ws of complex matters; his problem lies perhaps in his scholarship and his desire to illustrate, not to impress, which makes his elocutions interesting but long. He is not to be ignored”

“How about the rest?’ I asked.

“Again, nothing great. I tire easily when too many concepts or ideas are thrown in. Perhaps that senility you seem to suffer from, is contagious. Kucinic spoke clearly about gun control. He is definitely for it. Gravel also spoke clear and did not waste words. Edwards bothered to talk about his haircuts and took the usual swipes at Hillary. Richardson recited from his diary or his next book and Dodd showed deep knowledge of most policy matters and exhibited a crisp style.”

I was satisfied with his quick review. It coincided with my own. Then I asked him:

“What do you see as a trend or major political thesis emerging from this democratic debate?”

“You k

The Professor smiled and said:

“I trust you took some time off from your philanthropic activities, or whatever, to watch the debate among the Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential elections?”

“Would not miss it for a bag of gold nuggets. When is it?” I replied.

“It was last week, Sir!”

“Oops! My early age Senility lurks again. Tell me about it please”

The Professor laughed heartily, as he does when feeling inspired after a memorable breakfast. In that respect, all of us, students, friends and associates of the Professor must thank Antoine for his unparalleled dexterity in the kitchen, his supreme taste and his encyclopedic knowledge of recipes, wines and beverages; these qualities channeled into exquisite meals help keep our dear professor in a healthy and happy frame of mind. He said:

“In my opinion, Hillary Clinton demonstrated once more a solid background, unique poise and clear ideas. She tackled the thorny question of Iraq head on and avoided making senseless speeches about the many sordid aspects of this deplorable episode in our history”

“Gee, Professor, you are beginning to sound like Hillary” He laughed and observed:

“Thank you. She also referred to the stupid campaign against her based on the fact that she voted for the war. She was clear and firm when she said that she took responsibility for her vote and added that she would not vote for it if she knew then what she knows now”

I had to agree but with some reservations, I replied:

“Well, that is easy to say Professor. Anyone of us could claim the same right. The question remains, and not only about Hillary but about all those millions who supported Bush’s decision to invade Iraq”

The Professor nodded and added:

“Well, she has explained in other occasions that most people in Congress were convinced that the President and his close advisers were certain of the dangers presented by Saddam and his WMD, nuclear plans, gases, terrorist attack and his intimate soirees with Osama Bin Laden plotting the destruction of the West, and they of course believed him. If the president of the United States tells you it is raining, I don’t think you need to look out the window to get your umbrella ready, or do you?”

My answer bordered on the facetious: "Point granted. In any case I do not use umbrellas. How about the other candidates?"

“Not very well. They all, with the exception of former Senator Mike Gravel, tried to introduce as many words as they could in the time allotted to answer the questions posed by Bryan Williams. Those questions, almost invariably dealing with policy matters, demand a short and to the point answer, so that the avalanche of words and half baked concepts rendered the answers irrelevant.”

I had to ask him: “How did the new star Obama make out, in your opinion?”

“So, so." The Professor replied, and then: "Again, the seductive power of adorning one’s expression with as much expression as is possible, turns any answer into confusing sentences. No question that he has a presence and a great deal of poise. But it reminds me of a race car driver in a 6000cc machine looking for the entrance to the track”

We paused in our conversation to make the honors to the mid-morning cappuccino, accompanied this time by a toasted piece of French bread skillfully covered by low fat Swiss cream cheese and a mysterious marmalade combining pineapple, orange, peach and apple. The Professor continued:

“I got a good impression from Joe Biden. I have always respected his intellect and capacity for instant reviews of complex matters; his problem lies perhaps in his scholarship and his desire to illustrate, not to impress, which makes his elocutions interesting but long. He is not to be ignored”

“How about the rest?’ I asked.

“Again, nothing great. I tire easily when too many concepts or ideas are thrown in. Perhaps that senility you seem to suffer from, is contagious. Kucinic spoke clearly about gun control. He is definitely for it. Gravel also spoke clear and did not waste words. Edwards bothered to talk about his haircuts and took the usual swipes at Hillary. Richardson recited from his diary or his next book and Dodd showed deep knowledge of most policy matters and exhibited a crisp style.”

