Given the magnitude of the crimes that Pelosi at least enabled, and probably approved, the critical importance of her support for Obama during the primary, and Obama's sudden decision to help Pelosi and the administration coverup their deeds, why isn't the msm at least asking a few softball questions about what Obama knew about Pelosi's involvement in torture, and when he knew it? Was there a quid pro quo for her support, yes or no?

I agree with what you said, greenlabormike, though I just want to emphasize that there was no electoral downside for Obama to vote no on FISA (as he originally promised). The idea that the American people didn't care about the issue cuts both ways, they wouldn't have cared if he had voted no either.

But, while the msm has endlessly applauded Obama for "moving to the center" and telling the "far left" to take a hike, video of a tortured Canadian boy is now on youtube, and his top Democratic supporters in congress have been linked to the Gitmo torture regime.

The Democrats have more to lose than the Republicans by donning the mantle of torturers and agents in the torture/FISA coverup. So much for "new politics" or a "change we can believe in." They may well not even get a Bush pardon.

No wonder Pelosi looks so scared on TV.

After all, he's already spying on us.

And Gary is high

That pappa's rich

And Barrack is good lookin'

So hush you Guatemalans

Don't you cry.

There's something in this opportunity for everyone. OK, the dude has to limit to two women unless he gets permission to add another. But remind that two wives is pretty good for a Christian nation. You get him, your friend gets him, the kids get dad and two moms, plus why not have some kids yourself?

If he balks, promise Chloe Sevigny to close the deal.

That makes sense, since the Bush press availability increased the supply.

You bring your kids to Guatemala to teach them a lesson on how spoiled they are.

The only thing more spoiled?

When you make money writing an article for Salon about how your fellow spoiled neighbor is taking his children to Guatemala to teach them a lesson on how spoiled they are.

Obama isn't one of us. And neither is Garrison Keillor.

After cheerleading the most grotesque form of anti-labor, anti-environmental globalization for years, NOW Friedman declares it's time to do something about the environment and complains about China.

What a pompous fake.

Go drive your lexus to an an olive tree and suck on it, Tom.

Keillor finds comfort in "Barack's" huge crowds, and pooh-poohs the notion that Obama's decision to sell the Fourth Amendment for telecom contributions matters. OK.

But isn't there something just a bit troublesome about the Obama campaign's decision to stage-manage a massive worship service for Obama at Mile-High stadium when he accepts the nomination?

feeling at one with all the little people below.

Doesn't that warm your D/democratic heart?

I don't think McCain's prostate allows him to piss this early.

I'll give this to Keillor--he perfectly captures the smugness that has become the prevailing Democratic message this year.

Is Obama out to be the first zen president, or maybe just Peter Sellers in Being There?

He won the primaries by opposing Bush and by relying on the hard work of hundred of thousands of volunteers. Now he runs as Medvedev to Bush's Putin and has told the volunteers: fuck you, I stand for money. Of course, he doesn't say so "inartfully." He's always the sound of one sweet tongue clapping.

Maybe you folks are right, that Obama will win by betraying the Constitution, allowing Bush et al to get away with war crimes, standing for nothing in particular, and relying on the support of sit-on-their-Buddha-asses-rich-winos.

But I think this race will be closer than you reckon, and that Obama has made a strategic error in going smug. I agree that John McCain is a real asshole. But you've got to agree that at least he's real.

I imagine most men in committed, loving relationships could say that at times.

Look at the Viagra ads.

Viagra, according to many of the ads, is for men who want to please their women. I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation of other ads.

A common central motif in many of these ads is not the male, but the female, often markedly younger than her husband.

Another motif are ads directed at young men, apparently encouraging them to have even more erections.

Juliebird, imagine if women felt societal pressure to take a drug that made them able to sexually perform (over and over) for the satisfaction of their male lovers. Can you imagine the feminist critique?

Btw, I'm not against Viagra, or sexual negotiation, nor do I claim that there is no rape in marriage.

I do feel trivializing rape by marching the discussion beyond even the grey areas does no service to anyone but Salon's statistics.

And I'm profoundly disgusted by Keillor's (and his neighbor's) hypocritical and cynical use of generic Guatemalan villagers to teach American kids a lesson about consumption.

...maybe they should have taken a stroll past the slave cabins and used their imaginations.

"Today in the Writers Almanac we remember O. Henry, a hero for our times, charged with bank embezzlement he fled to Honduras, where he lauded the role of the Yankee banana barons and coined the phrase 'banana republic,' also the name of a fine haberdasher which I hope might replace Lands End as my principle sponsor but now let me read sonorously from O Henry's 'The Cop and the Anthem...' and then sing a hymn myself"