I'd call it murder. Democrats would call it murder if a Republican had abandoned the woman.

I don't understand why Democrats can't concede when one of our dynastic families has a criminal member. None of us plebes could have gotten away with what Ted did. We might still be in jail. He and his family are crooked, no doubt.

It's possible to list Ted's accomplishments without denying his crime. He's was a an extremely flawed human being, and certainly no god.

The same hand-off logic seems to apply to criticizing the Clintons ill-gotten wealth.

A pox on all the dyanstic houses, Democratic or Republican.

I really do.

He's a completely unconscious, walking-taking stereotype. Of several kinds: boomer, elitist Democrat, anti-Muslim bigot, Minnesotan, ass, coward. Precious.

Welcome to the "struggle," Mr. Keillor, Sir. We need all the help we can get to find justice for both terrorists and torturers.

And my offer for a beer still stands. Leinie's wheat beer is fantastic. Give the wino busines a rest, eh?

It's strangely perverse when 2nd wave feminsts fail to defend their own against male egomaniacs like Ted Kennedy. Why is it left to evil men like me (and perhaps Joyce Carol Oates) to portray her as a human being? Why do second wavers always fall over for a man with power? Kennedy and Kepechne, Clinton and Lewinsky: Second wavers always choose raw power over justice.

Whether Kepechne was dead or not, I think of her in the water for hours upon hours as Kennedy called lawyers, political advisors, family, whomever. Any but those who might conceivably rescue the human in the car. The water cold, the airpocket growing smaller.

For the uptight lawyers: okay, fine, call it "manslaughter" not "murder." I suppose it depends on your feelings about the consequences of, and responsibility for, drunk driving.

But if we are to be lawer-like, then I note that the Senator was never convicted of manslaughter, not even, though the facts were clear.

And none of those he called were charged with "accessory after the fact." Why not?

Today we get lectures about what Ted Kennedy accomplished. What might Mary Jo Kepechne have accomplished in a world without sexism, without faithless second wavers, and without the cad who killed her?

Thanks Dead Ted Kennedy, for supporting the minimum wage, and all the other karma duty you did in penance. (No thanks for No Child, though, or giving Reagan a victory.)

Thank you Mary Jo, for your sacrifice. I wish it could have all been different.

The advantages of wealth, incumbency and name recognition still pertain.

Bush. Clinton.

The Democrats would be better served by honestly assessing the Kennedy legacy, than publishing feel-good treacle.

Or, better: The Kepechne-Kennedy.

And it's my name.

OK, try again:

The Kopechne-Konnedy Healthcare Reform Act.

Except, let's face it. There won't be a healthcare bill out of this Congress worthy of the Senator's name, let alone Kopechne's.

Let's just name the damn thing after that Iowa turd.

Y'know: Grossley.

The real problem with Congress has always been the President. The President did not want meaningful reform that would help Americans; he wanted to please the large players in the economy. The only "horse trading" has occurred as a result of differing interests between these players. These differences can be significant (between insurance providers and large purchasers), and create a lot of friction, action, and heat, but they have very little positive meaning for regular people seeking health care.

While Madden's article is more realistic than the deification crap that the media (including Salon) has been putting out about Kennedy, he still doesn't mention Kennedy's role in getting Reagan elected. Reagan's election was, more than any other factor, the death knell for real healthcare reform. All the Presidents since Reagan, perhaps especially Clinton, have more or less taken on the same mold.

In that context, Kennedy's relationships with Republicans can be typified as "pragmatic" or "collusion" I suppose. What does seem clear is that the profoundly egotistical Kennedy felt "the dream" could only exist with a Kennedy in office. Since the dream died with Kopechne in a submerged car in 1969, the same time Kennedy started to advocate universal coverage, and since responsibility for the killing caught up with Kennedy in 1980, don't underestimate Kennedy's later actions on healthcare as a sort of personal pique against the American people. We'd get something, just not much.

America is better off with Kennedy dead. His replacement will certainly have less hubris, greater public expectations, and we can hope will be both more realistic and idealistic than Kennedy. The Kennedy mystique has been drowning the Democrats for years now.

We can also hope that the geographical center of Democratic political power will take another step away from the East Coast. That would be a big plus for the party, and eventually for health care, once we get a real Democrat as President.

a) I'm tired

b) I don't really give a damn about hypocrisy at the New Republic.

The political constellation is changing quickly, and for the better, and for the freaky. Obama can adapt or be left behind, no one is going to give a shit. There will be other obamas. This Obama might look to his own campaign speeches for guidance.

There is no way in bitter hell that most Americans will allow Obama to force them to pay megabucks to health insurance companies even as Obama and his rich Wall Street cronies are engineering a jobless recovery at taxpayer expense while lining their own pockets No way. Enough is enough is enough.

People have been had, and they know it. The anger on the right is melding with the anger on the left. Obama the Smoothie has turned into a bitter draught. As the Afghan-Pak war spins out of control with no discernable goals and Obama dumps the high cost of his jobless stimulus-for-the-rich on the young even as the boomers demand the young support them--oh, the greedy corporations are the least of it.