I was satisfied with his quick review. It coincided with my own. Then I asked him:

“What do you see as a trend or major political thesis emerging from this democratic debate?”

“You kn

ackground, unique poise and clear ideas. She tackled the thorny question of Iraq head on and avoided making senseless speeches about the many sordid aspects of this deplorable episode in our history”

“Gee, Professor, you are beginning to sound like Hillary” He laughed and observed:

“Thank you. She also referred to the stupid campaign against her based on the fact that she voted for the war. She was clear and firm when she said that she took responsibility for her vote and added that she would not vote for it if she knew then what she knows now”

I had to agree but with some reservations, I replied:

“Well, that is easy to say Professor. Anyone of us could claim the same right. The question remains, and not only about Hillary but about all those millions who supported Bush’s decision to invade Iraq”

The Professor nodded and added:

“Well, she has explained in other occasions that most people in Congress were convinced that the President and his close advisers were certain of the dangers presented by Saddam and his WMD, nuclear plans, gases, terrorist attack and his intimate soirees with Osama Bin Laden plotting the destruction of the West, and they of course believed him. If the president of the United States tells you it is raining, I don’t think you need to look out the window to get your umbrella ready, or do you?”

My answer bordered on the facetious: "Point granted. In any case I do not use umbrellas. How about the other candidates?"

“Not very well. They all, with the exception of former Senator Mike Gravel, tried to introduce as many words as they could in the time allotted to answer the questions posed by Bryan Williams. Those questions, almost invariably dealing with policy matters, demand a short and to the point answer, so that the avalanche of words and half baked concepts rendered the answers irrelevant.”

I had to ask him: “How did the new star Obama make out, in your opinion?”

“So, so." The Professor replied, and then: "Again, the seductive power of adorning one’s expression with as much expression as is possible, turns any answer into confusing sentences. No question that he has a presence and a great deal of poise. But it reminds me of a race car driver in a 6000cc machine looking for the entrance to the track”

We paused in our conversation to make the honors to the mid-morning cappuccino, accompanied this time by a toasted piece of French bread skillfully covered by low fat Swiss cream cheese and a mysterious marmalade combining pineapple, orange, peach and apple. The Professor continued:

“I got a good impression from Joe Biden. I have always respected his intellect and capacity for instant reviews of complex matters; his problem lies perhaps in his scholarship and his desire to illustrate, not to impress, which makes his elocutions interesting but long. He is not to be ignored”

“How about the rest?’ I asked.

“Again, nothing great. I tire easily when too many concepts or ideas are thrown in. Perhaps that senility you seem to suffer from, is contagious. Kucinic spoke clearly about gun control. He is definitely for it. Gravel also spoke clear and did not waste words. Edwards bothered to talk about his haircuts and took the usual swipes at Hillary. Richardson recited from his diary or his next book and Dodd showed deep knowledge of most policy matters and exhibited a crisp style.”

I was satisfied with his quick review. It coincided with my own. Then I asked him:

“What do you see as a trend or major political thesis emerging from this democratic debate?”

“You k

occasions that most people in Congress were convinced that the President and his close advisers were certain of the dangers presented by Saddam and his WMD, nuclear plans, gases, terrorist attack and his intimate soirees with Osama Bin Laden plotting the destruction of the West, and they of course believed him. If the president of the United States tells you it is raining, I don’t think you need to look out the window to get your umbrella ready, or do you?”

My answer bordered on the facetious: "Point granted. In any case I do not use umbrellas. How about the other candidates?"

“Not very well. They all, with the exception of former Senator Mike Gravel, tried to introduce as many words as they could in the time allotted to answer the questions posed by Bryan Williams. Those questions, almost invariably dealing with policy matters, demand a short and to the point answer, so that the avalanche of words and half baked concepts rendered the answers irrelevant.”

