After some words on what the sixties were, a few on some of DeGroot's misstatements. To take more than a couple would mean rebutting the entire book, a book in itself.

For some reason, mainstream historians persist in calling Hubert Humphrey an antiwar candidate. Although he may have been against the war personally, he always backed Johnson and never criticized the war while he was Vice President. If he had, he wouldn't have won the Democratic nomination from the backroom wardheelers who ran the party at the time, but his position contributed mightily to the image of the Democrats as weaklings and wafflers. With the murder of Kennedy and the marginalization of McCarthy and McGovern, there was no antiwar candidate in '68. Add in Wallace drawing off the racist right from both parties (and, at that time, there were more racist Democrats than Republicans), and the only surprise is that Nixon won as narrowly as he did. In that context, the '68 Democratic convention and the Lincoln Park riots can be seen as a huge, violent mourning ritual for the country and a prefigurement of things to come.

DeGroot's criticism of the movement for failing to elect an "antiwar" president is made even sadder by his seeming ignorance that the first presidential election to allow eighteen-year-olds to vote was in 1972, in response to the demonstrations of the past four years. In 1968, a large portion of the war's strongest critics were unable to do anything other than march in the streets.

The only positive note from books like this is in provoking the luxury of wondering how things might have been different. There's a poignant piece in Slate today about John McCain (yes, the hundred years' bomber) visiting a dying Mo Udall in the 90s. How different this country might have been if Udall, who learned the lessons of the 60s, had been the Democratic nominee in 1976 rather than Carter, who was indifferent to them. Or Gary Hart, in 84 or 88?

Have to echo the other posters asking for the retention of Steve Benen (if you can't get Tim Grieve back -- he doesn't seem to be doing much with The Politico) on The War Room, the principal reason I read Salon, and the reassignment of Koppelman. There must be something somewhere that needs cleaning.

In the last few weeks TWR has deteriorated from a quick political news update to an outlet for the sort of political bloviators Grieve and Joe Conason took such delight in punctuating.

Koppelman's latest is fatally disappointing. As several others have pointed out, Clinton's story wasn't "essentially accurate" but completely wrong. Why should we believe someone caught in multiple lies (my own favorite is "We had no idea who Mark Rich was when we pardoned him," narrowly beating out "I was never in favor of NAFTA") over a hospital administrator? Because hospitals keep records that can be checked and, as has been said here, are forbidden by law from refusing emergency medical care.

Having lived in both Athens and Meigs counties for several years, it's pretty obvious that Clinton and her people got snookered into a large dose of Appalachian romantic fatalism, the kind that makes for fascinating folklore and great country songs but can't always stand up to literal truth. That she didn't realize this and didn't bother to check it as the real media did casts doubt on her competency, as Koppelman's factually challenged defense of her casts doubt on his.

And please, ditch the talking heads videos. TV has bored us with these for years, with better lighting and prettier people. If it don't move, don't shoot it, print it.

"In the last few weeks TWR has deteriorated from a quick political news update to an outlet for the sort of political bloviators Grieve and Joe Conason took such delight in punctuating."

I kind of like it like that, but it should have read "puncturing."

This is a suburban legend in the making. If they accelerate, the engine comes on. And makes a noise. The Prius might be good for a drive-by, but not so much for the getaway.

which is a half more than usual. The problem isn't Al Qaeda, it's Iran.

But none of these guys can tell the difference anyway. Which is only another argument for Obama.

Obama for Prez: They Don't All Look Alike To Him!

Not the housing crisis, of course (as noted, there they go again), but how to write the War Room: informative, concise, straight-faced but with nearly equal undertones of humor and anger. Other competent Salon writers like Glenn Greenwald might take note. If it's not a legal brief, often less is more. I hope Benen settles in for a long time.

There are so many reasons to be disgusted with this piece: the completely fallacious header implying that only men support Obama and they do it only to prove their masculine superiority, the contradictory idea that any women who do are traitors to the second-wave feminist cause, the confusion of idealism and organization with Moonie groupthink, and the typically Traister whiny, self-righteous hectoring tone it's presented in, Salon's inhouse substitute for Paglia/Dickerson.

But why go on? The letters, for the most part far better reasoned and written, are running ten-to-one against it, and the majority appear to be from offended women.

There are legitimate reasons to criticize Obama the candidate, but this isn't about him, and if it were Traister wouldn't be capable of writing it. Let's just shake our heads sorrowfully at this roadkill of a piece and move on.

Time to redirect Traister to something she's good at, maybe subbing for Heather Havrilesky, and hire NCSteve's mother as your political commentator.

This is what Bloomberg does in his two seconds of off time.

Add immunity to viruses.

Isn't Windows still translating from an ancient program (MSDos)?

It was always a triumph of marketing, never a really competitive system.