The "big lie" on which much national (let's get rid of the word "homeland" asap) security policy rests even today is that somehow the September 11 attacks were inevitable because measures in place were not adequate to the task of preventing it. By perpetrating this lie (without much challenge from the myopic political opposition), the Bush Administration has incredibly avoided responsibility (and, yes, blame) for the attacks while even more incredibly taking credit for there having been no subsequent attacks. By perpetrating this lie, much of the public has been convinced that it is necessary to their own security that they yield fundamental Constitutional rights (their own and that of others). By perpetrating this lie, a security apparatus worthy only of totalitarian states has been erected which threatens to topple entirely the Constitutional order and rule of law on which this fragile experiment in self government rests. By perpetrating this lie, the Obama Administration is being pressured to continue much of this shameful legacy lest it be accused of sacrificing national security should another attack take place.

Clearly, the first thing that must be done in the new administration is to reject the "big lie" and substitute it with the truth. The truth is that the national security safeguards in effect prior to the September 11 attacks were adequate to the task. It was the lazy, slipshod, inattentive implementation of them by principals in the Bush Administration starting with the President himself that allowed those attacks to be completed. Once that fact is publicly acknowledged, the remainder of the sorry Bush legacy on national security can be jettisoned--and, not to put too fine a point on it, our Constitution and the rule of law restored.

How is Caroline Kennedy's situation any different than that of Hillary Clinton's nine years ago? Yes, there are other qualified candidates. (One would certainly hope so.) And some of those qualifications would apparently trump some of those of this candidate. (Just as this was so nine years ago.)

None of this makes Kennedy unqualified for the seat. Neither does it necessarily make the other candidates "better options". To the extent that any of this sentiment is left over from the presidential campaign (I mean, let's not be naive here), Senator Clinton, to her credit, has moved on. It's well past time her supporters did too.

As for Caroline Kennedy becoming Senator Kennedy? I'd be proud to have her as my senator--just as I would were one of several other candidates chosen. A life in public service counts for a lot--even if it's not played in the glare of the klieg lights.

It was one thing to pull this stunt when the nation was somnabulent and seemed to need entertainment to keep it at least tangentially engaged. Today's is an entirely different environment. If this is the dialogue a significant slice of the conservative ideologues and Republican Party want to have, I think they'll find far fewer takers and only ensure that they will be seen by the vast majority as irrelevant for a far longer period than it presently appears they already will be.

When is someone going to ask this phony patriot when he is going to pay his taxes? Honestly, the fetish the press has over this fraud is nauseating. He and Gov. Palin make perfect bookends.

I saw the conversation between O'Reilly and Ingraham last night on his program. He's so clueless about it that Ingraham had to tell him that it had applied and would only apply to over-the-air radio and television broadcasting, not cable or satellite. Of course, the man who can't listen went on and on about how this wouldn't happen because it would also shut down MSNBC. For her part, she claimed this was a clear and present danger to free speech and was all too likely to be brought up by Democrats to silence conservative talk radio (a/k/a angry white male radio).

Ah well, I guess they have to talk about something. What else have they got? But it does demonstrate the absolute vapidness of the genre.

Given the stakes for the nation as a whole over the next four years (or longer), this is really small potatoes.

As a strategy move, this is brilliant. Leiberman is now beholden to the President and the Party and is effectively on notice, as it were. He has to understand that any departure from policy now will be met with punishment. If such an eventuality occurs, it would not be seen as retribution (as it would if it had taken place now) but justifiable replacement of an impediment to enunciated policy objectives.

It's the right move. There's a time and a place and we're not there (yet). My advice to my friends: Get over it. It may happen yet if Joe can't help himself.