Stephanie... you ask "What's the value of artistry that sucks the life out of you?" The value is in something I like to call "emotional masturbation". United 93 sounds like the sort of movie you would watch when you want to deliberately trigger a specific set of emotions, and thus the associated physical responses. Other examples include: watching Clue for the 100th time to laugh at "1+2+1+1", or watching When Harry Met Sally so you can cry at Billy Crystal's end speech to Meg Ryan. Some people like to control their emotional responses, and it sounds to me like United 93 would be a great way to trigger that sense of sickening dread that you might otherwise find in modern horror movies.

I don't understand... why didn't the Dems vote "present", or just abstain? If there were 0 no-votes, and a couple hundred abstentions, wouldn't that send the message that this was a sham vote?

Honestly... does it matter if there was quid pro quo here? Is that a violation of law? Is it a violation of ethics? Doesn't seem like either to me. At worst it makes Vilsack a sell-out, but doesn't really say anything about Clinton. Generally it just seems like a fair approach to me that the front-runner(s) help pay for the people who drop out early... setting aside the ease of abusing such a system, it would help prevent outsiders from feeling like they could never compete with the Clintons and Obamas of the world...

I work for one of the big outsourcing firms here in SF... and I'll tell you this. On-shore wages have been flat for the last several years due to pricing pressures from all the off-shoring. But the good news is that the fad stage of outsourcing is starting to fade, and people are realizing it doesn't make sense to outsource everything all the time. Plus, we're starting to tap out the pool of educated workers in India and other countries.

So as work starts to come back on-shore, wages are starting to increase again, which is good news for the US and European tech sectors. And for my wallet!

Does anyone know if she actually has the legal basis to refuse a subpoena from Congress? She's a citizen of the United States... I'm thinking the "Executive privilege" argument wouldn't hold up in court, ultimately? But I'd love to hear someone with more expertise than I answer that...

So what's the penalty if Gonzales is caught lying to Congress? Is there one at all, or will he just decide to resign so he can "spend more time with his family?"

Why are these people NEVER held accountable?!?!?

You meant "extreme de-Baathification policy", and not "extreme Baathification policy", right?

Giuliani uses 9/11 as an example in his past of his great leadership. Which is of course a strongly debateable point. Since then, he's done little but talk about how awesome he is... witness his playing hookey from the 9/11 Commission to the point that he got kicked off.

In contrast, Edwards uses Katrina as an example of his leadership right now. Edwards does not talk about how great he was in the days after Katrina, with no subsequent follow-up. Instead, he's STILL working to fix the problems in New Orleans, with political, social, and physical solutions.

So if you ask me, Edwards' offer is not at all tacky, while Giuliani's would make me want to stick a fork in his eye (though I think he's such a creep and a jerk I'd probably want to do that anyways). =P

The explicit trade deficit isn't helped if China makes and consumes its own goods. But because Apple is US-owned, profits are repatriated. So the US economy basically skims a little off the top of what would otherwise have been internal Chinese transactions.

Joan, my fellow SFer, I love you dearly... you're an excellent writer and we almost always agree. But that moment in the debate stood out for me, too, and in the opposite manner. I agree that Obama got it right. But Wolf was insisting that people answer his crappy yes/no questions, forcing them to bypass the obvious intervening gradations.

I was incredibly disappointed that Hillary said that security trumps human rights. That's ridiculous. Wolf's question could have alternately been phrased, "do you support torture, yes or no?" Correct? That was ultimately what he was asking. And Hillary said yes, she does. And Richardson said no.

Yes, Obama got it right, as he does so often. But if the candidates are going to play the media game of answering those over-simplified questions, then they better fall on the side of what's right. And what's right is to say nothing trumps human rights. Not even our "security".

What was it Ben Franklin said? "Those who would give up essential liberties for a measure of security, deserve neither liberty nor security." I think basic human rights count as an essential liberty. If we're going to compromise human liberty - the fundamental premise of our nation - in our own defense, then what the hell are we left defending?

hhahahahaahhaha... seriously?! he hadn't mentioned it till now?? Ace reporting, Post!! Ace!! oh man... hilarious. good times!

... with the other posters. That was a stupid question... or if not a stupid one, then it was one for which we all knew the answer. No candidate is going to say "oh gosh, I think about losing all the time." Because who will vote for or donate to a candidate who's not convinced they'll actually win? Even Kucinich (bless his heart) has to answer that way, right?