With the paper he contributes to bringing in an unhinged maniac like Kristol. Does one bad apple (Kristol) spoil the whole bunch? How about several bad apples (Dowd, Brooks, Kristol, Friedman) spoiling the whole bunch? At what point would it no longer matter?

I do not subscribe to the NYT, but did subscribe to their online thingy while it lasted. The only reason I did was to read Paul Krugman. In my imagination, he must cringe to have those other people on the same page as his own writing.

The other irony is that after the Times' mea culpa about not being skeptical enough in the run-up to the Iraq war, and saying they'd be better in the future seems to be total baloney, otherwise they would never hire someone like Kristol. Even the famous broken clocks of the world are right more often than he is! How does he live with himself with all that blood on his hands (and it is on his hands as he's so desperately trying to get another war going now with Iran!)?

--Ron Robertson

I've not yet decided who I'll vote for in the primary, sorta leaning toward Chris Dodd because of his actions to stop Telecom immunity and other idiotic acts. I'm not always fond of what Hillary does, but I am appalled at the treatment she gets from so many so-called democrats and liberals. 99% of you have taken right-wing rhetoric and idiotic beltway "wisdom" and swallowed it whole when it comes to Hillary. I think she knows how to fight better than any other democrat, and if she gets the nomination, I think she can win. I like some of Obama's ideas, but I think he's fallen too much for mainstream media ideas of centrism (especially with his rhetoric about healthcare and his false claims that he would have everyone covered, I think insurance companies should NOT be brought to the table, they are a large part of the problem, and nothing they would do would solve anything or make anything workable), so I doubt I'll vote for Obama, as he's done the same thing on other issues. He seems to play by the same faux centrism playbook as Lieberman but I'd say that at least Obama is an honest man overall, whereas Lieberman isn't. I don't want to tear down any of the democrats, because I want whoever gets the democratic nomination to win. We cannot have another nightmare republican in the whitehouse. I agree with some of what Ron Paul says, but he is highly unlikely to win the republican nomination, and I'm sure the neocons will make it nearly impossible for him to win. I like much of what Edwards has to say, but his docile campaigning in the previous election (especially his debate with Cheney) make me wonder if he has what it takes to fight back with the needed tenacity.

Anyway, if Obama gets the democratic nomination, I'll vote for him, same as I would on any of the democrats running, but it'd sure be good if more democrats would not do the republicans bidding by tearing into HIllary so much. She'd definitely be a gigantic improvement over what we've had for the last 8 years. Do you really think she'd start a war with Iran, or keep the Iraq war going endlessly? If so, I think you've been suckered by the right-wing and their minions in the media, including the mainstream media.

--Ron

I don't think you can accurately say that Klein and his ilk are Power Worshippers, since I don't think they behaved the same way during the 8 years Clinton was in office. It seems more accurate to say they are Republican Power Worshippers, as that's the only power they look up to. That may seem nitpicking, but it's a distinction with a difference.

They only consider Lieberman serious because he trashes Democrats, and sucks up to Republicans, and that fits in with their mind-warp.

-- Ron Robertson

I've often wondered who specifically edits pieces I've read, particularly in the MSM, but also here at Salon. Wouldn't it be a good idea to credit the editor(s) along with the original author? I can't think of a good reason not to do so, but can think of plenty for why it would be a good one. For one thing, it'd make bad editors/editing more accountable (particularly when they let false or partial facts through, etc.).

--Ron Robertson

In my mind, the republicans no longer have a right to any office in the land, even the vaunted dog-catcher requires too much "reality-based thinking" for them. Imagine trying to catch a dog with their viewpoint, they'd be out killing shrews in Estonia as part of their "war on dogs."

Other than the possible exception of Ron Paul, they've shown themselves to be the part of total id, we exist to serve them, their whim-of-the-moment is all that counts, reality is a foreign (or should I say, French, concept).

They're gross polluters in every way possible, mentally, physically and spiritually. Time for them to face it, they're the antithesis of what our country is supposed to stand for and be about.

--Ron Robertson