Yeah, I get that's the argument. I just don't think it makes any sense. What's the point of saying that you're party to the conventions whether the other party is or not, then saying that you're not if the other party isn't? I just don't think the second sentence can be read that way, or the entire paragraph doesn't really make sense.

So it seems to me.

I don't know how you managed to parse it the way you did, but the first sentence in Article 2 clearly says that if you're party to the Conventions, it doesn't matter if your opponent is or not. Now, as you said, if you want to argue that Al Queda is not a "Power", I think that's a lot more interesting argument.

But seriously, shouldn't Al-Qaida have realized that the good times under Bush couldn't last forever?

I'm thinking next June. I don't see any advantages to having Joe heading that committee. I actually don't care about the campaigning (although that should clearly establish he doesn't hold values I think Dems should be pushing) as much as the fact that he was TERRIBLE at running this thing before. I'm sure anyone in New Orleans, or anybody being tortured by the US anywhere is psyched that Joe still has their back.

More than anything else, is Holder going to uphold the rule of law? I would love for the criminals in the Bush administration to get what they deserve, but at the very least, the abuses they promoted need to stop.

Actually, I change my mind. There definitely need to be some prosecutions. I've always felt that the lack of hard time for Iran/Contra led to the kind of problems we saw with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

That there wasn't jail time for the "still-president" Bush, so that absolutely no one would want to be like him.

Also too bad that Shooter is still peddling that false equivalency.

You cut him off from having access to the power he craves. Problem solved.

He won't vote with you on issues you think are important? Advertise it. You think the people in Connecticut will like seeing Joe blocking health care reform?

That would take care of the problem...assuming that the Dems see him as being a problem. I think that's the real issue here. It's ridiculous to think that they couldn't get rid of him if they didn't want to. They don't want to. That's the real issue, and probably what the focus of this issue should be. Why don't the Democrats in Washington want to get rid of Joe Lieberman? That's the real question.

Not enough intestinal fortitude among American politicians for these sociopaths to ever be punished. Also, there are too many people in Washington worried about how far the fallout for all this could spread.

Without the possibility of criminal investigations, it's all show. What these people did is inexcusable - or should be.

Not a very good one though. Not as very bright one either, apparently.

I did like Pachyderm's list of good journalists though, explains quite a bit...including his misunderstanding of the word "journalist".

Thanks for the link. That was one of the funniest things I've ever read. Truly masterful, I couldn't even dream of writing satire like that.

That's a joke, right? I agree with the poster who said he'd rather face a firing squad, the odds are better.

It's not serious, is it?

I think as many progressives as possible should get behind that idea. I think it would split the Republican Party. Go for it, Sarah!

Not for revenge, but because he can't be trusted to do anything he says.

In particular, for reading Dowd so I don't have to. You're completely correct, that equivalence is completely insane. I don't think there's any better proof than the fact that Pachy Cro-magnon was here trying to defend that.

Oh, and Harry Reid is ridiculous. Apparently a mandate did bite him in the ass, and he still didn't recognize it...

To keep track of who is spouting nonsense, and who isn't. Also, to take note of the total awesomeness of Kristol and Coulter. If they said they believed in evolution, I'd really have to look into Intelligent Design. They're ALWAYS wrong.

Listening to FOX right now is a gas. NOW they're saying this has been ugly. And now they're playing this up as a triumph for the American people, when they would have given vital organs to prevent this from happening.

I suspect that they're seeing a dwindling audience if they don't change the way they play it.

Me, I think this is beautiful.

They're starting to fight over the reasons for the loss. Glenn, you were right, this is beautiful. Thanks.

That was one of the best speeches I've heard McCain give. Very graceful. Some of his supporters though...

Doesn't matter. Let's see how these people react tomorrow. I'm just gonna enjoy this now.

Or does Shepherd really seem like he's on drugs? Could he be more mellow?

Already some talking heads on Fox are saying that they hope Obama listens to the business community.

I guess because they've been managing things so well lately.

Actually, it was taking me back to my youth and Star Wars.

Faux just called it for Obama too. Now I can relax. It's over, and it's just beginning.

I don't know though, I can understand the temptation right now...this seems to be taking forever.

Yeah, I saw Carville. That was funny. "Me? What are you talking about?" I bet he hasn't scrambled that fast since high school.

I gotta preview this stuff beforehand. Sorry about the typo.

I hear you. I hope you won't need it.

I still see some signs of life out there though...

What do people here do if Obama loses, and it seems like it's another stolen election? What do you do?

Yeah, I'm nervous about this. I won't relax until the stake is in and the head of this election has been cut off.