This is exactly why I believe the issue of a lawless, authoritarian presidency is so important. These changes are making America different in a fundamental way. Recovery could take generations - and the concept of 'recovery' may be wildly optimistic.

In contrast, there are a whole host of issues where today's outcome we deplore can be changed by the stroke of a pen. This applies to almost all strictly policy issues.

As long as we all agree that the rule of law is a good thing, we can handle our differences as if we were an actual democracy. Elections can then change things. But unless we can elect presidents who admit that their power has some limits (that is, the limits imposed by the constitution and by duly enacted laws) we are sunk.

Who asks:

"Who among us has any real experience with illicit drugs?

As in growing or manufacturing, dealing, use and/or abuse."

I do. And since I have not had anything to do with any illicit drugs in more than twenty years (statute of limitations and all that) and because I do not believe even Cheney and Addington care to troll Glenn's comments sections for commenters who admit to minor drug crimes from decades ago, I have no problem admitting it.

I agree with anon that some people are more likely for whatever ever reasons to become addicted to drugs. Just as some people are more likely than other people to become addicted to gambling or to booze.

The drugs and the booze are public health problems, not criminal problems. I seriously doubt, though, that our miserable politicians (with very few exceptions) will ever figure this out, since the big, swinging dick theory of anti-drug policy is required.

Every day the world slides more deeply into the crapper. We need someone who will make a fundamental break with the past. That someone is not Hillary Clinton.

The invasion of Iraq was always illegal. The continuing occupation is illegal. The continuing trouncing of the constitution is illegal. We have turned into a lawless, rogue country.

If you think Hillary Clinton is going to change that, you have not been paying attention.

He would send a truck to spray gasoline on the real fire and randomly ruin houses blocks away with massive water damage. When reasonable neighbors point out what he is doing, their own houses would be stormed by outraged mobs.

Who writes:

"Of course, if an article about black people appeared on Salon, these same people wouldn't be calling black people "stupid n words", simply because they are black."

Not a good analogy because one's skin color is not a choice.

Chris Sinnard writes:

"So what? So hating people simply because they believe in god isn't a choice either?"

I am not sure I detect much outright hatred of other people because they believe on of the god claims but that is another question.

Prejudice against people because of their skin color and prejudice against religious beliefs, or people because of their religious beliefs are of course both choices.

But prejudice against someone because of something over which they have no choice - whether it is skin color, sex, height, circumstances of birth or whatever - is categorically different than prejudice against someone because of malleable behavior.

Does that need to be explained more explicitly?

Clear-headed and clearly written. A serious indictment of our government's policy across the board.

Our political class is almost completely bereft of statesmen. As a result, lots of people are dying.

I'll go third party - Green, likely - if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

I could hold my nose and vote for the conceptually attenuated Barack Obama. But no way I will pull the lever for Clinton.

Edwards is the only leading candidate who seems to understand that our problems are not skin deep and solutions require a major overhaul to the political system. The system that Clinton and Obama love to goose.

Obama? A lightweight to put it kindly. All lightining, no bug.

On the bright side, Iowa Dems, by and large, showed they saw through Hillary Iraqinvader.

The one leading Dem who might - just might - fight hard to reform this corrupt system was relegated to second.

Don't tell me your typical Dem voter is serious about changing the system. Barack Obama is not going to do it.

It is looking more and more hopeless, more and more like the same old same old.

And the really bad news: Hillary Clinton is still the favorite to take the nomination.

As Paul Krugman points out in his superb book "The Conscience of a Liberal" racism is playing and will continue to play less and less of a role in American life and politics.

Someone said that Obama would not carry any southern states. I wonder which Dem would? But the racism strategy is fraying at the edges as border states like Virginia become less and less red.

If the right wing wants to contest this election with this strategy they will lose.

The question is: will any of the Dems carry any southern states? With (I add) perhaps the exception of Florida, which has so many transplanted northerners?

L.W.M. points to a web page that has polling results relating to the Dem and Repub primaries. Looks like HRC does better, per these polls, than Obama or Edwards.

But is this just a question of which one would lose by the largest margin?

Racism is still a factor, particularly in the deep south. But as America's complexion changes, racism's effects have been lessening and will continue to lessen.

I hope the right wing tries the old southern strategy. I suspect, though, that they will have quite a few arrows in their quiver.

If all the dead people in Iraq could talk, what would they say about HRC's "softer" side?