Well, I guess this about sums it up. This article hasn't even been up for eight hours and it already has nearly fifty letters. Our country is flailing about in a loosing way and many other important events transpire, and this is what passes for news. That, plus some former Playmates hangers on scrapping over he body.

Not to mention that a new study is released today saying that the American education system is failing worse than we thought. I somehow suspect there is a connection.

You people need to go to law school ( on in some cases perhaps you'd better hope you never have to go to law school, because you won't make it very far). This case is 1) very easy; and 2) doesn't even tangentially touch on the issue or choice.

The alleged injury in question is to the mother. The alleged injury to the mother caused her to have a child with developmental defects. Therefore the parents are suing (as next friends of the child) to recover for the foreseeable harm that has been visited on the then fetus/now child by the city as a result of the injury to the mother. To my knowledge, this prenatal injury rule is the law in every state of the union.

Why on earth would you complain about this??!! Such outrageous shenanigans only help to show swing voters that it is the Republicans are the party who is outside of the mainstream. And the fact that her target was John Edwards, the Democratic candidate who has the greatest appeal to swing voters, makes it even better. Finally, the blatant untruth of her assertion -- that he is gay, when in fact he has a wife and kids -- just reinforces our case that these people are out to lunch. Hell, we ought to take out national adds showing what she's saying and showing the audience reaction instead of complaining.

to elect a trial lawyer as President. Go John Edwards.

This piece, and some of the comments are making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm sure that Senator Edwards heard from a great many people about their thoughts on going to war -- from ordinary citizens, to policy advisers, political advisers, all down the line.

Just because one political adviser gives an opinion, and an elected official later acts in conformity with that opinion, does not mean that he slavishly followed that given advice. If Senator Edwards heard from ten advisers, five on each side of the issue -- just to use an example -- that's consultation and carefully weighing all sides, not seeing which way the wind is blowing. Bob Shrumm may well over estimate the effect that his advice had on the Senator's thought processes (just as he may well overestimate his own importance).

But don't condemn John Edwards just because he may solicit and listen to advice from diverse quarters before making a decision. We've had six years of a President who hasn't done that and frankly, that's quite enough for me.

I agree with Dan that Pace's comments are creating a diversion from the real issues. And the verbal circumlocutions that some candidates are using are certainly not helpful and just tend to keep the spotlight on a issue that may not help progressive candidates with some swing voters.

However, a real debate would be more likely, and harm with swing voters less, if our candidates would follow John Edward's lead and just speak their mind in forthright language, without evasion or wiggle room. However, that is certainly not a skill that comes naturally to Hillary.

It's not wag the dog unless we let it be.

Look at John Edward's answer. "I don't share that view. . . ." It acknowledges that others have different views and it doesn't traffic in absolutes. So it states where he stands without unnecessarily alienating those who may well have a contrary view, but who otherwise may share his (and our) view on health care, the war, etc.

And it has the additional advantage of being refreshingly honest, open, and not looking like (or worse, being) in the thrall of political consultants, focus groups, etc., a quality that comes quite naturally to the junior senator from New York.

This wonderful spectacle goes to show the power of the subpoena. None of this would have even happened if the Democrats had not won at least one house back in Congress. No e-mails to compare with statements, no lists of "Bushie" ass kissers, etc. It is indeed fun to watch. Ah, the joys of the power of the subpoena.