I understand Garry's thinking that this news would've trumped Harry's "incompetent" comment, had he waited. HOWEVER, there is never any real accounting for the deeds of the WH regardless of timing, is there? Otherwise, in another administration - and most definitely a Democratic one - there would've long been a serious call for impeachment.

As with all else that stems from the Bush admin., this story will fade into just another Bush being Bush short-lived item and that will be that.

Be that as it may, I do think that Harry's comment only adds weight to the matter now and brings a little extra focus on the facts behind the departure of Pace. It should be hammered home that either the Bush Admin. agreed with Harry, thus letting Pace go, or they are truly looking for a "yes" man in the position.

Wouldn't Sunstein's example - of liberals being out of step with their party because they believed that Bush not signing onto the Kyoto was a big mistake, while the Dems in the Senate also voted it down - be a poor one to make considering that the Democratic Senate has not been a liberal/progressive one as a whole, and certainly hasn't reflected the views of it's base in actual passed legislation on the big issues? Haven't we seen this kind of Inside the Beltway Democratic thinking over and over again in their votes and lack of cohesive conviction? As a whole, the Democratic leadership does not reflect the views of liberal America - one just has look at the recent "stay the mistake" lost opportunities over ending the Iraq War, allowing the minority to overwhelm the majority on S-Chip and sending Mukasey toward confirmation. These are not indicative of mainstream Democratic sentiment, as polls have overwhelmingly indicated.

On the other hand, one could easily argue that the GOP leadership and current presidential candidates walk in lockstep with the extremist of their party, as is evidenced in their rubberstamping of the most unpopular president since Nixon (and now topping Nixon).

Fortunately, I don't have to dole out money to read this kind of abuse on my convictions and knowing right from wrong.

Can't we get a reasonable assessment of the debate? I'm frankly sick of the snipey stuff, too. And I can go to Townhall.com to get the twisted, snake-infested lowdown to send me into a depressed funk if I wanted to go THAT route.

So please. Give a girl some hope, willya?

Why wouldn't the Times do some serious investigation into the allegations?

I should think that those offended by these remarks are the very same who are ignorant on the issue she was addressing. The FoxNews bull horn and its viewers sure seem to fit the bill...

I wrote to the NYTimes news dept, editor, managing editor, executive editor, publisher and president about this story two days ago. I've not heard back from any of them, nor have I seen a word written about it in the Times.

Isn't it obvious that he wanted the power so that he could protect his GOP friends in the Bush administration? Seriously, why else would he want it and then do virtually nothing with the power except to play eager lapdog to the war criminals?

Aside from the fact that American Idol no doubt took precedent over this debate, the real losers were Gibson and Stephanopolis. Were there ever two more ridiculous mediators than this pair? If lowering the debate bar to FoxNews standards was the goal, then they succeeded. Gibson's biased and toxic rant - I mean questioning - on gun issues aimed at Senator Obama was beyond the pale.

The verdict? The tag team of idiots moderating the debate gave us enough reason to never watch this kind of staged mugging ever again.

And one last note. If anyone from Senator Clinton's camp is perusing the comments, please consider this: I loved the senator at the start of this campaign, but I do not respect what she is doing at this juncture to the Democratic party and it's ability to beat McSame - which is what this election IS about. If she is trying to ensure that no Democratic contender wins if it can't be herself, then she is doing a great job towards that goal - but she should also remember that by doing so, she is further hampering her own efforts in the process. Hers, in my humble opinion, is a losing battle. Prolonging the agony is reflected poorly on her own image as an accomplished leader.

The way I read this is that Clinton can't close the deal either. It's a wash with Obama in the lead in every way but putting this thing finally, and unreachably, to rest. I would think that if there were a chance in hell that Clinton to win this without killing the party, then she should continue. But the reality is that she can't - without killing her own chances in November as well.

I'll vote for whoever the Dem candidate ends up being, but I know in my heart that furthering this mess is making McCain the winner. If Bush could win with his background in 2004, McCain will win in this election. Voters on the fence will go with what they perceive as "strength" - and Hillary has effectively given our party the patina of weakness and quibbling.

Rest assured, Hillary voters, in 2012 there is no way in hell I'd vote for a Clinton.

I love Edwards. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat. That said, am I the only one who thinks that David Shuster makes a better Morning Joe than Joe Scarsborough? Beside the dumb comment about Chelsea, which garnered WAY more attention than necessary, I think he is a much better news guy on air than the loud, buffoonery of Scarborough.