Yeah, Lieberman's voting record is just fine--well, as fine as any of the pro-war Dems. But the problem is that Lieberman is constantly supporting the Republicans in the media. He gives them bi-partisan cover, and he repeats their talking points--even when he votes against them. He's undermining the Democratic party. That's why the grassroots wants him out. It doesn't actually have to do with ideology, but with perception. Look at that last quote in this article--attacking Dems who hate Bush for starting a war of choice and trampling on the Constitution and comparing them to Repubs who hate Clinton for Oval Office dalliances. Give me a break.

"What are you going to learn with four more years in the Senate that you don't know now?" My god, wouldn't it be refreshing if any of our candidates took that question seriously and answered, "Plenty."? A less-than-stellar freshman Senator. Could he possibly learn anything in the next four years? About our huge country? About our history? About our current place in the world? Obama hasn't answered yet, but the hubris of politicians never ceases to amaze me. Do I want to elect someone with four more years experience than a freshman senator? Well, yeah, I do, especially if they can prove that they learned something from the experience. (And no, Hillary doesn't fit the bill either, elected twice notwithstanding).

It's just not too much to ask that they actually do learn something over the course of every four years they're given, is it?

Dean's work is not only good for the Democratic Party, it's good for America.

One of the stupidest political mistakes that the Republicans have made in recent years is to put their party's interests ahead of the country's. Their selfishness, greed, and hubris are now apparent to a majority of voters. If Dean (along with the Congressional leaders) can stay on track, and bring more establishment Dems into the fold, there's no reason why our party cannot again be a powerful force for progressive change. As the Dems take more offices, the American people will be the ultimate winners.

It seemed at first that Salon was simply doing its job--providing some critical response to a media lovefest of all things Obama. Some critical articles about any and all of the candidates is welcome. But now it seems like Salon is hellbent on convincing readers that Obama's simply no good at all, that this candidacy is some sort of hoax.

I don't support him currently--I'm undecided and he's third on my list for the Dem primaries--but his approach is obviously being seen as viable if Salon is going full-throttle nasty against him.

To use the word "uppity" without following it up with "negro" is just cowardice on Salon's part. That's what was meant, it's how we all read it, and, like other letter-writers have already posted, it's shameful.

It isn't enough that "uppity" has been changed to "smug." The article should be deleted and replaced with an apology from the Editor-in-Chief. It's the kind of mistake that undermines everything Salon supposedly stands for. A clear retraction should be posted.

Honestly, would the press please start doing its job? It's infuriating to keep seeing articles about haircuts. Is there nothing more important going on in the presidential race? Even as would-you-have-a-beer-with-this-candidate filler this is lame beyond words. Just stop it. Just stop.

Why does this article exist? I would totally understand if Salon wanted to use this pathetic episode to feature a well-researched article about how our nation's rich get a different form of justice from the poor. But another article complaining about how this person won't go away?

If Salon would quit publishing articles about this stupid little girl then all of us who have ponied up our premium fees could enjoy this site with neither the clutter of viewing ads nor the clutter of pointless articles about celebrity "culture." I can read CNN for free--so either stop this nonsense or give me back my premium fee.

but I liked it better when it was leading instead of following. Every single news site I visited today had an article about Bill back on the stump. What an absolute bore to find that Salon is right there among them.

I do not support Sen. Clinton. And that has nothing to do with the fact that the former President is her husband. I take the candidates at their word. Who are they and what are they about? I'd like to count on Salon to give me something about them that the rest of the media is ignoring.

There are plenty of stories to write about Clinton and her candidacy. There are plenty of stories to write about Clinton in Iowa. But to write the same one that everyone else is writing is not why I send my money to Salon for a premium subscription.

This is disappointing.

Paglia says: "But why should any artist have to compete with his or her peak period? We should be satisfied with the priceless legacy of genius."

Same holds true for our cultural observers. I do not hold Paglia's descent into fifth-rate commentary against the accomplishment of Sexual Personae. I just read these recent columns the same way Paglia watches late-period Fellini: with a wrinkled nose pointed at the absurd, seemingly inevitable "decline into pastiche and self-parody."

does that mean if you have a safe in the trunk of the car that is locked with a combination lock they cannot compel you to open it? are they only allowed to search the "containers" they can access?

also, could it be argued that information that's not stored locally on the phone itself--your hypothetical bulletin board messages, which let's assume are not cached--is not in the phone, therefore not in the car, therefore not accessible to the police during such a search?