"Responding to criticism of the president's war by leaking the identity of a CIA agent? Heinous or not -- and you know how we feel on that point -- it's going to be hard to persuade a judge that these actions weren't within the scope of official duties for Cheney, Rove and Libby."

False. If outing Valerie Plame was within the scope of Cheney's official duties, then she has no case; in legal lingo, she has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Officials are immunized from collateral damage caused by policy choices; otherwise every zoning board would be defending lawsuits all the time. The largest issue in Plame's lawsuit is that leaking her identity was NOT within the scope of Cheney et al.'s official duties.

Besides, would you say bugging Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist was within the Nixon White House's official duties? J. Edgar Hoover's use of the FBI to blackmail Martin Luther King? How much difference between those examples and Valerie Plame?

The people who will die and have died because of the Bush v. Gore Five don't have anyone to hold accountable, either.

Dick Wadhams: "Never in modern times has a statewide officeholder and candidate been so vilified in a desperate attempt to revive a campaign that was fast-sinking. . . ." According to his terms, the Macaca vilification worked. Apparently he does not think that the opposition is "fast-sinking" anymore. (See also today's Salon.com article by Michael Scherer.)

There's a long article about Wadhams in the current Washington Monthly, saying, a) he's positioned to be the next Karl Rove; and b) Democrats are learning how to beat him at his own game. He's just admitted that they scored this time. And, as a typical Republican, the idea that the other side would hit back makes him furious. Good.

Magoo wrote an editor's choice letter saying, "Hey, Bush is no dumber now than he was five years ago. Scarborough's just a rat jumping off the sinking ship." Second sentence: no doubt whatsoever in my mind. First sentence: maybe not. Crooks&Liars has some video footage comparing Bush the debater in 1994 and Bush the debater in 2004. There's a big difference. The younger Bush was confident and coherent. He may have memorized his lines, but he memorized them well.

Whether it's presenile dementia, hitting the bottle, or something less dramatic, Bush is clearly not the man he was 10 years ago.

If Katherine Harris is defeated in her Senate race, she'll be available to be renominated as Head Vote-Counter and Election-Fixer in Florida, positioned to deliver the state to the GOP nominee (Jeb?) in 2008.

I can't tell you how relieved I am to see this near-unanimous scorn for this non-problem. Teenagers have been hanging around in diners and coffee houses for decades. There's always been caffeine in the coffee and cream and sugar on the counter. What's the problem? More to the point, where would you rather have the kids hang out?

Bravo to Salon's weekenders!

I really hope, for Joe Lieberman's sake, that the Liebermans are not selling Joe's political soul for $77,000. $77,000??!! Peanuts.

Joe, if you're selling your vote and making a fool of yourself for $77,000, you're worse than a whore -- you're a cheap whore. They've bought you for nothing; your wife could have gotten an honest job and earned at least that much. Every day, we learn another way you're a fool.

Call it the Chateau D'If.

[somehow the text of my first post was lost]

Glenn, you're a smart guy and all, but I'm sorry to say that you're 'way too long-winded for the "War Room." Salon ought to give you a weekly column.

I beat little Ricky to it by a couple of years. Here's my view of Middle-Earth, January 2004:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/soitbegins.JPG

Airing this ad will be a big blunder. Does the RNC really want to emphasize "the stakes" when a majority of Americans think the Democrats will do a better job of fighting terrorism?

Thankyou thankyou thankyou thankyou Garrison Keillor.

"What if Mr. Cheney does not wish to give up power two years from now? Maybe he has other priorities. If an enemy of the United States -- a Democrat, for example -- appeared to be on the verge of election, perhaps Mr. Cheney, for the good of the country, will be forced to take the threat seriously and . . . call the whole thing off."

Bush and Cheney have been pushing for years for a legal environment where such a thing is permissible under the letter of the law. Now they have it. So when the election is called off, where shall we man the barricades? I'll be there, but it'd be nice if we had a plan.

"In a single election, all the Republican predictions of a generation of hegemony had been swept away."

Herr Schickelgruber's Thousand-Year Reich also lasted only twelve years. Coincidence?

Carville wants to take down Dean by coup d'etat. Emanuel is spending his clout on the fiction that the Big Win was 99% due to him and his insider buddies. Lieberman wants vengeance against the "netroots." The pundit class -- those referring to the blowhard David Broder as their "dean" -- has always wanted the bloggers thoroughly put down, if not out.

And on the lame-duck agenda is the Net Neutrality bill, which cannot do otherwise but handicap those upstart webheads like Kos and Jane Hamsher. If every porcine insider having a beef against the bloggers, on either side of the aisle, votes for it, it'll pass in a walk.

I wouldn't bet against it.

goes digital.