You can't be serious. They're cracking down on getting caught. They make no pretense about telling the truth.

I'll say this. You can write. And that is no small achievement.

Based on this article, however, I'd say that you need to build up your confidence and learn to think for yourself. Vacillating between extremes is messy and destabilizing.

Relax son. Life is long. You don't have to impress everyone the first go round.

....that abortion services will be included in anything coming out of the Senate. If anything actually passes in the Senate---which is far from certain---it may not even include a public option, let alone abortion services. Who are we kidding?

The "opt-out" clause would set a dangerous precendent. If conservative states can opt out of public health insurance, which they almost surely would, they are on a slippery slope to opting out of the United States of America. This may sound crazy in 2009, but if this because the legislative mode de jure, we will quickly become two nations under a single flag.

Why is it that politics seems to invite a particularly onerous group of scum bags? I know that most people have skeletons in the closet, but this clown makes Mark Sanford seem a paragon of virtue. I really do feel sorry for Elizabeth Edwards and that baby girl.

If you want to see a backlash against the Democratic Party from their liberal base, watch what happens if they pass healthcare "reform" legislation that doesn't include a public option.

Perhaps the Dems will lose seats in the House. Dems have recently won quite a few seats in very Republican districts. It won't be a surprise if Republicans win back those seats. But the Republican brand remains far more tarnished at this point than the Democratic brand. This hurts Republicans in statewide and especially in national elections. If elections were held today, I predict that the GOP would lose three seats in the Senate. As long as the Dems maintain a majority in the House---which they would under the most dire of Cooks predictions---adding seats in the Senate would actually give them more control.

I want to make it perfectly clear, that I am happy that former President Clinton used his substantial influence to free these two women and return them to their families. But I don't for a minute believe that this trip was not aided and abetted by substantial political calculation. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I'm merely stating that I'm not so naive as to think that trip was the result of pure, undiluted altruism. And if people are making gratuitous jokes about Clinton traveling alone, for hours with two young, attractive women....well, he brought that on himself didn't he.

Dearest Salon,

HuffPo is not the enemy. Please refrain from cannibalizing one of the few powerful progressive voices in the media.

Your friend,

TripLBee

I know that hundreds of writers are trying to drum up a new spin to this story. And the Phantom Negro gets credit for trying. But her/his underlying reasoning is preposterous. I am also an Ivy League Negro who took my fair share of abuse from cops at Yale and in New Haven during my time there. I didn't so much think that I should be immune from police harassment because I was an Ivy Leaguer. I thought I should be immune because it was wrong. Furthermore, I thought the cops at Yale should have extended the same courtesies and protections to me that they extended to my white college mates. After 20 years, I still can't see the flaw in this logic. And I perfectly understand Prof. Gates' outrage at being handcuffed in his own home by a cop who had established Gates' innocence. Plain and simply, Gates was arrested for "sassin' " the cop. The last time I checked, sassin was not illegal....even for an arrogant, Ivy League professor.

"Perhaps we are seeing the start of a level of sensitivity to how the Republican label is perceived among voters of Latin descent. As one observes the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to become the next Supreme Court Justice, it is clear Republicans on the committee are determined to be respectful, even admiring of what it means for her to be nominated."

Perhaps you missed Sen. Coburn's Ricky Ricardo immitation. Or essentially every racist platitude imaginable spouting from the bowels of Sen. Session. Maybe you are unaware of the fact that people of color (I count myself proudly among them) tend to be insulted when octogenarian, Southern white men incessantly compare them to the one person of color they know. (How many friggin times did she really need to reminded about Miguel Estrada?) The Sonia Sotomayor interrogation was the best example of how completely crippled the GOP has become with voters of color.

I've been disappointed with Obama on several fronts (ramping up the war in Afghanistan, vacillating on the withdraw date from Iraq, imposing no regulation on the banking sector, nominating a moderate to the Supreme Court). But his friend of the court brief simply defies all credulity. He is looking more and more like just another Bill Clinton. I am so very, very saddened by all of this.

Ms. Walsh,

I respect you immensely and appreciate your contributions to honest coverage of controversial issues. That being said, please don't give license to maniacs like O'Reilly. You knew full well that you were going to be subjected to a demonic rant. Whether or not O'Reilly actually believes what he says is a matter of debate. But he is a ratings hound who is famous because millions are apparently enticed by the sight of an aging man on the edge of rage. You couldn't have thought that you were going to have a discussion with him. He doesn't do discussions.