. . . positively purring about the possibility of HRC being our next SS, it's apparent where all the Clintonistas went to lick their wounds after the convention. I guess most of you have forgotten who she's married to.

. . . whiff of Freakonomics about it - either the ideas are really half-baked and, in many cases, non-falsifiable or they are re-tellings of the painfully obvious. The example in the article about Jewish lawyers is has next to nothing to do with nurture vs. nature. It was pure happenstance - a completely random coming together of events.

Oh, and, he needs a haicut.

And if Obama goes through with it, his presidency will be over before it begins if for no other reason than the right loathes Hillary Clinton.

It would have been one thing for Hillary to be elected president and for her to have to deal with Bill (this is one of the reason I did not support her in the primaries). However, she would be a part of Obama's team and he just doesn't need the baggage Hillary brings with Bill as a two-fer.

Bill Clinton's post-presidential work is probably, as has was mentioned in the article, a minefield of conflicting interests. Think about the 9/11 Commission. Though its findings really amounted to nothing in the end, look how quickly the idea of having Kissinger head it up was squashed because of him being so close to the Saudi royal family (their "useful Jew") and the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers being Saudi nationals. Not completely analogous circumstances, but I still think it's best to keep the Clinton's away from the executive branch.

Actually, if you're a serious adult, you really have no reason to discuss either. This is the president-elect and the first lady we are talking about, not some entertainer whose appearance is part and parcel of their "act." Jennifer Lopez, of course, comes to mind.

Is it necessary to degrade everything? Is is necessary to examine everything through the lens of sexuality? Grow up.

Why do Okies keep voting for this guy? -- mountain girl

If you look at the numbers for the popular vote for president, Oklahoma was in the top three voting for McCain. It's a horrible place full of, apparently, horrible people. What other explanation is there?

You know what's weird, Ilive in OK and I don't know anybody who voted for Inhofe. Not a single person. -- Tobbar

You couldn't find anyone who would admit to voting for Nixon after Watergate, in spite of the fact that he won in a landslide in 1972.

But only if we take the tax code back to where it was in 1999 and trim the military budget by about 50%. In other words, I'll see you in hell.

. . . of freight 1 mile. The externalities beyond fuel consumption are crucial.

Moving freight by tractor-trailer (which don't get anywhere near 7MPG fuel "economy" - hell large pick-up trucks get that kind of mileage with a full load) cause massive amounts of congestion on highways and freeways, and abuse roadway by a factor of ten or so when compared to passenger vehicles.

Shipping long distances by train is always the most efficient way to transport goods and people.

Planes are (or used to be) the fastest way to move people. However, with all the hassle one now encounters flying, it is actually no slower to drive short distances on a freeway (under 300 miles) than flying.

I doubt getting a progressive into that slot would help much, frankly. What would a progressive defense secretary do---wipe out the militaryindustrialcorporatemedia complex? -- Baldie McEagle

Once were out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then we can get a "progressive" chief to help dramatically downsize our bloated and mostly unnecessary military.

Oh, never mind.

. . . are stupid and pointless in the extreme.

The first tries to explain how the Hummer is just wrong for the American market, but is well-suited to India, a country, on the whole, so poor that finding suitable vehicles for it's barely passable roads is the least of it's problems.

The Neil Young anecdote merely shows just how confused Bernard Sharky can be at times. Neil's a great song writer but has never been a great thinker. That his bio-diesel powered Hummer runs "90% cleaner" than the next vehicle is pointless since it still burns three times as much fuel and, as is well-documented, bio-diesel is anything but carbon-neutral.

Most of his analysis is built on a foundation of sand.

Oh, the pleasure of driving my bright yellow Jeep Cherokee next to a Hummer. The one, authentic, functional and even rather handsome - the other just absurd, pointless, ugly as sin. GWPDA_1

Jeep Cherokees are pieces of crap made by the worse auto company in the U.S. They use V-8 engines that develop less horsepower than the V-6 in my Honda Odyssey and get, of course, much worse gas mileage. Cherokees are consistently one of the lowest rated vehicles on the road.

Before SUV owners get into a rage at me for pointing this out and say you won't change your driving habits, I have two words for you: Darwin Award -- JamieO

Subaru has made the best vehicles for snow and generally crappy driving conditions for a couple decades now. Very few people actually need "off-road" vehicles.

And as for ranchers and the like needing SUVs - no. Typically, they need reliable pick-up trucks, another thing the Big Three haven't made for at least a couple decades now.

I actually wouldn't have cared all that much if stupid and/or insecure people wanted to buy useless vehicles like the Hummer (Escalade, Suburban, your choice here) as long as they paid a hefty tax for licensing their gas guzzling junk vehicles every year. Same goes for "motor homes."