@salonusernameagain: what s/he said:

"Please do the whole country a favor AND READ THIS BOOK - and ask yourselves, do you really want FOUR MORE YEARS OF THIS NIGHTMARE? It's not WORTH IT. Voting for McCain is a vote for FOUR MORE YEARS. WE CAN'T TAKE IT."

When you're right, you're right.

at Mr. McClellan "finally" coming clean, now that (1) it doesn't count, (2) is particularly lucrative for him, (3) is just a "search for redemption", (4) yada yada yada.

If he can testify against Mr. Bush and his White House henchmen, it might put impeachment back onto the table.

As long as they don't get to him before the Congress does. I'd suggest Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emmanual whisk Mr. McClellan away to a "safe" location. A surprising number of people with information, from Enron to the D.C. Madame, have suddenly committed suicide rather than testify against this administration. Others have repudiated themselves in abject ceremonies of public degradation, and no more was ever heard from them.

Let's not let either happen to Scott McClellan, no matter how little regard some might have for him.

... and the Right has cornered the market for it. So the Left has finally wised up and tried for humor? Good for Stewart, Colbert, Franken, Stephanie Miller, and the rest!

Seriously, for years, lefties have been shaking their heads about how we're in a "post-irony" era, and generally intellectualizing the fact that the far right wingnuts have discovered that there is no bottom to how low you can go; that the more outrageous your actions, the less likely anyone will speak up, because geeze, they'll come across like conspiracy theorists.

The only effective way to counter the over-the-top absurdity of Today's Republican Party™ is to laugh at it. Point out the ridiculousness. Connect those dots ... into a clown face.

People are more than ready to laugh, and once they're laughing, the old appeals to fear will stop working.

After all, reality has a liberal bias.

It just doesn't fly that the media's main bias is to make more money, to attract more eyeballs - the commercial, "free enterprise" argument.

If this were the case, then:

• Realizing that non-rightwingers are a significant part of the viewing audience, a noticeable part of programming would be dedicated to them. It's not.
• Realizing that conflict and scandal sell, the sins of the White House and Congressional Republicans would be front page/top of the news items. They're not.
• Realizing that delivering a more educated, more affluent audience to advertisers can increase their viewership and ad revenue, intelligent, unbiased news and analysis would be scheduled regularly. It isn't; we're drowning in a sea of brain dead, nice hair bellowing heads.

Media bias is not explainable by economic factors. "Free Enterprise" and "The Market" would give different results than what Mr. Greenwald describes.

If nothing else, the crafty use of racial references by the Obama campaign to unfairly demonize one's opponent as a racist gives me hope that they can swiftboat as good as they get this fall against the Great Republican Slime Machine. Frankly, I look forward to seeing over the top accusations leveled against John McCain's every careless word and phrase.

And seriously - did ANY of us expect that Senator Clinton would get fair treatment from the media, better known as the "Mighty Wurlitzer" of the Republican Party? After they've spent the last few decades bashing her (and Bill, but they really hated her, for what appear to be Freudian reasons)?

The only real surprise to this observer is how few Americans notice - or care - how "Hillary" has been treated, and how most appear to relish the bashing. Just check out the other responses to this article.

You make some good points. But I want to take issue with being willing to pay an extra $100 or more for a seat.

You're right - this isn't bad for a seat. On the other hand, if you routinely need to buy seats in groups of four or more (as might be expected from a family), that mere $100 difference multiplies to $400 and up and at some point, could become a factor.

I'm guessing many more people travel alone than in groups - business trumps family traffic. Business and single travelers tend to resent familial groups, which typically include screaming babies and whining children (not to mention whining spouses.)

So airlines will and, by economic logic, should tend to cater to the lone traveler: it's where the money is, both in numbers and insensitivity to price.

Still, even using that logic, American's decision to charge $15 for the first bag makes little sense.

... and a Negro baseball player could never again have played ball...