Why do you want it to be a recession so badly? Because it makes Bush look bad?

IMO, we need another point of view to balance Bush's assertions that everything is just wonderful except for a little temporary blip.

Bush is desperately trying to minimize the problem because his chickens have inconveniently come home to roost during an election year.

1) Why has the median american income been stagnant during Mr. Bush's presidency, even though the cost of living has increased, corporate profits have doubled, and the number of billionaires have more than doubled during the same time?

2) Do you think increases in the price of oil might been related to the decline in the value of the dollar?

3) Why has the value of the dollar declined to much during Mr. Bush's presidency?

4) If you think the dollar's decline has been caused by the subprime mess, then do you think the people who created the mess should be rewarded with income tax cuts?

5) If you think the dollar's decline has been caused by the trade imbalance, then do you think people who created the imbalance for their own benefit should be rewarded with income tax cuts?

6) If you think the dollar's decline has been caused by runaway deficit spending by the U.S. government, then how much longer do you think we can afford to continue the very costly war in Iraq?

Hillary's advantage with working-class people will be neutralized: Bush will make sure that we all lose our jobs by the time November arrives.

Xrandadu beat me to the marbles joke...

Anyone besides me notice

How fast that Gas Tax Relief pandering bs disappeared from both Hillary's and McCain's platform....

I sure did. I also suspect that Hillary took most of the damage from it. I think McCain might get off scott-free if he's smart enough to leave it for dead. Many voters will probably forget about it by November unless they're reminded.

It's a shame that Hillary shot herself with McCain's footgun.

Don't you think people should vote for the candidate they themselves prefer, instead of voting for the candidate they think other people will prefer?

I sure do. People voting based on what they think other people preferred would be tantamount to surrendering our elections to the media.

That is awesome. You people that hate Hillary are giving her your money.

It hasn't happened yet. IMO, it doesn't have a chance if Hillary continues to bash Obama instead of touting her own strengths.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior editor at the seminal neoconservative journal Commentary, speculated about the possibility of an "October surprise" engineered by a rogue nation, terrorists or Iraqi insurgents with the intent of helping Barack Obama win the presidency.

IMO, the reich-wing noise machine will be playing this theme all summer in the hopes that people will start to believe it. Without this kind of "help", Joe Sixpack might be smart enough to figure out that an October attack would likely intended the help Republicans.

When it comes to being wrong, you can't do better than a neo-conservative -- especially one from Commentary Magazine.

Neoconservatives don't care about being right. All they care about is getting people to believe they are right so they'll go along with whatever jackass ideas the neocons are pushing at the moment.

Hillary's theorists have taken the uncertainty principle to hitherto undreamed-of heights. In her theory, it's not the values being measured that are uncertain. The theory itself is indeterminate until it is called on to provide an answer, at which time it yields whatever method of counting votes is most favorable to Hillary at the time.

The superdels, as one person noted, DO know Obama can't win.

What is your source for this information?

And this is the proposal I will submit to the Congress if I am elected president -- a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy.

McCain is a Senator. He can do something right now by writing up a bill and introducing it in the Senate. A president can't even do that.

So why is he talking about this, rather than doing something?

There you have it. When you hate Obama, you really don't need any facts to support your point of view. This, according to a foremost Obama hater.

It's a technique: Make a naked assertion and assume the audience is too dumb/lazy/complacent to check the facts for themselves. Subsequently treat the assertion as established fact.

I think they learned it from Rush Limbaugh, or maybe even from Bush.

... why they don't wear Israeli flag pins. While we're at it, perhaps we should ask how meaningful their American flag pins are when they are obviously more concerned about Israel.

Do you believe that we shouldn't maintain any control over our own borders at all?

Sure, but what is reasonable? It's pretty difficult to build barriers that actually prevent, rather the merely discouraging, passage. How many people will it take to watch those thousands of miles of fence to make sure nobody cuts holes in it?

I'll suggest that we might not have so much to worry about if we didn't put so much effort into annoying the rest of the world.

But this silly notion that we should pretend it's a nothing issue we should all pretend to ignore is just more idiot twaddle that gives people like you a bad name.

What did I say that would give people like me a bad name?

Tancredo says "Our open borders present a serious danger to our citizens...".

How many seriously dangerous people would actually be stopped by a fence? I'm having a hard time believing that terrorists who would presumably be equipped to kill many people and/or do massive property damage would somehow be stopped, or even inconvenienced, by a mere fence.