Here's an interesting article from politico.com. I think much of what it says rings true. The presidency, post 9/11, is indeed all about toughness. Bush won 2004 by showing his toughness. Those who wanted to vote for someone else were swayed by the fear of a president who wouldn't stand up to the enemies, a president who threw his dog tags onto the White House lawn in protest.

2008 is shaping up similarly. Rudy Giuliani has replaced W as the tough-guy. He wants us to believe that his position and actions post-9/11 make him most fit for the office. While I believe that his position as mayor of NYC may give him the most passion for fighting the Muslim extremists who are so bent on killing us, I don't totally buy that he's most trained for the job. Let's face the facts- none of the candidates has the experience of commanding the military in post-9/11 America. The candidates can have as many military friends and terrorism experts as they wish, but they're all on a level playing field when it comes to experience.

Now, I don't generally stick up for Hillary. In fact, I might have never before stuck up for Hillary. But, I do indeed think she has (appropriately) picked up on the whole 'toughness theory' compared to all the other wimpy Democratic candidates. Apologizing for a then-logical vote for the Iraq War is ridiculous and clearly a people-pleaser move by her rivals. She has stated that Iran is indeed evil, and that its leader is a psychopath (well, she's sort of said that). Diplomatic pressure must be placed on the country, as she has said and voted for, to stop them from getting their hands on nukes. This is a 'tough' position, and indeed a correct one. How foolish it is for all these candidates to pre-emptively state that they're going to leave Iran alone no matter what the circumstances. I'm sure the Dems would invite Ahmadinejad over for Thanksgiving dinner in '08 with all their diplomacy in action and promises to let him do what he pleases. That's just the kind of leader I want. Right.

Well, toughness still reigns pre-'08. And I don't think that's such a bad thing.

(This post is dedicated to Clem, who so graciously stuck up for W in a paper this week for the first time. I'm doing the same for good 'ol Hill. There's a first for everything!)

So in Business-Government Relations class today my professor showed us a pretty neat website. Check out Intrade. It's like the futures market or a gambling site, whichever you prefer. The site allows people to bet on the outcomes of events such as elections, trials, etc. Perhaps the most fascinating is the 2008 Presidential election. Things aren't looking so good for the Republicans, at least according to people's bets. The site acts as a gauge for people's anticipatory feelings and guesses. On the subject of the 2008 election, those betting could certainly be Republican voters, but feel that the Democrats will win in '08. So, it's not forecasting the actual better's preferences, but their moods and beliefs. Interesting.

So the Sox have done it again! 1-0 so far in the World Series after a crushing defeat of the Rockies. Check out the article below from Boston.com. It's a pretty funny article by a non-Red Sox fan with his view of Sox life in Boston. Apparently we're negative-nelly's, but thats just how it is back home. I'd say its more like dedication!

Harsh Red Sox Nation?

After many years of rest, DanEnglish.com has reappeared! I'm going to try to start blogging on news, politics, etc. for now on, so here goes.