I don't get why Sen Clinton (and just why is she always Hillary, other than sexism?) hasn't simply "triangulated" her response by saying, "I voted to authorize the Iraq war because I believed the intelligence that showed that he had or was developing WMD--and I was wrong. I trusted the President to exhaust all diplomatic means to avoid war, as he said he would--and I was wrong. I trusted at the Bush Administration would go into war with a plan for what to do afterward--and I was wrong. I accept my share of the responsibility for this tragic war."

"I wish I had it to do over again. But I don't. The only thing I can do now is work every day to bring the troops home."

I understand the hostility toward Sen Clinton from the left; there are many times I share it myself. But she may be the nominee, in which case I will support her with all the resources I have to give.

Of the major Democratic contenders, only two (Clinton, Edwards) were in Congress in 2003, and both voted in favor of the war resolution. I'm sorry, but it was a little bit easier for a State Senator (Obama) to be against it.

We should stop tearing ourselves apart.

I think Friday Night Lights is the best show on network TV right now, but I don't understand why it is on at 8:00. I think it is for adults and older teens--it should be on at 9:00, after the little ones have been put to bed.

Joe--

I agree with you that this is just a "Clinton Dodge" and that the context of what Reagan and Clinton did is very different from what Bush, Rove and Gonzales did here.

But to say that the fact that Eric Holder indicted Dan Rostenkowski means that Clinton did not hope that getting rid of Jay Stephens might avoid this result is just a logical fallacy. It could be that it just didn't work out as Clinton hoped it would.

Would it be better if a President coming into office would refrain from replacing a U.S. Attorney who is in the middle of a highly political investigation of a member of the same party as that President? Sure it would . . . .

Josh Wolf is very confused. Not about whether he is a journalist--that question isn't particularly interesting to me, if he says he's a journalist, that's good enough for me. But it seems to me that if a journalist is covering a protest and witnesses a murder, the government is entitled to ask him, including in front of a grand jury, to testify about what he saw. And if he took pictures or a video of the murder, it seems to me that the government is entitled to have the tape, regardless of whether he chooses to broadcast it.

This has nothing to do with a journalist's right to protect his or her sources, or notes of an interview. Anyone who is a witness to a crime (as opposed to having been told about it by a source) has an obligation to come forward if served with a subpoena.

The only reason the US Attorney's office decided he didn't have to testify is that Josh said he didn't know any of the people in the tape (a fact which he doesn't acknowledge here). Josh sat in jail for no reason, other than perhaps his ego.

I love FNL. But one of the shortcomings this year was that we didn't get to know a single player on the team's defense by name. So the writers didn't have the option of showing someone we knew and cared about on the defense pick up the team, say right before halftime. I was kinda hoping that the Panthers would lose in a cliffhanger, but wasn't surprised that didn't happen.

I did like the way they left it up in the air what Coach and family are going to do next year, this way if the show does get picked up they still have the option of bringing him back to Dillon.

Michael Eric Dyson wants to define "racism" in a way so that only those in the dominant culture (i.e., whites) can be "racist." I don't buy it. I define "racism" as, simply, the application of negative stereotypes to a a group or members of a group defined by their race (or ethnicity). Clearly some, but not all, rap is racist and misogynistic under that definition.

Prof. Dyson's assertion that it wasn't until the Imus incident that the main stream media "noticed" that rap contains racist and misogynistic elements is ludicrous. This has been a matter of discussion and debate in the main stream media and, as he rightly points out, the non-main stream media, for years.

I also disagree with Prof. Dyson's assertion that whites had to "blame" rap for Imus's comments in order to criticize him. As some commentators have pointed out, Imus would never have used the term "nappy headed ho's" had the term "ho's" not been popularized (as Stanley Crouch has said, "normalized" through rap music and comedians. That does not make Imus's use of it, particularly in reference to real, specific people, OK--it is simply a fact that should be recognized.

Joe, I disagree. I hope that Gonzales loses his job, but the firing of these US Attorneys is just not important enough for a special prosecutor. There are many far more important issues that Congress should be investigating and special prosecutors should be prosecuting.

We need to move away from this practice of appointing special prosecutors every time an administration screws up and then isn't completely forthcoming about it. Let's focus on torture, illegal spying, the destruction of our civil liberties.