So even if I wasn't convinced that Joe's mission to unite the nation and bring parties together wasn't some bullshit talking point, intended to dilute reporting from conventional-wisdom icons like Tim Russert and Cokie Roberts, I'd still be repulsed.

You see, like millions of other Americans, I don't think the problem is that there is too much rancor; I think there is not enough. While this point has been made many times, I will punctuate it here by making clear that I view most Republicans and a few too many Democrats as working against America's interest – diametrically against those interests.

What's more, people who think the mathematical center of our increasingly corrupt, right-wing Congress is, by definition, the best path for the nation, have not a clue about how DC works and are in no position to determine how to get what they expect from government. And this is an interesting point, because Ol' Joe understands Washington perfectly well, and he's casting himself in a way that he knows will appeal to people ill equipped to make an informed vote; that speaks volumes.

Elected officials should be held accountable for bad decisions, and the vote to give Bush the authority to wage war on Iraq was an unconscionable one. No Democratic member of the House or Senate (or GOP members, for that matter), can claim that they lacked the evidence that Bush could not be at all trusted with such authority.

The defense put out by gutless politicians like Hillary Clinton is that she only gave him the bargaining power to wage war, but whether and how that war was waged was up to Bush. This is complete bullshit. The vote was a political calculation that turned out to be wrong, and had nothing to do with reasoned consideration about how Bush would use the power. The Bush administration had already proven itself to be a partisan, trigger-happy, criminal enterprise and no self-respecting senator (or patriot, for that matter) can defend giving it a blank check for violence.

Would an adult who gave a lawless, deceitful teenager a machine gun get away with claiming that only the teenager was responsible for happened next? Why do presidential candidates get to live by a lower standard?

Odd that you equate our senators with the voters' bosses; I thought it was the other way around.

We were going to witness a rebuilding effort unlike any seen before; we'll I guess that's true if you figure we can't see it.

And who remembers Bush's promise to fix the electrical grid in grand fashion. Yeah, that was a funny one.

When will the media report, as established fact, that the Bush administration does not work for US citizens?

Democrats and some liberals get absolutely giddy when opportunity to out-fear Bush on “terror” arises. “Ooh, there are ports with packages not being checked!”

This is dumb and dangerous. We've had two major terrorist attacks in my lifetime and one was done by a white, American wing-nut. Moreover, any terrorism coming our way in the near future almost certainly has more to do with our illogical and brutal response to 9/11 than it does with lax security.

Of course, if you do opt for building a better “terror condom,” in lieu of ending risky foreign policy behavior, you’ve got your work cut out for you. How do we go about checking every container in every port? It's a great talking point, but it would destroy our economy - not just in the billions it would cost to check those millions of containers by also in the added time it would take for goods to travel from production to consumer. And even if you did find an economically viable way to implement all the safety-cap crap that the Democrats claim Bush should be doing, a determined person can still get though.

The best anti-terrorist campaign is to stop carrying out anti-democratic, anti-poor foreign policy. But no Democrat would dare consider campaigning on better foreign policy ethics, as they rightly fear that the nation’s belief that we export only sunbeams and lollipops is so entrenched that they would have to exercise leadership to change minds. God forbid.

This openly dishonest and incompetent woman, from voter purges to shutting down vote recounts, was the lynchpin to our having a President George W. Bush.

Katie Couric has not become an anchor of news so much as news has become entertainment, where women have been welcome for centuries. Meanwhile, women like Amy Goodman have been delivering broadcast news (actual news) in the shadows for ages.

As others have pointed out, watching Couric - or nearly any TV news broadcast - is about the most inefficient way to find out what you should know as a voter and a taxpayer. Such broadcasts are often inaccurate, not remotely comprehensive, and are filled with crap like commercials and baby Suri.

To view Couric's position as any kind of indicator about women is to confuse entertainment and marketing with journalism and achievement.

I will add, however, that this infotainment industry is sexist. Wolf Blitzer is almost certainly more ill-informed and vacuous than Couric, and his rise to prominence has just as much to do with entertainment and marketing as Couric's. But, as others point out, he doesn't get judged by his clothes. Again, another reason to turn it all off. There are 150 million women in the US and we shouldn't judge their value or progress by one or two role-players on a contrived corporate program (which, don't forget, exists to sell advertising time - not improve democracy or anything else).

... that we didn't lose the America we had known before 9/11 -- it was stolen from us by an administration that decided to make the worst of a bad situation.