Reading this article, I have expect Thompson to start his sentences with, "Now I don't know nothing about no book learnin'...". Do any of the peopel at his rallies know he made his money as a lobbyist for anybody signing a check?

Yes folks, he's just like you: ignorant of the big issues of the day and electing the people best able to peddle that ignorance.

Making fun of someone's name is a cheap shot, like "Obama-Osama". When you look at the rest of the text of the ad, there's nothing wrong with it. Pretraeus does have a record of being a Bush loyalist, and his numbers are cooked, and his recommendations make little sense. Unfortunately, "Betray Us" blew it, and gave the pro-occupation side their only talking point. I saw them doing what they do, completely changing the subject to work in their talking point. At least make them resort to blaming everything on Bill Clinton.

I notice here and on other blogs, the discussion is about MoveOn. it should have been an asterisk that they ran an ad. The unavoidable fact is that the text was accurate, but the headline probably stopped a lot of people reading it, and worse, the headline gave the right a talking point that doesn't even require them to use half-truths. There is a good response to the cogressional resolutions to censure MoveOn, you guys wouldn't even censure Gonzales, so get your priorities straight. Still, the fact we have to think about how to respond shows what a bonehead move that headline was.

I live in Minneapolis, and I bicycle to work now while I work downtown. I drive when I work in suburbs. I've also biked, or tried to, in St. Paul, Chicago, and Houston. Minneapolitans bike more not because we're particularly virtuous, smart, athletic, or too poor to afford cars. The city has made lanes and paths over much of the city, more than any other city so far as I know. St. Paul does pretty good in this regard, as does Chicago. Houston's idea of a bike lane was two feet wide for a couple blocks here and there, or even a car lane marked for bikes too. The more lanes, the more riders. My experience of suburbs are that bike lanes are restricted to paths in parks, and street are generally curb to curb cars, making bicycling dangerous. Even with heat and cold, bike use is mostly a function of the availability of safe and convenient routes.

Trouble all around. The idiot was deliberately disruptive and resisting attempts to remove him, but I would think with handcuffs and multiple police, his removal was assured. Kerry is going to get criticized for his response, but who expects that? And how should he have reacted? I might think of a better way, but I'm getting time to think about it, not having it right in front of me right now with no warning. Somehow, I think Kerry will get blamed for the Taser, though how it's his fault I can't see. I bet if anyone turns on conservative talk radio, this is a main topic of conversation.

I had a strong "wait a minute" moment reading this post. When the girl said, "Eighteen years ago, an abortionist was hired to kill me, but he failed. Nuns came and rescued me and took me to the hospital, where I stayed for two months. My heroic parents then adopted me," that didn't add up. Most abortions are performed early, when nuns, no matter how well meaning, could keep a fetus alive. If she was aborted late, there was a serious problem and her survival was unlikely anyway. If she was somewhere where some nuns could find her, how likely is it the aborted fetus would somehow still be alive? I could believe some nuns found an infant abandoned at birth, but an abortion survivor?

I prefer to think this is a kid who has been lied to rather than a liar, but nonetheless, I don't believe her. Am I really the only on with that reaction?

It's the inappropriateness of her laugh that's the problem, not the way she does it, or even that she calculates it. Look at this clip from the last debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o

Gravel points out the stupidity of voting for this resolution that essentially declares war on Iran, and Hillary's response is to laugh. I'm already thinking the only way I can vote for her is if the election is close. Now I'm wondering if even then I could vote for her.

I've derided Matthews shallow, but I'm glad he confirmed what many of us outside the beltway media suspected, that the bushies put pressure on any media outlet that doesn't follow the GOP line. I agree with the commenters who have said essentially that Matthews parrots the beltway consensus and acts like he's reporting on sports instead of something serious. Maybe it's just low expectations, because I wouldn't have been surprised at all to hear of Olbermann challenging the powers that be, but I give Matthews some credit.

I'm glad Clinton has finally come up with something, but since Dodd already proposed something better, rather than saying Clinton's plan is good enough, why not just vote for Dodd in the first place? It's more of this follow the polls, Republican-lite schtick Clinton has going. At least Dodd comes up with this stuff BEFORE the polls tell him it's safe.

It's bad enough Mark Penn has any place in a Democratic campaign, but he actually puts his name to campaign e-mail? Why on earth would any knowledgeable person trust a professional union buster? He's another reason I might cast a protest vote if Hillary's the candidate. Why, Democrats, why are any of us taking her seriously as our candidate? I can see voting for her in the general election if that's the only way to beat the Republican, but we have so many better choices right now.