Remember George Carlin’s comedy act, “The Seven Words You Can’t Say On TV?” It was very funny. Well, Bob Harris has penned the “The Seven Deadly Words of Book Reviewing,” only it’s not so funny. It’s tragic. And true. By the way, “penned” didn’t make the list, but it did get an honorable mention.

And now for something completely different (thanks to Monty Python):

This isn’t a political blog, but I found this on The Huffington Post and had to say something. Robert S. McElvaine suggests four ways for the Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to reach a modus vevendi (a disagreement to agree; I mean, an agreement to disagree, or whatever) while keeping the gun pointed at warmonger John McCain. Here are the four points:

Each campaign continues to raise huge amounts of money; they should make an agreement to turn over either a set amount or an agreed percentage (perhaps 20%) of what they raise to a joint Democratic campaign group with people from both campaigns that will produce commercials and other efforts to educate the public about Mr. McCain while the struggle for the Democratic nomination continues.

You know, this is actually a novel idea. It would be such a fresh approach to modern politics that every news network in the world would provide the Democratic Party with endless commentary and free publicity. The focus would be taken off the fight for the most powerful minority in the world to actually beating up on the guy they want to lose in November. Why didn’t they think of that?

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama should agree that at the end of each commercial against the other that their campaigns produce for the rest of the nominating contest, after they have attacked the other Democrat, they will expand the closing tagline to say: “I’m [Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama] and I approve this message — and I also approve of [Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton] much more than John McCain.”

OK, now that’s a stupid idea. You only get so much time to present your message. Why would the candidates volunteer to give up some of that time to say “I like my opponent better than my other opponent?” We went from novel to ridiculous in a single bound. Well done, Stuporman.

The Democratic candidates should agree that during the remaining battles in their continuing civil war they will spend at least as much time in speeches contrasting themselves with Mr. McCain as they do contrasting themselves with each other. (Indeed, the Democratic candidate who focuses his or her fire almost exclusively on the “Bush-McCain” policies would very likely win more Democratic and independent support than the one who spends her or his time attacking the other Democrat.)

I don’t know about “as much time”, but the candidates should spend some time discussing the reasons voters should reject McCain. Of course, I can’t see Hillary doing that. She’s too focused on winning. I believe Barack Obama would be the more likely candidate to take periodic potshots at McCain and to create the image that he should be the one to represent the Democrats because he’s willing to fight McCain on ideology. And, really, that’s what this is all about. Ideology. There is a much sharper difference in ideology between Obama and McCain than there is between Clinton and McCain and that’s where the Illinois senator can capitalize. He is right on the three most important issues of today: War in Iraq, Ethics, and Energy. Those are also the three areas that McCain is wrong in (although he is most right on the ethics issue).

A final point in a Clinton-Obama modus vivendi would be much more difficult to achieve and may not be necessary if the first three points are agreed to: Each candidate could agree that when the nominee is chosen, he or she will pick the other as her or his running-mate and that the latter will accept.

Actually, I think such a move would kill the Obama campaign. There is way too much negative baggage with Clinton. The list is too long to mention. I’d end up still firing off my points on election day. While Obama is not the perfect candidate – for the Democrats or for the country – there is a lot less negative baggage that comes with him than with Clinton, or with McCain for that matter. In this case, experience is not what matters. What matters the most in this election year is ideology and vision. Neither McCain nor Clinton are showing much of either.

Agree with it or not, only Obama has a stark and distinctive voice in either category. His ideology is progressive and consistent. His vision is domestic, not foreign. Maybe you are not on board with that at all and you feel much more comfortable with a traditional Republican message (as I do), but you certainly won’t get that with McCain. And since McCain has bucked up to follow the Party line, which is decidedly anti-Republican having betrayed the principles that made the GOP strong in the first place, that makes Barack Obama’s non-interventionist ideology much more appealing to us conservative-leaning and libertarian independents. We may not like what we’ll get with him, but at least we’ll know what to expect.

Dilemma: How do you get that into a poem?