Every one of them fears being the next Max Cleland. This is an irrational and overblown fear, but that's what they all fear. They live in terror of being described as 'soft on terror', so they have been repeatedly capitulating to every outrageous demand made by Bush and his allies.

And, as has been pointed out many times, they don't fear reprisal on the part of the left wing of the party. They figure the left wing will play along indefinitely while the empower the Bushes and Liebermans of the world.

They are wrong, of course, but how exactly this will play out remains unseen.

I'm particularly disappointed in Obama. It seems clear that this deal was timed to be announced after the primary season was over. How many of us who voted for Obama would have had second thoughts remains unclear. I will say that, right now, the alleged difference between Obama and the capitulating ways of the Clintons seems miniscule.

The Times is indeed criticizing Obama in their editorial. Don't blame Koppelman for that.

Simultaneously complaining that Salon is covering this while downplaying the influence of the NY Times is, well, kind of comical.

Really?

Rove is losing his touch. Of course he was always overrated. Not every campaign advisor can turn a commanding lead into a narrow victory.

And we see the logic of 'representative democracy' turned on its head. Rather than represent the people who vote for them, today's Democrats represent the people who didn't vote for them, to make sure they don't get too upset at them.

Somebody needs to remind me why this idea should command my respect.

And, FWIW, 'Steny' is a very silly name.

Not worth paying attention to this.

You'll find all sorts of depraved activity in the world of human beings. The Internet makes a lot of this more public. But not more noteworthy.

Complicated evolutionary stories about why people behave a certain way should not be given much credence. No scientific study that simply asks people how they feel about a certain issue is going to be able to separate cultural influences from genetic influences.

If ESPN cannot afford to send a crew to Europe to cover Euro2008, they shouldn't bother broadcasting it.

The cost of Flights to Europe is on a vastly different scale than the advertising revenue involved.

I think it's fairly common for soccer announcers to do the color commentary from the video feed. That way one set of announcers can do a game from England in the morning and one from Brazil in the afternoon. But really, given that this was Euro2008, the second most important tournament, I would have thought that ESPN could have sent somebody to actually be at the game.

Anti-abortion is not going to be an issue that gets McCain in the White House. For starters, more Americans are pro-choice than pro-life. But more than that, abortion is a top issue for only a small number of people, most of whom are not swing voters.

This election is going to hang on the economy, the war(s), and terrorism. And Bush.

And, as another letter writer has noted, this campaign is more likely to help Obama than hurt, since it will force disenchanted Clinton supporters to confront the reality of what a McCain presidency would entail. Namely, a 6-3 or 7-2 bloc of solid, extreme conservative, anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade would be gone.

I don't know much, but can a president pardon someone (or an entity) from something they haven't been charged with, a sort of grandfather pardon?

Yes. That was the deal that Nixon got from Ford.

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.

See

http://www.watergate.info/ford/pardon-proclamation.shtml

The language is incredibly broad. Not only is no particular crime covered, but the time period extends to the day that Nixon was sworn in - long before Watergate.

We have no idea of the full extent of Nixon's crimes because Ford effectively covered them up.

Similarly, we have no idea of the extent of Iran-Contra because Bush Sr. pardoned Cap Weinberger and every other major figure involved.

No serious observer could possibly think Bush Jr. would not take exactly the same step if any of his political allies were under even the most remote threat of indictment. By now, the abuse of the pardon power is Standard Operating Procedure (but for Republicans only, mind you).

Just ask Scooter Libby.

For months, we have been treated to column after column by Joan Walsh, rightfully bemoaning the dismissive attitude that the media gave Hillary Clinton.

And today, we get 'Is Ralph Nader losing it?"

If anybody had used such an ad hominem attack on Hillary Clinton during primary season, Walsh would have written at least six columns about it.

How about a little consistency?

It seems like a lot of Democrats have battered wife syndrome. They don't believe standing up for oneself can possibly work.

Bush's reversals and lies are so obvious that only truly stupid people could still believe anything he says.