I had to ask him: “How did the new star Obama make out, in your opinion?”

“So, so." The Professor replied, and then: "Again, the seductive power of adorning one’s expression with as much expression as is possible, turns any answer into confusing sentences. No question that he has a presence and a great deal of poise. But it reminds me of a race car driver in a 6000cc machine looking for the entrance to the track”

We paused in our conversation to make the honors to the mid-morning cappuccino, accompanied this time by a toasted piece of French bread skillfully covered by low fat Swiss cream cheese and a mysterious marmalade combining pineapple, orange, peach and apple. The Professor continued:

“I got a good impression from Joe Biden. I have always respected his intellect and capacity for instant reviews of complex matters; his problem lies perhaps in his scholarship and his desire to illustrate, not to impress, which makes his elocutions interesting but long. He is not to be ignored”

“How about the rest?’ I asked.

“Again, nothing great. I tire easily when too many concepts or ideas are thrown in. Perhaps that senility you seem to suffer from, is contagious. Kucinic spoke clearly about gun control. He is definitely for it. Gravel also spoke clear and did not waste words. Edwards bothered to talk about his haircuts and took the usual swipes at Hillary. Richardson recited from his diary or his next book and Dodd showed deep knowledge of most policy matters and exhibited a crisp style.”

I was satisfied with his quick review. It coincided with my own. Then I asked him:

“What do you see as a trend or major political thesis emerging from this democratic debate?”

“You k

lanche of words and half baked concepts rendered the answers irrelevant.”

I had to ask him: “How did the new star Obama make out, in your opinion?”

“So, so." The Professor replied, and then: "Again, the seductive power of adorning one’s expression with as much expression as is possible, turns any answer into confusing sentences. No question that he has a presence and a great deal of poise. But it reminds me of a race car driver in a 6000cc machine looking for the entrance to the track”

We paused in our conversation to make the honors to the mid-morning cappuccino, accompanied this time by a toasted piece of French bread skillfully covered by low fat Swiss cream cheese and a mysterious marmalade combining pineapple, orange, peach and apple. The Professor continued:

“I got a good impression from Joe Biden. I have always respected his intellect and capacity for instant reviews of complex matters; his problem lies perhaps in his scholarship and his desire to illustrate, not to impress, which makes his elocutions interesting but long. He is not to be ignored”

“How about the rest?’ I asked.

“Again, nothing great. I tire easily when too many concepts or ideas are thrown in. Perhaps that senility you seem to suffer from, is contagious. Kucinic spoke clearly about gun control. He is definitely for it. Gravel also spoke clear and did not waste words. Edwards bothered to talk about his haircuts and took the usual swipes at Hillary. Richardson recited from his diary or his next book and Dodd showed deep knowledge of most policy matters and exhibited a crisp style.”

I was satisfied with his quick review. It coincided with my own. Then I asked him:

“What do you see as a trend or major political thesis emerging from this democratic debate?”

“You k

ws of complex matters; his problem lies perhaps in his scholarship and his desire to illustrate, not to impress, which makes his elocutions interesting but long. He is not to be ignored”

“How about the rest?’ I asked.

“Again, nothing great. I tire easily when too many concepts or ideas are thrown in. Perhaps that senility you seem to suffer from, is contagious. Kucinic spoke clearly about gun control. He is definitely for it. Gravel also spoke clear and did not waste words. Edwards bothered to talk about his haircuts and took the usual swipes at Hillary. Richardson recited from his diary or his next book and Dodd showed deep knowledge of most policy matters and exhibited a crisp style.”

I was satisfied with his quick review. It coincided with my own. Then I asked him:

“What do you see as a trend or major political thesis emerging from this democratic debate?”

“You know, that would be the subject of another breakfast. Preferably after theRrepublicans have staged their own show!”

“Great, Professor. Can I eat that last piece of toast?’

He looked at the table and the lonely piece of toast and replied:

“Certainly." He looked at me and said

"I have a question for you:”

“What is it?”

“Is it true that you do not have an umbrella?”

astrous@comcast.nets