My current take is that getting money from the defense industry is going to be more or less unavoidable. Every candidate is going to have defense contractors in their state/district, and I suppose to some extent, all entities must be entitled some voice in the gov't.

But I would make a distinction between having former Blackwater officials in my ranks (not sure if Edwards is close with these guys, but I know Romney is) with defense-connected industries generally. Building tanks, destroyers or missiles is one thing; training armed mercenaries to go around shooting things, policing our borders or defending gov't buildings is quite another. The lack of gov't direction and oversight of private contractors is terrifying to me.

The important things I would focus on are whether we have a guy who is going to play by the rules when he is office... not violate FISA, not send just about anybody off to be waterboarded, disregard the Federal Reserve, de-claw gov't oversight of industry and the environment... this list is endless.

I think Edwards is more or less on the right track with this stuff. At least with Edwards we can imagine a return to legal restraints on Presidential (or in the Bush case, vice-presidential) power.

I went through a huge Zeppelin phase in high school. Back then I thought they were just the most amazing band to ever grace the face of the Earth. But hearing other artists (e.g. Clapton, Hendrix) talk about the blues lead me down another branch in my musical path, and I sought out the original recordings of Black American Blues artists.

I was pretty blown away, and lost a lot of respect for Zeppelin when I started to realize nearly all of their first 2 albums were just Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon, Howlin Wolf and Robert Johnson tunes "written" by Page/Plant. Now I know they weren't the only white artists to do this, but they sure took it to another level.

It kind of makes me sick to see them get such slavish hero-worship... it's fundamentally unjust.

yes, to some extent all art may be derivative of prior generations, but Zeppelin didn't really re-interpret or build on what came before them, they just repackaged it. Sad that the "market" doesn't really reward creativity, but it does reward exploitation.

I am a huge Camille Paglia fan. I enjoy her column, and am not surprised she takes so much abuse here.

The sad thing about Salon, is that so many of its readers are still political hacks on some level... you're either for us or your against us. Whether that "us" is democrats, republicans, feminists, christians, Klansmen, etc. Rarely do you see any discussion of actual ideas; most comment threads boil down to a bunch of personal insults traded between liberal "intellectuals" and whatever dim-witted Republican blowhards show up.

Camille stands above it all, an intellectual voice unbiased by an agenda, and all she takes for it is abuse. You people are so pathetic. 99% of the comments attacking her are nothing but baseless ad hominem insults. If you disagree with what she says, try and make an intelligent point as to why. But don't just resort to playground name calling... 8 years olds, dude.

Or don't, I don't really care. You're the ones who are killing any sort of intellectual debate here.

That question might seem absurd, after all she is technically his wife, but in reality, they are a political partnership. It surprises me that anyone considers them to be a "traditional" married couple anymore.

To me the issue of his philandering is a NON-ISSUE. Who really cares? It's obvious the man does his own thing, and Hillary does hers. He'll be a great "First Husband," smooth talking foreign dignitaries, and keeping everyone happy... but the relationship between the Clintons really does not affect the actual issues. I mean, shouldn't the focus be on her political record, and her ability to govern?

It's this aspect of Hillary that I detest. It's tough to swallow her toeing the line on the Iraq War, and this administration's violations of FISA and various other Constitutional issues. I don't think she should get a pass for political expediency; these were all issues that are egregious enough and fundamental enough to our country's well being that they should have been fought at the time, not dismissed as politically inconvenient for her future presidential ambitions.

Maybe Barack Obama would've done the same thing; the fact is, he did not, and that is the reason he would get my vote over Hillary Clinton.