I was sitting comfortably on the 7 train on my way to work earlier, reading this week’s editions of TIME when I came upon a  new word.  I quickly fished for one of the half dozen pens in my purse and encircled the word so I wouldn’t have to search for it later when I am here by my computer.

“At a time when political pomp and blab have come to seem prohibitively pompous and bloviational, Rocky Mountain politics is fresh and innovative and fun.”

Thanks to, I learned today that BLOVIATE is an intransitive verb which means “to speak or write verbosely and windily”.  Contextually, then, I figured out that bloviational means verbose and windy.   Now why didn’t Joe Klein just use verbose?  He wanted me to learn a new word, I guess.  This is is the same writer of TIME who always introduces a new word into my vocabulary, and for that I am thankful.  While I may not use “bloviational” in my day to day conversation, it helps to know what it means so I don’t have to pause next time I encounter it.

I was reading “WHAT DEMOCRATS IN THE WEST CAN TEACH THEIR PARTY“   when I stumbled upon this word.  Klein, as always, provides us with an interesting look on a different breed of Democrats who are succeeding in the West, a mostly Republican bastion until now.  Two short articles which formed separate columns were likewise very interesting to me, namely “HILLARY’S IRAQ SHUFFLE” (Viewpoint) and “WHAT’S A RESUME GOT TO DO WITH IT?” (History)  .

The first talks about Hillary Clinton and the second centers on Barack Obama’s chances given his apparent “pre-eminent ability” to lead.  These are just two of the slew of articles coming out on the very diverse race on the Democrat side, and this is not even taking the Republican’s own slate into consideration just yet.

William Kristol tells us the Hillary will “(have) to try to navigate between being too moderate and too mollifying,” but  beyond his take on Hillary’s stand on the war, you might find it interesting that he ends his piece by saying “… what if she faces a rival who spoke eloquently against the Iraq war from the first — yet also has a hawkish national security record?  What if that man has substantial experience at the highest levels of government — and can also raise plenty of money as a candidate?  What if he ran for President once before — and won the popular vote? x x x  .. If she stays awake at night, it’s because she’s worrying about Al Gore.”  I cannot vote as yet, but my take is that while Hillary Clinton has proven to be popular indeed, she has many issues to hurdle before securing the Democratic nomination. 

Barack Obama is being touted as too inexperienced, but as Richard Brookhiser raised in his article, he fits the Van Buren test to a T, being that the 8th president of the United States actually pulled off winning the presidency by showing that “intrigue and the art of popularity were (now) enough to win the White House.”  His win showed that “the electorate wants leaders who have played the game, even if they haven’t been All-Stars.” — and Brookhiser concludes that Obama qualifies by that standard.

We’ll just have to wait and see..