You're right, in a way. The key is to follow Corsi's laughable standards for "reporting": interview biased sources, do questionable research, only corroborate the "facts" that support the thesis with which you went into the book (e.g., Obama is evil) and then when you get called on the carpet, all anyone can say is that you're an incompetent journalist as you drive to the bank to deposit your latest royalty check.

Incompetence isn't a crime (though with the Bush White House, wouldn't it be splendiferous if it was?), so you're covered. There's the method: write a "research profile" of Corsi that cites "sources" who insist he's a nun-raping, meth-tooting pedophile, then say, "Oops!"

Bravo. Truly brilliant.

Where's your damn book deal?

Telecommuting.

I still don't get why this is not the rage in this country. It should be. With so many of us working information-based jobs, and with the high-speed communication and data transfer technologies we have now, there's no reason (other than entrenched executive power structures) that millions of people could not be working at home all or most of the time.

Imagine if 50% of the typical daily workforce--lawyers, administrative assistants, PR flacks, computer programmers, engineers, writers, basically anyone who works primarily with data and ideas and talks to people on the phone--could be taken off the roads on a given day. They could do meetings via Webex or something, spend time with their kids, reduce commuting stress, even walk to the grocery store, by God.

Sure, doctors, nurses, cops, firefighters, teachers--they would still have to drive to work. But getting HALF the workforce off the roads would be huge in terms of reducing emissions, cutting petroleum demand and improving traffic, not to mention the social and family benefits.

So, um, why the HELL aren't we spending billions on it?

Bout damned time.

Some people's obsession with Hillary is no different than the cult of personality that grew around Bush. She can do no wrong, and she's the embodiment of everything that this country needs, blah, blah.

My take on it is this: whatever you think of Obama, whatever you think of Clinton, this country does NOT lose when it has two people of this caliber shaping policy, whichever of them is in the Oval Office. My feeling is that if Hillary can wrestle Bill's ego to the floor and support Obama 110%, then she should be his first Supreme Court nominee when an opening comes up.

Now I have to ask you, disappointed Hillary supporters, what is this election about for you? Is it about making a bitter, Naderesque point, or about getting this country back on the right course? To put it the way I wish Hillary had during her speech, you are all patriots. Every person who so passionately supported Hillary in her historic quest is a patriot, and you should be proud that she got so far. But the best way to honor your patriotism and to serve this country with it is to turn it to supporting Obama, who is the nominee.

True patriots are able to set their personal passions for a candidate or a cause aside to devote themselves to the big picture and do what is right for all. By God, that's what we're supposed to be about as progressives! So, Hillary supporters, what say you?

Of course she hasn't thought about Iraq. Loyal Repugnants don't THINK about Iraq. They just line up behind whatever Great White Father Dubya wants and say, "Brilliant!" like they're in a Guinness ad.

In fact, Repugnants aren't encouraged to think at all. That's egghead stuff that libs and John Kerry do. They'd rather look in the eyes of world leaders like Putin and "know their souls" so they can be sure they would never do things like...what? Putin did what? Really? Not that Georgia but the other one? Oh dear...oh dear me... When I looked in his eyes, I didn't see that coming at all...

She's a great VP choice. For Obama.

Right. A feminist Hillary supporter is going to put her vote behind someone who's against womens' reproductive rights, just because she's carrying around a vagina. Sure.

Hey, v for vote, v for vagina! That must be it!

Pandering, lame, obvious, insulting pick of someone who really does appear to be the female Dan Quayle. The scary thing is that Quayle didn't stop Bush I from being elected. However, it's safe to say that Mike Dukakis was no Barack Obama.

Nice to see that the dialogue has already reached such rhetorical heights as "retard." Can we just shut this thread down now before we descend to "poo-poo, ka-ka" level?

Oh, and to the issue, anyone who accuses the Left of being vicious compared to the Right has been living in a dream world. Remember, the Right brought us:

a) The Saxby Chambliss attack ads on Sen. Max Cleland during the 2002 Georgia Senate race, in which Chambliss, who did not serve in the military, compared Cleland, a triple-amputee who lost his limbs in Vietnam, to Osama bin Laden (this seems to be a common thread in the GOP, people who bailed on military service attacking the patriotism of those who served).

b) The 2000 primary whisper campaign in South Carolina, in which Karl Rove operatives spread rumors that McCain had a black love child, when in reality he and his wife had adopted a daughter from Central Asia.

That's pure ugliness. That's the Right in a nutshell.

Anybody want to start a "Sarah steps down" pool? I predict her daughter's traumatic pregnancy will move Gov. Palin to recuse herself from the veep ticket to "tend to my family during this difficult time" (and no doubt polish her shotgun for the upcoming nuptials).

Alan Keyes would be almost as good. But if McCain had a brain, he'd pick Condi Rice. She would have damned near locked up the election for him: woman, black, educated, accomplished, and a perfect Bushie stooge that will appeal to the Right.