Tucker Carlson's comments are illustrative in that they reveal the corporate news media's own view of the real function of the "news."

The news isn't for providing the citizens with the information needed to run a complex 21st Century democracy.

Instead, the news is simply that filler that runs between the commercials. They've got time to fill, and if they should ever offend their "subjects," they'd have to go out and research stories instead of having them spoon-fed to them.

Today subservience, credulity and amnesia are the three pillars of American "journalism." It's much easier (and safer for the career) than actually working. The only loser has been our democracy.

George W. Bush will bomb Iran after the November elections, when national and worldwide outrage at the carnage will have no effect on Republican electoral chances.

He will bomb Iran ostensibly to set back their nuclear-weapons program, but this will not be the reason. Nor will it be to protect Israel's interests.

He will do it just because he can, and as a final "Fuck you!" to a country that has rejected him and his policies.

Unless the entire Iranian state is leveled, this action will set the stage for an inevitable and totally justifiable Iranian nuclear retaliation -- whether by "suitcase bomb" or sailed by ship into a US coastal city.

The only way to prevent this catastrophe is to begin raising the issue now that no blanket presidential pardon of a president for himself (the language is surely being parsed by White House lawyers even now) will be honored, and that if wars are waged without congressional approval, ex-presidents shall be subject to international war crimes courts.

Since neither Obama nor Clinton can achieve the number of delegates required to win the nomination outright; and the Michigan and Florida debacle looms as an unresolvable nightmare; and the longer this conflict continues the more divided the Democrats will be and the better McCain's chances become. Therefore:

Hillary agrees to a single term and invites Obama to run as a Vice President. The party is united and the Florida/Michigan issue becomes moot. If elected, she makes history and can institute her reforms, yet shows her willingness to sacrifice her ambition (for two terms) for the good of her party and her country -- enhancing her popularity.

For Obama it's a good move for similar reputation-enhancing reasons -- he sacrifices ambition for the top job for the good of party and country. In four years, he (presumably) becomes president while still relatively young (their relative ages and experience make this the only workable sequence).

Any other scenario will either require a dark horse candidate like Gore or will split the party with disastrous electoral results.

With all due respect, your solution sucks. Particularly given that Hillary has already mathematically lost the nomination.

Neither can achieve the number of delegates required. That's the problem. And there's also the issue of Florida and Michigan.

And of course, there's that little matter of party unity.

Putting the mathematical loser on the top of the ticket does little to nothing for party unity.

But alienating half the party will.

As for Michigan and Florida, they knew the ramifications of their respective decisions and moved up their primaries anyway, so I have very little sympathy for them.

That may be so, but it is still a potentially divisive problem that will have to be addressed one way or another.

That being said, given their importance in the general election, I'd expect they'll get a do-over of some kind. Fine, so be it. They still don't make Clinton mathematically viable at all. Please, look at the math before you begin suggesting we grant Sen. Clinton 4 years for running a terrible campaign.

I don't see how running a campaign that has remained this close against both an excellent candidate like Obama and a hostile press corps can be described as "terrible."

Look, it's natural that you want your candidate at the top of the ticket. I waited outside in the cold here in Houston until 11:30 pm before I could enter the building to caucus for Obama, so I don't make this suggestion as a Clinton partisan.

It's about finding a reasonable compromise that's best for the party in November from the top to the bottom of the ballot.

First, if you don't think Clinton has faced a hostile press, you haven't been watching the same news media I've been seeing (and remember, I'm an Obama supporter). The debate performances by Brian Williams and Tim Russert (for one example) have been nothing less than prosecutorial towards her. The reason those SNL skits were funny was (to quote Homer Simpson) because they were true.

Second, I've seen a lot of "If XXXXX gets the nomination I'm either a) staying home on election day; or b) voting for John McCain" comments recently. Both of these options are unbelieveably stupid for any Democrat considering the miniscule policy differences between Obama and Clinton.

To reiterate: a unity ticket, announced soon, is the only solution.