These guys will admit they're wrong when pigs fly...

I swear, I hold my subordinates to higher standards than half the Beltway seemingly do. And double that for the administration.

You'll NEVER get into the MSM talk shows with an attitude like that! Responding to criticism? How dare you?!? I mean, you'll set a bad precedent for other members of the Beltway Media. As in, responding to reality.

Because many of them have storylines deeper, or at the least, more cerebral, than network televisions.

Unless you've read at least one of the following, you're not much of an authority on whether comic books are simplistic...

Ultimates

Watchmen

Kingdom Come

Sandman

Swamp Thing

Akira

Top Ten

The Authority

Astro City

Transmetropolitan

That's just a list of some of the 'deeper' comic books out there. The POW BAM ERSPLASH world of comic book writing has been dying out slowly since the 80's or so. The big hits of today's comic world usually deal with real world issues in mature ways. Take Marvel's latest big universal event, in which super heroes were forced to 'take off their masks' and become government agents. It drew parallels to many of the issues we are facing today, and illustrated the means both sides of a conflict would go to to win.

Maybe you should read some more adult comics before you determine what's 'simplistic' and what isn't.

I think many of the bloggers and activists are just frustrated that even with a majority of Democrats, we can't seem to stop the war. And knowing that it's a bit ridiculous to consider armed opposition, I think that frustration is setting in. Talking to our representatives seems akin to arguing with a wall in many instances.

Thanks for the wonderful story. Keep up the great work.

Oh wait, NEWT GINGRICH. He'd be GREAT for the Democratic party.

Thanks for trying to move the political center even MORE to the right, but no thanks. Somehow I don't think that the 70% of the people against the war want to side with the warmongering neocons anymore.

I read those links from Orin Kerr... nice to see him get schooled by the comments. Fun to see the absolute craziness of Daniel950 too...her position seemed to be that if you don't want to get rid of all the amendments to combat the low chances that terorists are able to obtain and use a nuclear bomb before we stop them, then you are an idiot and want Americans to die.

There's the logic of Republicans in a nutshell.

If Republicans can survive this horrible highjacking of their party by crazed sociopaths, what does that say about America?

Interesting link. Always nice to learn something. :)

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if a NEW second party develops and casts aside the Republicans...

Mainly, for pointing out the rank hypocrisy (sp?) behind the people in charge right now. And I'm worried about the 20% that can't see the obvious.

For being one of the few voices of sanity in the media.

Well said good sir... well said.

Buying the Weekly World News was always a guilty pleasure for me... but worth it when I brought it around the office for fun.

You think they can't sink lower, but they do.

What's next?

I can only hope that Clinton, that NASCAR loving redneck beer-swilling hillbilly, will win the nominee. Who else can pull these voters? Certainly not Obama! He isn't 'authentic'. Nope, Clinton's the 'authentic' one. She's 'authentic' in whatever uniform she puts on, in front of whatever backdrop she feels is most 'authentic'.

Sheesh. Do these fools just write to read their own work while trying to pat their own backs? Do they think that partisan hackery like this persuades anyone? Or are they just happy to read letters from those who hold the same views congratulating him?

Baby boomers have voted overwhemingly for Clinton, whereas the younger generation (like myself) prefers Obama. The Dems can win this cycle with Hillary... but at the expense of alot of voters who are leaning blue, who will most likely push to independent if Hillary gets the nomination.

I have to ask...

Would you support delegates voting for Clinton if the popular vote went against her? If so, what are your reasons?

Additionally, and truthfully, were you one of the people saying that Florida and Michigan had to be counted? If you were, how do you reconcile these two stances?

What is it truly? I call it into question due to her vote on calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a 'terrorist' force.

It's not that I don't think they are most likely performing terrorist acts or not. It's that I wouldn't give the current President any leverage to wage war against Iran. Designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist force is like asking the President to ramp up war on Iran, in my mind... it's giving him carte blanche to 'take care of the terrorist threat'.

... to be such a partisan hackjob?

I mean, really. No mention of Clinton's large leads before the event, and the narrowing of the gap that Obama managed?

Hasn't won a primary since Feb 22? And exactly HOW MANY primaries have occurred since then?

"Obama might survive a near-wipeout"... any indication this will happen? I'm pretty sure that there's a few states Obama still might take.

And worst of all... she has to "search under the sofa"? You mention the 109M in the same sentence, so I don't even get the point of that sentence. In essence, you're saying, "She'll have to rely on small donors even though she has 109 Mil."

Obama can't mathematically come close to reaching a majority.... which means that neither can Clinton. And Clinton is behind... and won't catch up. So, again, what is your point?

Is it too much to ask for an article that show some sense of balance? Or must everything from you be Hillary-spin? I'm sure there are strong arguments for voting for Hillary over Obama, but one thing is for sure... you're not making them.