The post-Bush era

I'm not usually much of a pessimist. Yeah, I don't think I'll win the lottery, know I'll never win Olympic gold and hold out no hope of becoming an alpha blogger, but I am pessimistic there may be no post-Bush era.

The city of Washington was blanketed in snow Wednesday and its inhabitants draped and hooded against the below-zero cold, but in politics and diplomacy there is more than a hint of spring in the air. Suddenly the words "post-Bush era" are being heard in the think-tanks and the media as attention shifts from the lame duck who now inhabits the White House to the extraordinarily early battle for the succession as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards prepare for next year's primaries.

An attack on Iran, which would be cataclysmic could well make the future moot.

BTW, that little snippet of the article does indeed show a definite liberal bias. I don't often see such, but it's undeniable. Except for Bush and McCain (mandatory inclusion), no Republicans are mentioned anywhere in the story. Its United Press International if you're curious.

Please do read the article. It is nowhere nearly as negative as I am.

(read more)