I assume, Mr Greenwald, that you were just as outspoken about the pardoning of Mark Rich. That this pardon occured after Mark's wife donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Clinton Presidential Library - surely that's enough reason for outrage. I'd like to see a link to your article about that incident.

Or perhaps you've written about the outrageous demand by Senator Dick Durbin to pardon the imprisoned ex-Governor of Illinois, George Ryan. Ryan's term as the (Republican) Illinois Secretary of State was marked by the sale of commercial drivers licenses to unqualified truck drivers, which resulted in the burning to death of six children.

You have, right?

I am voting for Obama next week, no question. He was right about the single biggest foreign policy issue we are dealing with (Iraq), and he is right about our economy (slightly higher taxes and investment in our infrastructure).

But - something was bothering me during his ad. I'll tell you what it was.

Where on Earth is he getting the money to do all this? I mean, what moved everyone so much was essentially high production value propaganda. I love it if it means Obama has a better chance of winning, but I'm concerned about the precedent this sets.

I wonder if the key to the whole discussion is the little nuggest that the author threw in at the end, that her parents didn't like her fiancee. It sounds like the relationship between the two parties is still rocky.

Why is that, do you suppose?

This is utter stupidity. Even over a two page interview, this guy can't remain internally consistent. At some point he has to realize he is making absolutely no sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

That brings back some pretty miserable memories, but I'm afraid that aVulcan is dead wrong in his or her continual assertion that Palestinians didn't celebrate on 9/11.

Look closer, though, and you'll see that these are hardly cheering mobs. A few suckers who - according to some stories - were asked to act out their feelings by visiting camera crews who wanted a juicy video clip. I've no doubt that some Palestinians were pleased, of course, but the open V-J day like partying that some people imagine never happened.

Don't forget Pollack's turn in the Sopranos as the convict doctor tending Johnny Sac in the mafioso's last days. It was a wonderful and extraordinarily realistic potrayal of an older man who made a terrible mistake but still lived with quiet dignity and class.

Yes, this was a beautiful example of sportsmanship, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with gender. It does depend very much on the activity that the player was helped to do.

I listened to the interview CNN has with the two girls who carried the injured player, and they put it very matter-of-factly: She hit the homerun and deserved to go around the bases. In other words, once the ball has gone over the fence, the athletic and competitive portion of the play is over. The player needs to complete the play by touching the bases, and since she was injured, her opponents helped her complete the non-competitive portion of the play.

Now this is a very sensible and sportsmanlike approach, though it has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

According to Hhatchet, failing to nominate - or elect - Barack Obama will be evidence of America's racism and will indict her in the eyes of the world.

However, the only reason that Barack Obama is in a position to be nominated in the first place is because of the votes of millions of white people in the first place. Is any vote against a black candidate an indication of racism, according to Hhatchet?

We don't need such stupidity or malicious ignorance - take your pick - at this time. Obama is the right candidate for America, and would restore a progressive agenda to the politics of this country. We need this. Clinton fails the character test, and McCain's own cluelessness will sink him come November. Please, let's not let the pretenders to a progressive agenda derail us.

The good news is that I think Obama won't let that happen.

Carroll finds it shocking that the Pope insists that the Catholic Church is the preferred, superior method of reaching God?

Listen, if the Pope isn't going to be the strongest advocate of Catholicism in the world, who exactly did you expect would be? I doubt that many imams or rabbis express milquetoast sympathies for their own religions; calling out the Pope seems pretty hypocritical.

The Pope is a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, of global poverty, and of the death penalty. I expect a discussion of at least the first two of these during the Pope's week long visit in America, hardly sparing the feelings of President Bush. So what exactly is Carroll's problem here?

I'm not a fan of the Church's teaching on human sexuality, and I think its continuing deferral of the reckoning about the pedophiles in its priestly ranks is unforgivable. But attacking the Pope for advocating Catholicism and for pandering to Bush - which ain't happening - is bigoted nonsense.