BUSH AS "DRY DRUNK": Joe the supply guy at work (and fellow Bush hata) showed me this article today, suggesting the President is a "Dry drunk," displaying the obsessive tendencies of a former alcoholic who has not come to terms with whatever drove him to drink in the first place:

The fundraiser in rural Rehoboth Beach, Del., thrummed like a tent revival. It climaxed with Bush announcing that he wanted to be certain that people farthest away from the stage "would get the prize" — that is, meet him.

With that, a jacketless Bush bounded from the stage and bolted to the back of the hall, toward the people in the cheap seats — and me. Bush jogged down the center aisle and along the back wall, where people were standing and applauding. I was standing there, too, taking notes and wearing the bright orange pass that identified me as a member of the press.

I expected Bush to pass by, but instead he came to a dead stop right in front of me. I looked up from my notepad, surprised. He was about two feet away, staring and looking upset.

In real life, Bush's eyes are set close and deep. His nose, patrician from a distance, looks like a beak on closer inspection. He wears cologne so the overall effect is not unlike an angry chicken who smells good.

"Get out of the way," Bush said to me in a low growl.

Trouble was, like the people on either side of me, I wasn't in his way. I think the sight of a neutral observer passively taking notes was actually what upset him. The thinking of dry drunks is often marked by grandiosity and rigidity; they cannot tolerate ambiguity. So for Bush, my not applauding was the same as my opposing him; my simple presence constituted being "in his way."

I didn't move but a moment later, Bush covered his frown with his classic smirk and continued to the corner of the room to meet and greet the farthest of his followers. As a dry drunk, Bush is able to abstain from alcohol only because he's intoxicated by delusions that border on the messianic.

Google reveals that this is actually a long-running mode of analysis of our president. There's even a book by a psychiatrist about it. Obviously, this sort of armchair analysis of Dubya is grossly unfair, but it has a kind of validity. He's a public figure. He's always in public. There must be a ton of data you could base an analysis around. It would be a second-hand analysis, obviously, but if you can commit people involuntarily you can probably analyze them involuntarily too. For their own good, of course.