

In my usual (mis-construed) non-partisan way.

No, I didn't think you were a hard-core Democrat. I did think of you as part of the left which inc. the Democrats too. It seems to me that the people on both sides who have strong beliefs tend not to like their party.

Although many consider me a hardcore Republican, I didn't decide to vote for Bush last time until Gore's suggestion that we raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserves because heating oil prices were high. Hy husband says I ranted for a week. In hindsight, no one remembers that moment but to me, it was and still is important. Why is too long a tale.