I agree with myvoice. (The poster, not my own voice.) Remember that one election in California? The one for Governor? The one that resulted in Schwarzenegger running the State? There were a hundred and sixty candidates, one of them a porn star. Everyone and their pet squirrel was laughing at us. Some of my non-Californian friends said: "Boy, aren't we glad we live outside of California!" And next thing you know, Clinton and Edwards must be "nice" to other liberal candidates.

Ahem. Folks. This is like, I dunno, Highlander. "There can be only one." For all their mutual tango, they know and we know that only one of these will be the Democratic nominee for President. This isn't a pillow fight, these people are out there to terminate each other's nascent Presidential campaigns. And if it means making alliances now to eliminate lesser candidates, so be it. They'll turn on each other next and before you know it, we'll have a winner. That's how elections work: the best politician wins.

Each Mike Gravel is worth ~1% of the vote. Remember the margins by which W. won his Presidency in 2004? Yeah. That's two Gravels. So. What are Clinton and Edwards and Obama supposed to do? Refuse to eliminate other candidates because, gasp, they're also liberals?! Please. Aim your guns at more worthy targets.

Oh come along. If instituting tough emissions rules is posturing, then let them posture. If supporting stem cell research is play-acting to let my guard down, well, it's down. Teddy Roosevelt was also a Republican, and an avid hunter at that, and he started the conservation movement. And Nixon, apparently, did more than most to create national parks.

Why are they waiting for us to let our guard down, anyway? To bomb Iran? To steal babies from their cribs and drink their blood? Please. Enough paranoia. There are people in the Republican party who have enough brain cells to understand when it's necessary to break party lines. Schwarzenegger, by the way, was one of the first high-profile Republicans to do so. The stem cell thing was years ago, back when the oh-so-trustworthy Democrats were mum on everything.

Give credit where it's due, will ye?

Gildwrith -- Just to clarify my statement which, I admit, was short on clarity: I was referring to the incident in... oy, was it 2005? It was right after the 2004 elections, I think. At the time Schwarzenegger was consider the poster-child for the Republican Party, he was a much-trumpeted presence at the GOP National Convention, made a splash when he said that it was Nixon who "inspired" him to become a Republican. Next big thing he did was authorize a $3 billion fund for stem cell research in California. This was before Bush vetoed any stem cell legislation, but Bush's position on the issue was very well known.

As a Californian liberal (I work at UC Berkeley, for Pete's Sake) I disliked Schwarzenegger's endorsement of Bush and the high-handed bullying of his first term in office. I must say, however, that unlike the Bush administration, this Republican is capable of admitting his mistakes and learning from them. Yes, he's not perfect and I disagree with him on many issues, but hey, he's making an effort. It's the kind of politician (Republican or Democrat or Green or whatever) that you want to see, right?

Or am I being too much of an idealist?

At this point, if any representative of the Bush administration points to a door and calls it a door, I'd have a serious reason to suspect that it's actually a camouflaged window. In other words, I don't believe anything they say. Nobody believes anything they say. I almost am more ready to believe the militants, because at least they make no bones about their objective: to destroy everyone who isn't on their side, God willing.

However, it makes you wonder. Given the administration's frequent (and often effective) use of the rally-round-the-flag effect, what they need most is another terrorist act, which, if successful, they can blame on the liberal obstructionists. Thus, they could make use of both their bogey-men: the Terrorists and the Liberals. If I think so, you can bet Those Who Hate Us think so too. The militants can think of no better ally to their cause than a rabid neocon on the American throne. (Yes. I said "throne".) So maybe Chertoff's "gut feeling" has some basis to it. Question is, what are our leaders doing about it, trying to prevent another terrorist act as best they can, or thinking of another invasion (Iran?) they can justify with it?

What a mess.

Bignose: it's irrelevant whether or not the White House CAN or CAN NOT do anything, legally, consitutionally, morally or physically. They THINK they are above not only the laws of the land, but also the basic laws of human conduct as well as maybe the laws of physics. I sincerely hope that there's a big fat bucket of cold water collecting in Congress about now that'll be dumped on the collective head of this administration. I am a chronic optimist, you see.

At this point, seeing Conyers' baby-step progress towards potential arse-whoopin', I'm inclined to see that he, at least, wants some measure of justice to be served. It remains to be seen whether the crooks will actually receive their just desserts this time around. Remember: Nixon didn't.

Of course, to a Berkeley liberal like myself, the dream scenario would be the simultaneous removal from power of both Bush and Cheney, and some liberal dispensation of justice by President Pelosi. I think this idea needs to be vocalized a lot, so that the leaders of the Far Right actually believe it possible and start jumping out of windows in despair. If it actually happens, they would've brought it on themselves.

Can you tell I've been dreaming again? I need to lay off that tea they serve in the cafeteria...