Of course, the Dems don't need to "filibuster" now; they just need to vote along straight-party lines. So that isn't really the debate at this point.

What I should have said is that I agree with Glenn and others that the Dems should have filibustered when they were in the minority. If they'd called the Republicans' bluff -- let them change the rules, take the filibuster away -- they'd be in better shape now.

It's not as if the Democrats -- or, indeed, the country -- actually has anything to show for the Democrats' six years of "compromise."

On the other hand, w/r/t the upcoming elections: even if the expression "lesser of two evils" applies, you've got to consider how wide the "evil gap" actually is. That was my main grip with my Nader friends in '06. They'd say: "But the Democratic Party is the lesser of two evils." Indeed!

not "grip."

(Joan, will you please start letting us edit our comments? My own illiteracy is a constant embarrassment to me.)

Especially good post today, Glenn. That concerted response among the Democratic candidates to Obama's comments on Pakistan -- "there are some things you shouldn't talk about" -- really unnerved me. When did we as a country decide that the citizenry wasn't to play any role in making foreign policy (except for those "accountability moments" every four years . . . and it eludes me how it's possible to hold someone "accountable" for things you're not even allowed to learn about).

Keep chipping away at this language -- "serious," "scholar." It's all a mask for something profoundly undemocratic.

But the "rape rooms," Tim! The "rape rooms!"

Have you already forgotten about the "rape rooms?"

I'm always amazed at the weird level of vitriol directed at Farhad Manjoo on these comment boards. At times, Farhad's readership seems to consist of a thousand clones of Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons, people (men, I feel fairly confident in guessing) who check this site every day, who read all of the articles carefully, just so they can post nasty little comments fuming about how worthless, unnecessary, and badly written all of Farhad's articles are.

I enjoyed this piece. It would be hard to exaggerate the narcissism and vapidity of Washington political reporters. I especially love the insincere "self-deprecation" (a "hotness contest" -- it's all so wacky!) combined with a ferocious, single-minded determination to be lusted after (or, as importantly, perceived as someone who is lusted after).

We're not allowed to laugh at this? Really? I thought it was hilarious and cathartic. This girl is not "a little dumb" or "if not stupid, very ignorant," or whatever. This girl redefines ignorance -- and her appearance on Today wasn't much better. And her confidence that the gibberish she's uttering is satisfactory makes her positively Dubyan.

Is there really a prevalent misogynistic stereotype that women -- especially pretty women -- don't know how to say "Iraq?" Or speak intelligibly in their native tongue? Surely not.

The brain-dead youth culture of "My Super Sweet Sixteen" and "The Real World" is a fucking poison that we've all been breathing for an impossibly long time. When is it going to be okay for us to stigmatize stupidity and ignorance again?

I'm sorry, but after six years of Bush -- all of this oppressive anti-intellectualism -- I'm ready to laugh my bitter ass off at the stupid and ignorant (as they laugh their way to the bank). In the battle for America's brain, the good guys* lost the war a long way back; leave us our gallows humor, at least.

* (I'm sure I'll get called out for "good guys," but what's the alternative? "Good women?" Is that colloquial?)

Re "They love that in the corn belt."

Would you people fuck off with your snide remarks about dumb Iowa white trash?

Iowans are much shrewder, politically, than much of the rest of the country, and nothing -- nothing -- in Iowa's recent electoral history suggests that we're more susceptible than others in the Middle States to Reagan-Thompson style political theater. (Have you seen the last two guys -- both Democrats -- to win the governor's race? Do you know anything about Dave Loebsack, the nerdy Democratic Congressman -- and former college professor -- from my own small-town district?)

When Iowans make the wrong decision -- as, by the slenderest of margins, we did in the last presidential election (and as we did, I think, when we picked Kerry, instead of Dean or Edwards, in the caucuses) -- we do it because of an excess of caution and a wariness of political hype.

Iowa voted for Gore, and will certainly choose the Democratic candidate in 2008; the state has made a hard left since 2004; Democrats now control the Governorship, both state houses, one U.S. Senate seat (that would be the very progressive Tom Harkin), and more U.S. House seats than any time in recent iowa history.

If you're suggesting that Iowa voters -- even rural Republicans (and plenty of rural Iowans -- and Wisconsinites, and Minnesotans, and Ohioans -- are staunch Democrats, by the way) are markedly dumber than the voters in Orange County, and northern Florida, and upstate New York? What about the Pennsylvanians who elected Rick Santorum, or the voters in Connecticut who returned Joe Lieberman to Congress in the last election?

I loathe the GOP, too, but I also loathe this kind of posturing and classism.

PS: If Thompson wins the presidency, I really am leaving the country!

Sort of ironic to angrily insist that Iowans aren't dumb in a post with sentence fragments and typos galore. (Salon, when will you let us edit our comments?)