Tim, how can we think impeachment is a good idea when the Vice President would then become the President??? And, who wants Condi Rice as President? There's no one who is preferable to Bush.

In reference to Webb's 'going down' to Watts in 1963 while a student at USC, I just thought it worth mentioning that the distance to the heart of Watts from the USC campus is only 7.8 miles...an 11 minute-trip. It would be, in fact, hard to go anywhere off campus and not find oneself in a traditionally African-American neighborhood. A short trip south on the adjacent 110 Freeway takes you right through the heart.

"We have named them, and I have the right to replace them with somebody else."

Is he admitting what we already know: that he and Rove 'named them'?

Joan, what exactly are your objections to Hillary Clinton becoming the next President? I assume there are more issues than just her vote on Iraq. I feel you owe this to us since you seldom miss a chance to let us know she still does not have your vote.

Thank you "Real Name" and "Laura" for your posts. I would like to hear more. Joan, can you expand on both of these up-thread posts?

As a contributer to John Edwards campaign, I felt priviledged to send the following this morning:

Dear John,

As a contributer, however small, I have to say I am becoming a bit put-off by your fundraising methods. The one for your birthday that was supposedly sent out by your mother - with the pie recipe - was somewhat annoying. Even though I did send a contribution, I felt kind of taken advantage of. Now, the Coulter thing yesterday that has been followed by a fundraising letter is too much. While Coulter is the worst person imaginable, following the incident with a fundraising letter makes it seem too contrived.

John, back your 'well-meaning' women off and step forward more. Ask us for money based on the promise of your presidency - not as a birthday present or as a pat-on-the-back for having your wife take on one of the more loathsome pundits.

Too bad there will be a 'next story' from this writer. He joins the despicable ranks of Joan Walsh and Paglia now in my view. Why would any true liberal feed such negative phrases to the Right Wing nutjobs. I am so angry about the original article I can't even make myself read his 'explanation'. I mean, what can he say after THAT?

I hate to lose insights of the War Room crew but I see no benefit continuing to support Salon...it's day has come and gone.

I am saddened by the anger I read in this forum. Women should endeavor to respect each other - not excitedly rip each other to shreds like a pack of beasts!!!!!!! As for me, I truly enjoyed the beautiful images of Princess Diana...her natural style, her handsome little boys and the way she held them. That TV interview she gave was pathetic and I could see she was, in many ways, lost. But, why some people need to eviserate her now is beyond me. It just seems to me women are still their own worst enemies. And, until that changes, we will never achieve equality because I think it is - way too often - other women that hold the rest of us down.

Oh, and to you Snoman, this is just another example of a surrogate speaking out of turn, right? It begs the question of how much control does he really have of his people. Of course, we can expect more excuses from Obama - but his naivete is showing again.

I had been a subscriber for several years - Paglia and Walter Shapiro disgusted me so much I let my subscription lapse - my small revenge....

Hardly a 'debunking'...all she is - graciously - denying is that they got into an argument. She STILL is maintaining that his health plan is not 'universal'. I believe she says something like: "I don't even Obama says his health plan is 'universal'" No basic change to what Joan reported...nice try.

He writes:

"...See, nearly all wedge issues play on antipathy for 'otherness' in some way- whether its city elites against down home wholesome small towners, or abortionists against religious types ...".

What true Dem would use such a term? While there have to be Democrats that are opposed to Choice, the vast majority are in support of a woman's right to choose. And I think it would be hard to find a Democrat that would refer to our position as "abortionists'...we generally use the term 'pro-choice. ..only a right-wing, social conservative asshole that believes belief in God is in opposition to choice would use that term!

My point: this site is FILLED with Republicans inciting devision in our party!

Do you really expect us to believe that you are who you SAY YOU ARE???? Not in a million years.

Forgot to mention my 'subject' of derision.