First, something I say to people -- I wish I was an Israeli because then I could criticize the Israeli government without being called a Nazi. -- fact is there is more difference of opinion tolerated in Israel itself than in the US.

Second, a footnote for those who are familiar with DC. There is and I St and a K St, but there is no J St. Perhaps a bit of irony in choosing that name.

Last time I checked all it took to be a blogger is an internet account. And let's face it getting readers is not so much a function of intellectually stimulating material. So now profesisonal journalists are in the same class with bloggers. No wonder their standards have sunk so low.

The way the press is today, you can understand why some would like a government controlled press. I am not advocating that because the government will turn the news into pablum the way the Soviets did, but one can understand why some people would think a free press does not result in a well informed public.

I can certainly assure you that if Hillary Clinton does not win the most pledged delegates and a majority of votes (which is almost a sure thing) and then goes on to get the nomination, she will certainly lose the election. I don't know where you will find someone to vote for her if she steals the nomination this way, certainly no Democrat I know.

And I'd like to add, the Republican smear machine would go into overdrive with Hillary attacks that will make Ken Starr look like Mr Rogers.

Some feel that Obama's message is esoteric and nuanced and only appeals to intellectual types. I guess this video dispells that myth. The video is about the man, not what he stands for, actually it's more about Tisa than Obama.

Leave it up to Joe to write a column critical of Hillary Clinton that gives her the benefit of the doubt at every turn. Hillary and Bill Clinton do not make slips of the toungue or bad choices in the way they express "innocent" thoughts. Neither does Barack Obama, for that matter. The Clintons know exactly what they are saying and how it will be perceived. As for Bill Clinton being some great champion of African-Americans because he is not a racist, that is not saying much.

I thought this was high no-holds-barred comedy and the fact that they poked some nasty humor at the very person they lionized in their previous routine, shows that what they care most about is getting a laugh.

Its a fact the the best way to unite people is by a common enemy. Bush is certainly a common enemy of not only Al-Quaida but also many more resonable elements in the Muslim world (and beyond). Bin Ladin, likewise is the common enemy of Americans, even the liberals. If this hasn't been said publicly, let me be the first, this is exactly the reason Bin Laden has never been captured. If the US really wanted him, it would not be hard to do. Likewise anything Bin Ladin can do to keep Bush, or a reasonable facsimilie, around is good for al Quaeda. Having a reasonable president with a Muslim sounding name representing the US is Bin Ladin's biggest nightmare.

If you are going to measure him by how much he defined a political movement, yes, he was more successful. Let's remember though that Jimmy Carter was anti-government, pro big business and got religion involved in government, so Reagan only gave this movement is greatest realization. Surely everything is different. America needed a change after Nixon and Watergate, and Reagan rode that wave, unfortunately I can find little that truly improved this country.

Now, once again our country is embarassed by its own actions, time will only show if Obama makes good on his message of change. His presidency can define a new post-Reagan era.

I don't find this article half as cryptic as some people seem to. The point is that it has become a political football and a flash point in the culture wars. Gay marriage is real, it exists de facto and the fact that the state refuses to recognize it is esentially telling gays and lesbians that they will be ok as long as they accept an inferior status. How many gays and lesbians choose to have a legal marriage is not relavant. What is relevant is our government basically telling us the civilian equivalent of don't ask don't tell.

In my church, the United Church of Christ, two people of the same sex can be married just like a man and woman, and yet in 48 states that is considered invalid, except for a few who recognize it as something different. And mine is not the only Christian church or other religion that does this. Now isn't the government imposing its will on religion by refusing to acknowledge these marriages?

We must have come a long way eradicating anti-Semitism and promoting religious freedom if the only issues the Jewish community cares about is Israel.

I personally think Jews are a lot smarter than that, as even many Israeli Jews disagree with US and Likud party's stand on the Palestinian issue. And I also think Jews do not weigh support for Israel (which all the candidates have expressed) as the sole basis of their vote. More likely it is the fundamentalist Christians that will only accept the most extreme pro-Israel position, and they are not going to vote for Obama anyway.