Television, radio and newspapers will continue pretending that Bush is popular; that "centrism" means Bush capitulation; that "Bush hatred" is a fringe, psychological phenomenon (and not a growing, national and global majority position); that we are "fighting for democracy;" that they "hate our freedoms"; that Al Gore, Ron Paul and Howard Dean are "crazy"; that Edwards is "soft" and Giuliani is "tough"; etc. etc. etc. until reality disappears over the horizon. It's only going to get worse, until we begin regulating the airwaves again. -- Jordan Orlando [bolded emphasis mine]

Yep. That's it. And then the OJ saga showed cable that there was another way to increase both ratings and revenue... and then Fox was ready to strike once the VRWC really went after (Bill) Clinton. And then we had those miserable horse races in 2000 and 2004. And now, here we are! Hooray!!! Three cheers for "free" enterprise! Rah! Rah! Rah!

[I'm pretty sure that's how the other team feels about it. That it's a good thing.]

A couple of bones to pick... It's bad enough that the "public" air waves are not freely available to candidates for public office. That alone would revolutionize the big money factor that demeans us all. But that one cannot even watch the candidates debate without accessing cable TV is positively undemocratic.

I receive a daily email from the WaPo. Today's included a link (in best of the web) to a column by Kathleen Parker of RealClearPolitics: Powder Room Politics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/powder_room_politics.html

Parker makes some similar points, but from a conservative perspective, since she really doesn't want any men to be picking on Hillary, because if women find out about it, they'll be even more likely to vote for her... because of that "all girls together" thing.

I wonder which perspective is more true? That picking on Hillary will help her win... or that it will make her lose. (?)

I was just going to write touche'!

...but then I peeked and discovered that Mikes was too young during the Clinton years to have suggested any such thing, and besides, he probably had other things on his mind.

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/04/24/valenti/permalink/fd850489713c3b897bfacf6cc823c89b.html

So, people, let's not pick on him. Who among us did not say or write some things in our 20s that we would like to retract now? Generosity of spirit... that is what's called for.

One thing we do know is that the longer the Republican Congress went after impeachment and removal of Bill Clinton, the more popular he became. Perhaps that's a window into what we might expect if Hillary Clinton is pilloried non-stop by the Beltway media and the rest of the wingnuttery brigade.

Let's hope, Kitt, that your scenario is the one that wins.

* * *

Mikes Pace: You get points for openness and honesty for your last comment; I would have skipped mine if I'd seen yours first.

But, back then [90s], if I remember correctly, people weren't at each other's throats all day. -- Mikes Pace

I doubt you remember those times the way we "older" folks do. That Clinton saga was what changed me from someone with an interest in politics into someone with an obsession. And that was before Bush, and before 9/11, and before Iraq, and all of the rest of it.

Many of us here came of age during Vietnam and/or Watergate, and cannot believe that it's all happening again... or that it really is so much worse.

...is that by using Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party (the actual name), you are aligning yourself with those members of the GOP who have used a war of words and labels against the Dems. (That abbreviation seems to be okay.)

A few years ago, there was a big brouhaha, long since forgotten except by folks like me) when some GOP ad tried using "subliminal" messages, including a fraction of Democrats, which faded to "rats."

Many members of the GOP still continue to use Democrat Party now, ranging from the likes of McCain to Bush, even though they know it's incorrect. Is disliked. And is an irritant. Just one more signal from the GOP that they really don't want to "get along."

I don't think it's that simple. Both liberal and conservative groups have included hawks.

More likely, the reason for going to war would indicate a liberal or conservative bent.

However, much more recently war-mongering is indeed more popular among both conservatives and the GOP. That might not have been true, though, except for the massive and grievous failures of this maladministration. Had they been more successful, fewer Democrats would have been critical or tried to distance themselves from the whole scheme.

Personally, I would prefer that it were simpler and more black and white, but it isn't. Democrats are not necessarily opposed going to war... much as it pains me to write that.

As for Giuliani... someone else called him an opportunist. I'd go along with that, and say, further, that he seems to me to be an Ends-Justify-the-Means kind of guy. That would explain both his own ethical shortcuts and his cavalier attitude about the ethics of his personal and business associates. "Whatever it takes..." could be his slogan. And I don't mean that in a good way.

I watched that same program last night, and had the same reaction to the "missing link."

Mostly, though, I was struck dumb (but since I was alone at that time, it didn't matter) at the utter cluelessness of those who did not/could not/would not understand why someone might object to having anything religious interjected into their child's high school science curriculum. After all, what could be the harm?!

I don't remember now which link you included, but just in case, here's one to PBS's page with lots of extras about the program and ID:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_3_novabrjudgmentday_2007-11-14