The New Republic bemoans the Connecticut result, somewhat echoing my earlier post that the results will be felt significantly in the 2008 presidential. One kind of inaccurate point in the piece, though. The article says, "The news that Wesley Clark and John Edwards will stump for Lamont. . . ." Well, the link as to Edwards simply says that he called Lamont to congratulate him: "John Edwards called Lamont to congratulate him last night--which presumably means he'll find his way to Connecticut to offer his congratulations and support in person."

There's a big difference between a phone call and stumping in the state. That the blogger speculates that he'll campaign for Lamont is unsupported, as far as I know. Edwards would be smart to steer clear of Connecticut for the next three months.

Let's see if I've got this right. Conventional wisdom says that the country has gone progressively to the center/right. The last two Democratic presidents were centrists. The Democrats desparately want to regain control of Congress in 2006, and the White House in 2008. Joe Lieberman was the Democratic standard-bearer just six years ago, along with Al Gore. the DSCC and the Democratic establishment [aside from President Clinton] provided little or no help to Lieberman in his campaign, which is the same as opposing him. And many left-leaning Democrats are now gleeful over his defeat by a "trust fund baby" in the Connecticut primary, which makes the party as a whole look like total freaking disloyal idiots to the rest of the country.

What's wrong with this picture?

Not for nothing, but it does strike me that this deepening division in the Democratic party benefits -- wait for it -- the Republicans. Why? When push comes to shove the Repubs can hold their base, as they did in the last two presidentials, as well as in the mid-terms. The Dems, however, are so divided that only chaos will result. Result [and prediction]: Repubs will hold onto their congrssional majorities in 2006. If the Dems continue this exercise in mass denial, we'll have another "northeastern liberal" [or some such] running in 2008, and the White House will be lost again. The Republicans couldn't have done better if they had planned it. Hmmm, did they plan it?

Who knows, but I, for one, am sick to death of going down in flames, but feeling good about myself in the process. If I don't win, I can't govern. I can't win unless I am a centrist candidate. Polarizing the party plays directly into Repub hands.

The left wing of the Democratic party better get its collective head out of, er, the clouds, or they'll have it handed to them come election day.

By the way, I wouldn't be the least surprised if Lieberman runs as an Independent, kicks Lamont's ass in the general, and then sticks it to the Democratic party forever. I wouldn't blame him. And I say that as a loyal Democrat.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION: Presidential bill-signing statements expressing reservations about signed legislation violate Constitution:

If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries.

ABA's point is well-taken. If the President really believes a bill he is signing is unconstitutional, then why doesn't he veto it?

The first photo in this post, by the way, proves conclusively that Glenn does NOT have a "comb-over." My opinion on his tendencies toward being the Anti-Christ vary, based on my daily level of psychosis.

The dog in the second photo is Mojo, who has her own photo on the board with the "other" DiveTech staff. her job description is listed, I believe, as "dive master summoner."

I was lucky enough to take the rebreather course along with Glenn -- I think I took that shot he put up on his blog, in fact -- so many thanks to him for letting me tag along as well to the great folks at DiveTech for making the rebreather experience such a memorable one.