Storm wasn't going after Kucinich because she couldn't understand his answer. She did that because "Ahmadinejad" has become a loaded word. We feel a need, as part of demonizing an enemy, to have one person who becomes the symbol of what we hate, and we let ourselves confuse that individual with a nation, ideology, religion, etc., and in the case of Iran, that's Ahmadinejad, despite his power being limited. Storm was trying to get Kucinich to utter the powerful word, so that it could be a gotcha moment like she, and most beltway reporters, think they have against Obama.

Kucinich frankly showed the most media savvy I've seen from him, and he handled it far better than he handled the UFO question in the debate. He didn't fall for Storm's tactic and he got his answer out and repeated it. His answer to the question about the attention given to his wife was brilliant. The age difference means they'll never get past the trophy wife charge, but they succeeded not only in making Elizabeth seem like a serious person, but in looking like people with a real bond, not just the requisite candidate family show.

So if you're backing Kucinich, absolutely show this interview.

to dm8877, and to whoever gave that letter a star, you probably didn't know that senators have to cast votes in person. They aren't allowed to vote absentee. It isn't a dodge. It's why Tim Johnson wasn't voting until he was well enough to get tot he floor. Argue if you want that they should be able to vote remotely, but right now that isn't an option. Reid probably did it by accident, but he screwed over Obama by saying the vote wouldn't happen and then letting it happen.

..he has no idea what to do, and I mean that in regard to both Turkey and Pakistan. His policies, corruption, and incompetence are having the predictable (and predicted) effects, and nobody in the fake administration knows what do to beyond muddle through another week.

Not that I know what to do either, but it's not like I haven't opposed every move up until now. If I come up with a good idea, just like anyone outside the administration having a good idea --- won't matter. They won't listen.

Looking at how the new Bushes are the same as the old Bushes, I'm reminded of what Tom Paine said about hereditary rulers making as much sense as hereditary mathematicians.

Dear Sidney, though I'll miss your columns, your presence in Clinton's campaign gives me some reassurance about her. I say that as someone active in my local Democratic Party, yet finding myself thinking about casting a third party vote if Clinton is our candidate. She insists on associating with ethically slippery rich people who want something from the government. I sometimes joke that no one benefits from opinion polls more than her, because without them she wouldn't know what she thinks. I feel better that she's brought you on board. For your first move, try to get rid of Mark Penn. It's insane for her to have this senior staffer frmo a company that represents any evil cause that will write them a check. His ilk is exactly what I want the next president to clean out of Washington. If he leaves, I might even be able to wear a Clinton button while doing GOTV (get out the vote) next year.

I'm sure there are embarrassed Saudis, just as many Americans feel humiliated at the thought the Bush regime represents us. So I won't condemn all Saudis, just the fundamentalists and the government in thrall to them.

That gets to the heart of the problem of foreign disapproval having no effect. Religious fundamentalists see the outside world as an enemy anyway, or at best as people who don't understand them and are lost in their unbelief. So of course they don't listen. We see that same behavior in our own government.

Not that this excuses the treatment of this rape victim, the occupation of Iraq, or anything else, but I hope it clarifies the problem.

Though Townsend might be fooled by the similarity of their first names, there is a bigger difference between George and George than 200 years. One was beloved for having the opportunity to seize dictatorial power but choosing not to, while the other has chosen to grab every bit of power he can.

I consider humor a sign of intelligence, and by that measure Huckabee is definitely the smartest of the Republican candidates. I hadn't ever heard of Chuck Norris jokes, nor did I see that joke on Family Guy, so I found the video funny. I found the video clips of The Daily Show and Colbert Report interesting because it seems weird that a candidate trying to be the authentic conservative is getting his media attention on liberal media like not just Comedy Central, but I've heard him interviewed by Bill Maher and Thom Hartmann too. Looks like it's working for him, which might show not just the liberal media is getting more influential, but that Huckabee is smart enough to find an alternative strategy.

On the other hand, there's this column a few days ago: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/. There's also the conservative religious leaning of Norris that, beyond the humor, makes me wonder just what Huckabee wants to do. If he gets nowhere in the GOP, I'm content to let him be this congenial former governor who can preach dietary reform to our obese society. However, we have enough ethically challenged theocrats as it is.

Something I've learned form the news coverage of Iraq is that politicians aren't the only ones who'll twist and obfuscate to avoid admitting a mistake. Am I wrong in my impression they didn't formerly have such an issue with correcting errors in reports? Or did I just not see how reporters and editors can spin too?