Remember Al Gore's "earthtones"? And how Paul Simon's ears were too big? And going further back, didn't FDR feel compelled to conceal his disability?

Focusing on a candidate's physique is not new. I don't really see a double standard here. Instead I think that women are (quite rightly) a bit more sensitive to it.

And when the candidate in question is packaged a certain way, then any story that cracks that package is relevant. I wish someone had exposed Bush for the non-cowboy, non-ranch working dude he clearly was, with all that fake brush clearing shtick on his semi-monthly vacations.

The segment of our economy that is reliant on our defense and security spending is simply huge. This very influential segment of our economy relies completely on strife, fear and war, and will do anything in its power to stoke fear, strife and war, because it is good for business. This is the very reason GE owns media outlets. They are not going to go away just because Obama is elected.

Someone who knows how to do this needs to look into Coats' and Robb's financial ties to this industry. I'll bet they are there.

Check it out:

http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html

This is nothing new. It's been going on forever, it seems like.

But the really right answer is: What if he is?

Many have asked, why did it take Powell so long? Fair enough. But no one would have faulted Powell for sticking with his first "correct answer" and leaving it at that. His "really right answer" comment brilliantly captures the essence of what every true American patriot should want our America to be, and Powell deserves all the credit in the world for going the extra mile here. Once again, Bravo!

I agree with what Joe Buck said earlier: "gold is not the only valuable substance in the world". Remember too that the Great Depression happened in an era during which the gold standard was prevalent. Finally, and more to the point, those countries that abandoned the gold standard during the Great Depression (such as Sweden) recovered much more rapidly than those who tenaciously clung to it (Great Britain, Belgium and others) (see Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century). John Maynard Keynes, who had a proven track record, argued against going back to the gold standard in the Bretton Woods agreement. Too bad he was ignored.

Ron Paul may have been right in predicting chaos, but like most libertarians he is right for the wrong reasons. The big culprit is this notion that regulation is not needed, a notion that flies in the face of the entirety of human history and experience.

Several commenters have objected to the statement of Priest ... on the ground that it is the responsibility of journalists such as her to expose the falsity of McCain's claims, regardless of whether Obama is silent on those claims or has even adopted them himself.

Not only that, but Obama's calculation may well be based on the failure of the mainstream press to debunk McCain's talking point. Imagine if he took the other approach, and refuted Sen. McCain. The rubes would be perplexed, because they sure haven't heard this version from the papers or on TV! They would think that Obama is out of touch in the one area he is perceived to be weak--foreign policy. Why should Obama take this political risk, if there is no return? So Priest is wrong. Not only is it the job of the press to tell us the truth, but it would make it less risky and more rewarding for candidates to tell the truth.

Sorry I misunderstood your argument, man. But I think your worry is misplaced. I don't think there are too many people out for the blood of the tank crewmen. I don't even think that that is what Nelson's mom is after. She just wants a straight answer. It was a terrible mistake and I feel for them, if they understand their responsibility.

But the brass lying about it, and asking the soldiers involved to buy into this lie, that is just not right. And I'm glad you agree. If I am one of the guys on the ground I want to know that the Army is dealing with the problem (not punishing, but learning and preventing). Instead, everything they've done and said sends the message that they are in denial.

Imagine having to even suffer foreign tanks in your neighborhood? Will we ever even consider that side of things?

And that is a whole other dimension. Not the subject of the article, but it is to the point. What we are doing in Iraq is simply immoral. There can be no justification for waging aggressive war, and that is what we are doing in Iraq. Nelson and Suarez died not because a tank commander made a mistake. They died because President George W. Bush launched an illegal war, and they died because the vast majority of the citizens of this country acquiesced. When you launch a war, you are responsible for whatever happens, and that includes the death of an estimated half million Iraqis.

Quite apart from the moral issue there is also the issue of equivalence. How many of us would tolerate a foreign nation invading us and driving their tanks around our neighborhoods? I hope that is none of us. So how is it we thought we would be welcome? We need to get out of there ASAP, and we need to pay the Iraqis reparations. That is the only decent, honorable course of action we have remaining to us.