Sorry to intrude on the echo chamber, but here is what I, an actual conservative and registered republican, think about the hackabee victory:

Whatever

Yup, that's it. First we had the tyrannical rudy v. constitutionally unaware romney. The press thought either of those was the main guy. The republican power brokers figured they had identified the guys most likely to play ball. Nope. Both repugnant to most republicans.

Huckabee actually has a base that will turn out and vote for him. They turned out. They voted. The rest were depending on republicans to turn out and vote for whatever the hell it is the party stands for these days. They kinda showed up and cast votes hither and yon.

To me, the only thing proven in Iowa is that no one had rigged the vote. At least it looks that way. maybe.

Another case of different people getting different messages from the exact same statement.

I interpreted Richardson as saying that the US shouldn't give any more support to Musharraff while he actively impedes the democratic forces that are already at work in Pakistan. The measure would be that those democratic forces start gaining power.

As it stands, Musharraf rigs elections, jiggers the constitution, and subjugates the courts. He really should be cut off until people who have not sworn fealty to him get into positions of power. It is pretty easy to forget that Pakistan has a democratic veneer over a feudal system. At least Musharraf does what other feudal lords have done - thrown elbows at the theocrats (who Bhutto helped put in charge of Afghanistan).

Bhutto's return to Pakistan reminded me more of the Orange revolution than a push toward democracy. Regardless, a ruling plurality that doesn't kill one another is a step toward democracy and something Pakistan currently lacks.

So, according to Joan, the reality is that the US should continue to support Musharraf in the hope that Islamabad suddenly breaks out in democracy. Otherwise, why is Richardson's position "divorced from reality"? He's the guy with more foreign policy experience, and success, than any other candidate. By pettily dismissing his opinion, Joan frames herself as chasing an agenda or, much worse, being a herd animal.

As for Bhutto, yes, sad she was assassinated. I guess we're all supposed to go through a period of public remorse. Do a little research before lamenting too much. Look at what she did, not at what other people hoped she would do in the future. Pakistan deserves better than Musharraf and better than Bhutto.

Best meal was all critter. The thanksgiving strip was about eating tofu whilst saving a turkey. I'm confused.

Tom Udall is very likely to get Pete's senate seat. Wilson is viewed as carrying too much bush taint. She talks independent, then falls into line. Pierce is even more tainted than wilson. He sticks to the white house talking points and never strays from the party line.

Hopefully, the loathsome martin chavez can be blocked from moving into Udall's congressional seat.

Wally is just showing what he really is. A courtier to the power elites among establishment democrats. Richardson isn't properly beholden to those elites and must therefor be denigrated.

Meanwhile, Richardson, a mountain states democrat, could win the big one if wally and the other sycophants gave him a modicum of the support they lavish on damn-near-unelectable hilary.

I'm not sure what Joan expects to gain from keeping wally around. Time will tell.

Only if those funds are an entitlement.

Otherwise, hate to say it, but screaming "unconstitutional" is misinformed. A LAW restricting speech is usually unconstitutional. An agreement to do or not do certain things in order to get government funding is different. The federal government uses its purse strings to recruit the states into all sorts of stuff. Money for law enforcement is often tied to doing the bidding of DHS. Federal highway funds have been leveraged into all sorts of agreements.

The government gets into trouble when the money is for doing something illegal, like spying, or is used to do something that is actually unconstitutional like supporting a church.

The US funds all sorts of things in other countries and attaches all sorts of strings. That is why Hugo Chavez is viewed as a threat. He doesn't like the strings so he refuses the money.

Very good point.

I used to keep a picture in my files for showing to folks (usually myself) feeling that life is tough and unfair. The picture was of an African mother holding her 3-4 year old child. She had just walked 30 miles in 2 days carrying her sick child to a doctor. The child died in her arms somewhere along the way.

It put things in perspective.

I guess I should create a new "pity file". Some of those gitmo pictures will do nicely.