I'm skeptical of the reason Foster gave for his win, with the caveat that I don't know that district and I could be wrong. In the AP articles, Foster said suburban sprawl is changing the demographics of the district and I'll believe that. However, look around US House seats in the Midwest, and it appears the GOP is being reduced to a suburban party, and I have a guess this election was won not because of suburban sprawl, but despite it. I noticed after the 2006 elections that the Democrats held all the rural seats in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the at-large seats in the Dakotas, two of four rural seats in Iowa, and they flipped three rural seats in Indiana. It looks like the Republicans are reduced to a stronghold in the suburbs and being competitive in rural areas, and in Minnesota we're going after those suburban seats. It was a terrible mistake to concede those seats and there's no reason to concede any rural Midwest seat, nor should we assume rural areas lean Republican. It appears the opposite is the case.

If we can flip some suburban districts too, the Republicans will essentially have no base.

I saw the videos on the linked blog, and I noticed that Oberweis felt being compared to Bush was an attack he had to parry. When congressional candidates run away from their party's president, they tend to lose and their party tends to lose, like so many Democrats did during the Carter and Clinton administrations.

It also struck me, Foster is a scientist. I've wondered if the "Republican war on science" and the movement to mediocrity in science and technology the Republicans have pushed us toward would turn scientists and engineers from a Republican-leaning group towards Democrats. Foster is just one scientist, but I'm thinking the answer is yes.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Puerto Rico already held referendums and consistently chosen commonwealth status over statehood or independence? I think commonwealth had a majority, but I'm reasonably sure it had a large plurality. So what is she proposing to settle? I don't blame her for thinking ahead, but I'm wondering if she's hunting for an issue.

Quotes like that matter because those of us who opposed invading and occupying Iraq need to be aware that even the neocons give up hope of success, they'll try to blame those who opposed their idiocy. It's not just that these brave scholars will fight to the last Iraqi. Consciously or unconsciously, they're laying the groundwork to blame war opponents just like they did after Vietnam. We're fools if we ignore them and don't prepare.

Come on kufir77,stop giving these guys thte benefiot of the doubt that they know something we don't. That's how we got into Iraq in the first place. They must know something and wouldn't just lie, right? Wrong. If they have real information that supports their case, they don't hold back. For McCain to keep saying these things shows either that he's as delusional as any neocon, or he really doesn't know the difference between sunnis and shias, between Al Qaida and Iran. Considering how many in government haven't known the difference, and remembering McCain's stroll through the market a year ago, either is possible.

Look McCain doesn't know something you don't. That's why he ends every sentence with "radical Islamic extremists". He has nothing else.

There's a difference between being guided by polls and caring what people think. Cheney and some others can't see it. Even the president is a representative, and he has to take popular opinion into account, even though it shouldn't be the only factor in a decision. To just not care about public opinion suggests he doesn't care about his policies' effects on the public either.

Maybe McCain isn't delusional like I've long thought, but just doesn't know much about Iraq and Iran. Maybe he's been so long in the beltway bubble that he really didn't realize that the massive protection needed for his visit to the market last year wasn't normal for outdoor markets. Anyway, don't forget the biggest problems with his statements: he forgot to use the phrase "radical Islamic extremists". It's a bit like Biden's comment on Guiliani using simple sentences that included a noun, a verb, and 911. Substitute "radical Islamic extremists" for "911", and that's McCain.

I doesn't seem like as obvious a topic for an article to ask those who got it right why they were right, but those who got it wrong should sure ask. Maybe there would be a temptation to boast "I opposed invading because I was smarter than you", but that couldn't be worse than these stupid rationalizations. It looks like their reasons can be boiled down to, "it was a good idea, but carried out badly, therefore I wasn't really wrong." As one of the smart ones, let me mention that the bushies were already apparent fools and crooks, and that was enough reason not to give them the power to go to war.

Glenn, the problem isn't just whose judgment was wrong. Those who slaughtered hundreds of thousands and counting are still in power. Those who made the terrible decisions are still making the decisions. I'll be willing at some point to let the beltway bubble denizens rationalize their foolishness in supporting a stupid and corrupt policy, but while those who lied to us still rule us, we can not and will not move on.