In the linked Fox article, Rich Lowry said, “A statement like that suggests a distorted view of America and what it’s about.” This is coming the editor of National Review. He and his magazine haven't gotten anything right in this century, at least, yet with a consistent record of getting it wrong he says that about Mrs. Obama. What a delusional twit. They're obviously desperately stretching for anything to twist.

This is an impressive speech, I say that as an Obama supporter, but there are some things she still doesn't get. Her proposed commission consists of people who helped create the problem, especially Greenspan, but also Rubin. She has never figured out, with foreclosures or other issues, that solving them isn't a matter of getting the beltway elite to do something different, but to stop listening to them and get them out of power.

Same with the proposal to protect mortgage brokers from lawsuits. The problem has been the lack of accountability, not the excess of it. This immunity from lawsuits is something Congress has grown fond of granting to favored corporate special interests. We need less of it, not more. Clinton is smart and knows her details, but in her intimate familiarity with the problems of each tree, she can't see the problems of the forest.

In this story on generals telling Bush the armed forces are strained, the only non-government spokesman quoted is Fred Kagan:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-26-bush-iraq_N.htm?csp=34

Those of you arguing that she should go to prison because arson can be terrorism are completely missing the point. You're being fooled by an argument frequently used against wrongly accused people: the crime was terrible, therefore the defendant must be guilty. Whether this is terrorism or not is beside the point. The point is this appears to have been a political prosecution, and any of here could have been convicted in the same circumstances. After all the politicization of the Justice Department and all the political prosecutions at the hands of the US Attorneys who didn't get fired, why are you so quick to presume the trial was fair and Waters is guilty? You could much more safely assume the opposite. You could assume they were locking up every leftist dissident they could, and false criminal charges are just a tool for doing that.

No, I don't know for sure she's innocent, but from this article which is what all of us are going on, you sure can't be sure she's guilty. And don't tell me we have to believe the jury. Even in the Georgia Thompson case, the jury was fooled.

The Obama campaign is right about one thing. Clinton's only hope is that something unforeseen and very bad happens to Obama. The issue with Obama's church was foreseeable and foreseen, and Clinton's supporters who brought it up were right that it would become an issue once it was more broadly covered. However, Obama handled it masterfully, going beyond damage control and into turning a problem into an opportunity. Clinton has every right to hold out in hopes something else goes wrong, but that's all she's running on at this point.

Now please, both campaigns, get after McCain on this Al Qaida/Iran flap. The media will just ignore it if the campaigns ignore it. One thing we should have learned from Rove is that going after an opponent on his perceived strength is an effective strategy, and unlike Rove, Clinton and Obama don't even need to lie about McCain's record.

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.

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.

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.

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.