McCain's rhetoric is just the next step up from what everyone else is saying. Hillary Clinton said the word "working", and the media, candidates, etc. don't hear anything else. For example, here's CNN's Political Ticker, and only one word that came from Hillary's mouth is here in the lead:

"White House hopeful Hillary Clinton is taking heat Tuesday from some of her Democratic rivals over recent comments suggesting the president's surge policy in Iraq is 'working.'"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/22/rivals-criticize-clinton-for-saying-iraq-policy-working/

Your point about McCain is good, but he's hardly the only one who needs correcting.

Here's another possibility: Gonzales was planning to resign for a few weeks now, but it's happening now in order to prevent us from paying attention to some other scandal. What would the administration like us not to see that's just happening or about to happen? We should keep our eyes open.

It was "GOP sources" who said he'll make the announcement. So on this front, at least, Fred Thompson remains the most ridiculous.

Same spin, except that he has more obvious contempt for his interviewer - "Diane, that's tactics." Duh, Diane! What a stupid question!

"Clinton spokesman Bill Burton..."

This sentence only makes sense if Burton is Obama's spokesman. Quick check of "the Google" seems to confirm that's the case.

until McClellan is declared "disgruntled" or "unstable" by a "senior White House official", to be followed by the Republican machine? My bet is, by this Sunday.

I am positive that the stark raving response you linked to came from this rather funny web site:

http://www.pakin.org/complaint

So it seems like a joke, perhaps...

It's going to be a tight game and the Patriots will win by a field goal, as they have won each of their last three Super Bowls... The Patriots don't have to blow anyone out; they just win.

Despite the commenters who don't want interleague play, to me, that great last game of the season just makes this matchup more exciting.

He needs to be campaigning on this; speaking on this; and pledging that when he is in office, he will get Congress to get this overturned. The Dems need a leader that is unabashedly on the side of the common people and visibly leading. A lot of the visibility, of course, comes from the media/establishment choosing to show that leader, which is why someone like Dodd, who is mostly doing his damnedest to lead, barely makes a blip in the news, but of course Bush and company are the establishment and have used bullying to perfection.

A lot of these Bush-following Dems would probably change their tune if they thought they had political cover. Under President Obama's vocal leadership, they might think so. Cowardly, maybe, but could be effective in getting some actual progressive measures passed.

What I'm trying to say is: we have to struggle on here in pressing Congress, but having a progressive President will produce a much different dynamic in a 55/45 Democratic Congress than Bush (or McCain) does, and that is a better hope for change than putting in a 65/35 Dem Congress under McCain. (All this is on the assumption that the Bush Dems don't have backbone.) Electing the right President is the key to getting some of this crap fixed.

Although I'd choose Obama right now, I would rather choose a candidate whose campaign doesn't have to release a daily dose of:

- My opponent is scum and must quit NOW

- Americans "are choosing" me or my message

Don't tell me what (all) Americans ARE doing!

It seems like commenters on these threads are excitedly joining in over the "who's winning, who's acting stupid, who's a traitor" BS, as if these memos were made for the chance to have a debate on who is more of a loser... rather than debating what this country needs and deserves in terms of policy. I want to hear: what would President Obama actually DO? Not: "Leave the race now, all competitors, resistance is futile!" His campaign is making him sound like an ass, and he's not stopping it. (Of course, it's all of them, not just Obama... I just chose him to comment on here due to the piece.)

In the DOJ's answer that Glenn posted is a link to a PDF. That PDF is posted on lifeandliberty.gov. That site is for DOJ advocacy (basically a blog) in favor of the Protect America Act and the Patriot Act.

In other words, my tax dollars go to the DOJ, which spends them on a Web site advocating the continued erosion of my civil liberties, a Web site doing political lobbying. Sickening.

I know that Dan Quayle's already been mentioned, but I just had to say that this reminded me of one of the best Quayle quotes:

Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific. It is IN the Pacific. It is a part of the United States that is an island that is right here.

And rules for thee, but not for me (we?). That's exactly what's going on here. Infuriating, but so important to recognize. Thank you, Glenn.

Obama should be called out on this in tonight's press conference. That would be a real, public form of pressure to make the administration answer for this hypocrisy. What are the odds that will actually happen? (Paging Helen Thomas...)

OK. Now they had better print a retraction of the previous bogus story in the print newspaper.

A devastating and important comparison. Keep up the good work.

President Clinton's cruise missile attack in 1998 was in response to the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, not the USS Cole bombing, which occurred in 2000.