Ramadan is, of course, right in that the Quran is a prescription for peace. He is also right about Mohammed.

Of course the sad thing is, the Quran is also a prescription for war. And Islam is not run by Mohammed, it is run by the folks who interpret his words and works. And this is hardly singular to Islam. Look at Christianity and some of the problems we face with some of its adherents here in the United States, or some of the problems Catholics have with the edicts issued by the Pope, or the differences of opinions among the Jews on even such basic things as what constitutes a Jew, let alone other religious issues. Or hell, look at how differently we interpret secular documents like the Constitution, and into what horrifically choppy waters we can be led by people with questionable moral consciences like Cheney and Gonzalez when they wish to subvert the meaning of the authors for their own intent. How much more so would that be true when the author is a prophet, or even God?

The world would be a better place if not only more Muslims, but more members of every religion approached their holy works with the same open mind and breadth of scholarship that Mr. Ramadan does. Alas, we know what the reality is, and the result is Iraq, and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and Israel/Palestine/Syria/Lebannon, and genocide in Africa, and the excesses of the religious whack jobs in this country, and you-name-it.

I sincerely hope that you are not holding your breath waiting for this speech.

The longer it takes her to apologize for her vote, the more I am convinced that she should not be President. We have suffered under a man who cannot admit to doing anything wrong for six years; we need to replace him with a woman who cannot admit that her vote was a heinous mistake? Somehow, I don't think so.

Watch this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fandrewsullivan%2Etheatlantic%2Ecom%2F

I don't know if this guy should be President, but on the major issue of our time, in November 2002, before he was a national politician, he was right in basically every detail. And now, with hindsight, Ms. Clinton cannot admit to being wrong in retrospect. Good heavens. Say whatever you like about her speaking style, or her intelligence, or her triangulation, or her husband, but what's the excuse for that?

Maybe Obama shouldn't be President--honestly, I don't know--but I have to say, he sure looks like a better bet than Hillary. He got it right four and half years ago; she still can't get it right.

I agree with Glenn completely; I have always despised people who argue by code and innuendo, who hint at things and then, when you try to pin them down, affect disingenuous surprise. "Well, that is a good point!" they are happy to agree, so long as they don't have to make it explicitly. This is the "if the shoe fits" way to argue: they accuse someone of the most nefarious conduct implicitly, and then when that person objects, they insist that oh, no, they weren't talking about them, but "if the shoe fits . . ." It is cowardly and obnoxious.

These people are bullies, and like all bullies, they are really cowards underneath. They refuse to state their real positions out loud; the refuse to follow the logical extensions of their own arguments (e.g., by enlisting); they refuse to face the realities of their own positions (e.g., the debacle in Iraq). They want to force others to adhere to their codes, but won't adhere to them themselves. And when faced with behavior in others that they present to the world, they cry foul (e.g., the right decries "trial lawyers," but as soon as you do something they don't like--Al Franken calling Bill O'Reilly a liar, for example--they are certainly quick to call their own lawyers).

And most bullies--like Scut Farkus in "A Christmas Story--just need one good whuppin' to keep them away. So keep at it, Glenn.