Shouldn't the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee call an emergency caucus with the candidates and, in private, take them to the woodshed about their mutual abuse? After all, one is probably going to be the running mate of the other and the post-convention campaign is going to be a lot easier if they don't require a hose-down to get rid of the mud. Abusive, negative, off-issue comments might temporarily help the candidate making them, but they distract all the campaigns from their legitimate function of providing the voters with information on the issues. Howard Dean needs to step in before the Democratic effort to reclaim the White House ends up like the Cats of Kilkenny.

Rudolf Ghouliani was anointed by the mainstream media early in the campaign as a "front runner". So he got the free TV coverage, the magazine cover pictures, stories, interviews, and favorable commentator remarks that seem to be the due for a "front runner". This is because he is a pledged lackey and shill for the corporate globalist oligarchy that really runs the nation. Isn't it odd that a person with demonstrable popular backing, Dr. Ron Paul, has had his campaign continually ignored and marginalized because his approach to the issues runs counter to that of the power elite, while the moral cretin Ghouliani was continually promoted?

Of the horsemen of the Apocalypse now saddled up and ready to ride, global warming is certainly one of the most important. However the next Chief Executive of the United States needs to have a plan on day 1 in office to deal with the others: peak oil, fresh water depletion, and the wasting of fertile soil through erosion and misuse of land. Of course we could add the nation's economic woes, the federal deficit and balance of trade deficit as well. Then there is the issue of overpopulation, which is related to and possibly the root cause of all the others. Whaddya say, candidates?

In debate after debate we've seen all the Republican candidates aping the neo-con approach: protect American exploitation abroad with overwhelming military force and protect Americans at home by monitoring our every move, both "benefits" of big government run on borrowed money. Their view of government is essentially Hobbsian or Hamiltonian, making life comfortable, secure, and prosperous for the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else. Ron Paul is the odd duck here. His views are essentially Jeffersonian: limit the dangerous power of big government, make it fiscally responsible, and make it serve the majority of the people rather than those who already enjoy wealth and security.

Hillary Clinton is a Hamiltonian, and, to a lesser degree, so is Barak Obama. Both either support, or have made serious compromises with, the corporate oligarchy and the power it enjoys in government. When John Edwards' campaign drifted into the territory of criticizing the corporate culture, he began to see his status in the media proportionately marginalized.

I'm a Move-On member and was invited in my email to vote for the candidate the organization would support. I wanted to vote for the candidate who has consistently spoken out for liberty, against the abuses of the Bush Administration, corporate-dominated globalism, and the bloody occupation of Iraq., Dr. Ron Paul. I also did not want to vote for a candidate that was on judicialwatch.org's list of the 10 most corrupt politicians of 2007, which includes, among others Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Mike Huckabee. However, the poll would not accept my write-in vote. I suspect that Move-On might not be the grass-roots organization it claims to be.

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the only ex post facto laws that are prohibited are those that increase liability for prosecution. As I read it, ex post facto laws that exculpate violators are also prohibited.

Also, as I read it, exculpatory laws that apply only to specified parties to the exclusion of others violate Amendment 14, Section 1, the Equal Protection Clause.

Why are our elected officials working so hard to violate the basic rule of law written and endorsed by the People?