The R's are all about being strict constructionists, as long as it suits their agenda.

This is a non issue though. On the other hand, had Clinton or Obama been born abroad, the strict constructionist's would be coming out of the woodwork.

The political establishment today knows only one viewpoint: literally no limits are tolerable on the power of the loving, protective Surveillance State.

How will the biggest supporters feel when the next President is Hillary or Obama?

Don't they see the potential for abuse by the "other" side?

Unreal.

I just don't get it. They will still be ruthlessly attacked by the right for the delay and now by the left for caving in yet again.

For a change, I wish you were correct. I still disagree, but could feel better about things if it were true.

I stopped believing that line of reasoning prior to the Iraq war when many war supporters said there must have been super secret info that let us know that Saddam had nuclear weapons and other WMD's and was an immediate threat to our nation. Turns out there wasn't and further, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell all stated they never meant to imply there was.

I stopped believing that line of reasoning when terrorist threat levels were raised at polically convenient times and lowered for the same reason.

I can't believe it this time since it was allowed to expire when the Dem's were going to extend the rule. If it's expiration would truly endanger us form this threat only they know about, why would this have been allowed? Political gamesmenship?

If it was so necessary for our safety, why wouldn't the FBI pay the frigging phone bill and why would the telecoms stop cooperating because of $$$ ?

It's funny how in the old days it was the conservatives that told us not to trust the government, and now they meekly want to accept that there are secrets out there too risky for this democracy to know about and that the government alone will protect us from these things.

The only good news is that Obama does seem to be riding through all these slurs.

I wasn't initially a supporter of Obama, but I'm becoming more and more impressed with his ability to have a little teflon and to fire right back when attacked and still seem to be above the fray.

Kurtz can swing his arms above his head screaming and call Obama an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer and it will only appeal to the segment that already believes that that is true of all Democrats and the few "moderate" Republicans that still exist.

The press does seem to "like" Obama, the same way they seem to instinctively "like" McCain.

Ignoring them doesn't seem to work, but is there a way to rebut without repeating? I don't know (just asking).

I see what you're saying to Glenn, but the smears are being vocalized on CNN and written about in the Washington Post. It's not a whisper campaign.

I understood why Kerry didn't want to dignify the lies of the Swiftboat Veterans, but the approach failed to work. He might have been better off calling out each individual smear for the lie it was and counterattacked the liar...hard.

McCain should have brought up the whisper campaign for the horseshit it was in 2000 before the SC primaries, and he also didn't want to dignify the rumors and it cost him. he should have called out anyone who questioned his daughter's adoption to put up or shut up.

The MSM also wasn't fair to viable candidates on the Right. Huckabee was ignored even after he won Iowa and did well also. If you watched the news you would have thought that Guiliani was the front runner and Fred Thompson was a viable conservative candidate. Even Mitt was treated as a dark horse.

Ron Paul and Kucinich were both treated as a true lunatics that the pundits could only shake their heads in wonder about, not understanding why the little guys and their ideas had any appeal at all.

It's not fair, but both Obama and McCain have benefitted because of it. It will/would be hard to tear either one of them down completely since they both have been built up so much.

Yep, those far left issues like the Iraq War, health insurance, social security staying that way (not private), stem cell research, etc. All topics where a STRONG majority of Americans agree with them, not the right.

Calling Clinton and Obama commies or socialists when everything is getting scary on the economic front won't be able to inspire the same amount of fear it did before either.

I'm in my forties. I'm male. I am extremely smart. And I get good and sick of having to disguise it around women.

Who are you trying to hit on?

When I was younger, I had a friend who used to complain about the same thing. A few of us fixed him up with a very attractive, smart architect we knew and all went out for drinks after work one night. They both knew it was an informal, blind date.

He was literally leering at every cocktail waitress that went by. Once he even turned around in his chair to get a better view of one waitress's behind. In front of his date, he pointed out that "Hot chicks like that won't give me the time of day, chicks in this town are superficial and only are interested in money."

We were horrified, but we saw why the women just weren't into the funny, decent looking, smart guy he seemed to be...and why the women that eventually did go out with him were not always the sharpest tools in the shed.