sirdook is right that the hysterical news stories about candidate expenditures lack any context. How much does Mr. Bush spend on his suits, for example? I'm guessing his shoes alone cost more than I paid for everything in my closet. And his hair styling? Adding in those fake silver grey highlights?

However! One important thing about the Palin Wardrobe-gate story is that this is the first time these standards have been applied to a Republican. No kidding - we all know about Bill Clinton's $200 haircut, John Edwards' $300 haircut (15 years of inflation, apparently), the whole 9 yards. But you've probably never seen a media frenzy over how much a Republican spends/has spent on her behalf. This in itself is BIG.

Secondly, Gov Palin has been tapped as the future of the GOP. Sounds stupid, but there you have it. So, if you're a progressive or liberal, you ought to be welcoming the media's sudden and snarky interest in the Palin Has No Clothes storyline. If Palin is the future, it's most cost-effective to destroy her NOW.

The Repubs were working against Bill Clinton full time, long before his run for the Presidency in 1992, because they recognized his potential. They weren't entirely successful - the man did get himself elected President twice. But they did poison his Presidency, block most of his agenda, and tar him with a huge number of fake scandals and stories that both he and his wife, Senator Clinton, still struggle with today.

Tired of Palin? I won't be happy until everyone in the country groans at the very mention of her name, and her political career is as dead as Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy.

"It boggles the mind to think how much was wasted, or just plain thrown away, and how little was gained by it."

Not at all.

• Billions of dollars were made by cronies of Bush/Cheney, generally for little, substandard, or no work.
• The concept of "government" was further denigrated, a major Republican goal since at least Ron Reagan
• Surveillance of your political enemies, using the full capabilities of NSA, CIA, FBI, and the telcos, was enabled and codified by statute.
• Torture and complete disregard for the norms of civilized behavior were allowed, and made hugely popular with Americans.
• Two wars are ongoing, which not only gives means of shoveling more money to cronies, but authorizes unlimited presidential power.
• The federal government was driven deeply into debt (so much that the term "deeply" is incredibly inadequate), giving credibility to calls for cutting back or eliminating major social programs, another Republican goal.
• Any decrease in military budgets has been rendered unthinkable, of course, because the rest of the world hates us so much. Either for "our freedom" (if you're a Republican) or for our actions (if you're not a "real" American)
• Bankers, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, credit card companies, and gawd knows who else by January 20th will have received even more of (it's your!) taxpayer money to make up for their poor decisions. Socialize losses, privatize profits - the Republican version of the "free market."
• Okay, I'm too depressed to continue. Add your own.

By Republican standards and goals, George W. Bush was probably the most successful President that the US has ever had. His cabal gained plenty.

The rest of us just don't count.

That ought to be the Democratic response. Today's Republican Party has come down hard in opposition to fairness - they say if the media were actually fair, they would be silenced. Why do Republicans need bias in their favor? Why can't they hold their own in a battle of ideas? Why do they require laws to let them cheat?

Yes, I know it's "Fairness Doctrine", and not simple "fairness." But really, the American public has shown impatience and distaste for these frou-frou hairsplitting distinctions. If Republicans complain, accuse them of trying to slide by on technicalities - The basis of the "Fairness Doctrine" is FAIRNESS - and they say they're against it. They're against fairness. Can you believe it??

I'd like to finally see some kind of push-back from Democrats on this issue, even if it's only in letters to the editor from individuals like myself.

Hmmmm....

1. This little-noticed clause in that formerly-irrelevant document may explain why no sitting Senators have been named to cabinet positions in several decades. It was illegal.

2. Just to be clear, laws and the afore-mentioned Constitution only apply to Democrats. And they apply double to Clintons.

3. The Republicans will have over 40 Senators when the good Senator's nomination comes up. Who thinks they won't block it? Isn't their strategy to block everything?

     3a. President Obama may find himself unable to staff a cabinet, the federal judiciary, and any other appointments that are traditionally made by newly-elected Presidents.

     3b. And good luck in getting any budgets passed...

4. Yeah, Clinton and Biden ought to resign today, to ensure that Republicans have a clear majority of the remaining Senators and can run the Senate throughout the rest of the lame duck session. Who sez a lame duck can't quack?

In addition to opportunities in healthcare reform, the Obama Administration could find the economic crisis as a way to start reeling in the massive military-industrial complex. A Star-Warz missile "shield" right next to Russia? To protect us from North Korea?? Kill it. Ditto for the one in Alaska. U.S. bases throughout Europe? In case Hitler comes back?? Close 'em. A whole suite of planes, boats, & bombs designed to take on the 1980s Soviet Union? Please. Cancel 'em. Contracts with third parties for everything from peeling (open dried) potato (flake cans) to bodyguarding and commando work? Replace 'em with American GIs, or do without.

Admittedly, this would impact a lot of aerospace jobs, largely those of working people (as opposed to investing people). So, put the skilled techs and engineers to work on sustainable energy, efficient transportation, and the like. Under different management.