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.

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.

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!

Check it out:

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

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

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.

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.

Sounds good to me! (All except the deficits, that is, and for Republicans to be crying about the deficit is really rich.)

Seriously though, most of this will not come to pass. It's not that Obama will be prevented by someone from passing this program; rather, it is because Obama is a centrist, not a leftist.

Really, Pat, this "most liberal member of the Senate" thing is just a talking point! You weren't really supposed to believe it!

I enjoyed that too! It was the "Meters" part that finally got me laughing out loud.

the Republicans have convinced quite a few middle-class people that they'll pay more under Obama

That's because the Fox watching fools who have 2 SUVs and a townhouse think they are in the top 5% of the income bracket.

Cloud computing has its place. But cloud computing has many drawbacks:

• The cloud cannot guarantee security, either from hackers or from our intrusive and unscrupulous government.
• Poor wireless access. With my personal WiFi device I can almost never get online. Hot-spots are spotty, and most of the ones I run into require me to pay for some multi-hour plan. In fact, the communications infrastructure in this country is a joke compared to other civilized places.
• The cloud requires a fairly hefty computing package capable of running the bloated browsers needed for most of these applications. Whereas I can easily edit a Word document or an Excel spreadsheet on my Palm V device using a personal application like DataViz' DocumentsToGo.
• You think Patch Tuesday is a bitch? You don't have to patch! But with the cloud you have no choice. Yesterday's app that worked so well is changed today! (Where did that @#!!@ spell-check menu item go?)

Given these disadvantages a cloud app must have some compelling reason to reside there. Perhaps it is a collaborative tool, with connectivity a central feature; or maybe it requires a massive, centralized database (Google Earth, for example). I doubt most Office users have these requirements.