"On the other hand, passing a very limited law that will allow some kind of enhancement in care for the poor while leaving the price and power structure of health insurance and big pharma intact would be the worst outcome."

One guess as to which of your options will actually happen.

What a stupid and mindless post. You really get paid to write this crap?

...but,

A bad decision arrived at via rigorous and correct methods is still a bad decision.

Schaller, your self-referential mental wankery that can barely be called "writing" is embarrasing and execrable.

Other than Paglia, you're the worst thing about this site.

In fact there's been plenty of discussion about the racial effect you mention, and in fact it's been mostly debunked... It didn't happen during the primary.

"McCain's good at working across the aisle in bi-partisan fashion to solve the nation's problems."

This is great stuff; you could write for The Onion.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

The ecological risk of additional offshore drilling is somewhat overstated. As someone smart posted before me, the economics of offshore drilling are really the problem.

Given how popular "drill baby drill" is, I'm happy to at least get some positive policy out of the deal. I just hope the Republicans won't be able to pummel everyone about it after the fact...

Apologies for being out of touch, but there was some discussion a few weeks ago about a bill allowing drilling far offshore (50 miles?) in exchange for more funding for alternative energy sources, etc.

Is this concept dead entirely? Could anyone more informed fill me in? Thanks.

"we can fuel nearly everything we currently fuel with gasoline and natural gas with alcohol"

Don't you think that's an overly simplistic "solution"?

I've been away from Salon for awhile and was hoping someone could fill me in: Did War Room (hopefully) ditch Tom Schaller?

Whether the racism was legal or merely institution, I'm not too concerned in differentiating. This country as a whole has a terrible record of racism, and the oft-repeated chant of "It's the South's fault!" (mostly from liberals) does nothing to absolve us of that.

Similarly, the fact that Republicans have spearheaded most of the disastrous change of the past eight years doesn't mean Democrats don't share the blame.

Sort of like the entire United States does?

Yawn. What exactly have the Democrats accomplished since the 2006 elections? I don't see much substantive difference between this Congress and the previous one.

Don't you see this is what is necessary to WIN?

It is of vast importance that "we" WIN. Any rabblerouser suggesting otherwise or offering any criticism of the Winning Team is an anti-American, communist malcontent.

This is exactly why "we" need more elected officials with a "D" after their names. Once "we" have a lock on the government, then those politicians will change directions and institute policies which "we" actually believe in.

In Winning We Trust.

*spends several minutes composing salon comment to tell other salon commenters to stop wasting time composing comments and to go outside already*

These are the elite that run our country. Only one word needed for them...

"After all, isn't the point of having a well-regulated militia to keep an invasive government from doing things like jailing peaceful protesters, saying you have no right of habeus corpus, and turning community assets over to private ownership?"

I'd say that function is best-served by a well-informed citizenry, but then we really don't have either in the US.

Have you ever been to "The South"? Or do you just consider Larry the Cable Guy a cultural ambassador?

We're not all moonshine-swilling hick slave owners who beat our kids to bed every night after eating cornpone with our two teeth for dinner.

In fact, certain areas are actually quite progressive as pointed out earlier in this thread (just as certain areas of so-called blue states can be quite conservative). Unfortunately, the Electoral College tends to distort things and provide plenty of fodder for weak-minded people.

In the 2004 election, 48% of Oregon voters voted for Bush, as did 44% of Californians, 48% of Minnesotans, 49% of New Hampshireans, and 49% of Wisconsin voters. The entire West went solidly for Bush, and yet the above states never seem to be cast as racist, uneducated, etc.

Also interesting are the cartograms here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

If you'd take a look at the data, you might learn something.

Such a surprise to see you justifying anything Obama does...

But you are incorrect. Polls have shown support for impeachment running as high as 50%.

We already have David Broder and the rest of the beltway establishment pretending to speak for the people of the US; I'm entirely sure they don't need your help.

"But before that happens we need a new Attorney General and President Obama. O should not tip his hand on this one now."

Please. People like you will still be feeding us that bullshit after four years of Obama's complicity in what this administration started.

"Let's just re-elect him. We need a second term for O, THEN he can start solving problems."

Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but do pardons really matter?

I'm not convinced Bush even needs to pardon anyone. We all know that as soon as Obama is inaugurated the Democrats will make "moving on" and "uniting" and "healing wounds" a priority. No one will be interested in investigating the past administration.

Oh, and @ Jim Crutchfield:

"If the Democrats in Congress don't get busy and impeach Cheney and Bush, many crimes are going to go undetected and unpunished, and we'll never learn the full extent of this administration's perfidy."

I'm convinced the Democrats must have dirtied their hands as well, since their actions are focused on ensuring no one learns the full extent of the truth.