No empathy for a soldier wounded in combat--*shot in the face*--because you're facing the greater woes of having to pay high gas prices? Cry me a fucking river, guy. And if you think UH-60-hopping in full armor in Iraq is better than coach, you are pig-ignorant as well as whiny.

This kind of nonsense, along with the blather about enlisted soldiers doing harm to their country through their service--is what makes people think that liberals are obnoxious troop-hating assholes.

They are agents of the state providing a vital function to American society (national defense). That they are being employed in a way that does not, in fact, enhance national defense is the fault of the administration and high echelons of command, not of soldier swho enlist to serve their country. Yes, you can serve your country in other ways. But, again, the existence of the armed forces is necessary for our national defense--I don't think any of you people who are going on so loudly about how little sympathy they have for the troops would want to live in a U.s. that had no armed forces whatsoever! So unless you believe that our military should be abolished entirely, you cannot rationally blame enlisted soldiers for the Iraq debacle, and as fellow-Americans you *should* feel sympathy for them and their families for the miserable situation into which they have bene placed by the administration.

The other point here is that soldiers should not decide where and when to fight wars; that is a threat to civil control of the military. If you have a problem with the Iraq War, vote for leaders who will end it.

Alternatively, some of you have been blathering about how soldiers are bad and horrible because they're allowing the war to be perpetuated. Well, so are you, by paying your taxes. If you *really* believed in opposing the war, you'd do as Thoreau did, conspicuously refuse to pay taxes, and go to jail for what you believed in. But I bet none of you whiners are going to do that.

Despite the current divides within the Democratic Party, I am reasonably faithful that all but a small percentage of Hillary fans will end up voting for BHO when it comes down to it--especially since Hillary is sure to strongly endorse BHO and press for party unity once her time finally comes to step aside. Note that despite extraordinary amounts of bawling from various Republican/evangelical types about John McC, almost all by now have lined up behind him. If that is the case, then the VP nominee's key asset is how he can appeal to swing and traditionally-Republican voters, not how he can appeal to people who are already basically within the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. There cannot possibly be a Democrat in public office who appeals more to Southern white males than Jim Webb: a gun-toting, hunting-and-fishing, enthusiastically Scots-Irish-American ex-Secretary of the Navy (for *Reagan*) with populist economic views and not even a little elitist effeteness (George Allen tried to take this angle, based on Webb's work in Hollywood, and it failed rather spectacularly). He takes away any advantage McCain might gain by virtue of his Vietnam service. His consistent opposition to the Iraq War will surely appeal to the many Republicans who have come to doubt the wisdom of the war, while the Webb-Hagel GI Bill and the fact that he has a son in combat makes him (and by extension Obama) basically immune to the "they don't support the troops" canard (the Republicans will probably try, but are likely to fail just as Allen did and perhaps even provoke an irritated backlash).

Experiencewise, Webb has the goldilocks thing going for him. McCaskill is too inexperienced, Biden too establishment.

Webb has experience in defense policymaking (as a Reaganite!), supposedly a weak area for Democrats, but doesn't really have enough "inside-the-Beltway" time to appear to be a tired establishment hack who would conradict Obama's message of bringing change to Washington. VPs on the campaign trail typically fill the "attack dog" role, which the pugnacious Webb is eminently suited for--an excellent complement to the (usually) suave, even, and gracious Obama and more than a match for McCain's irritated-crabbiness demeanor.

As for the concern than it's too risky to pull a Democrat from the Senate, it is valid, but for one thing the current VA governor is a Democrat and can temporarily put in another Democrat to fill Webb's seat. Furthermore, given the way that just about every contested Congressional seat has gone to Democrats since November 2006, even in spectacularly unlikely districts, I find it hard to believe that the Democrats will not net at least one Senate seat this fall--particularly if a strong Presidential/VP tickets cause a lot of independents to vote Democrat! To get into specifics, I find it quite likely that both Hagel and Warner's open seats will go to Democrats and fairly likely that Franken will unseat Coleman (it's not even outside the realm of possibility that scandal-plagued Ted Stevens will be forced into long-overdue retirement by Democrat Nick Begich). Picking Webb, or any Senator, does assume a measure of risk but I think the reward is well worth it.

While we're on the subject of Veepstakes, I think John McCain would be a purblind fool not to pick Kay Bailey Hutchison as his running-mate. That's right, four seated Senators heading the national ticket this fall. You heard it here first!