Because I'd sure as hell rather have someone who has consumed at least one alcoholic beverage teach my kids than: a GOP donor; a member of any church that doesn't believe in science or women's equality; someone who supports war on their personal website; etc.

Of course, the idea of denying a degree to anyone in these lawful categories, who did the work and paid for the courses, would be anathema even to me. I hope the school goes out of business, because I also don't want my kids' schools employing its graduates.

Brit Hume's question: if the American heartland gets attacked during your presidency and you have no intelligence whatsoever, how much pain would you inflict upon people who have been held incommunicado for the last 7 years?

That question, let alone the responses, show us that at least half of America is sadist. This is not an overstatement. We like causing pain for our own emotional outlet -- indeed, we believe we have a right to cause pain for our own emotional outlet.

Watch out world.

Snow and other White House PR flacks clearly supply no useful information ("we stand by so-and-so," who might get fired the next day; or "we will never do X," which is done the following week).

What used to be a prime assignment -- White House Press Corp! -- is now the least important job in Washington (at least if you're a coward, like most news folk).

Why do reporters go? Why not just leave it to their fax machine to get the daily spin? It would save gas and provide some spare time for, say, journalism.

WB doesn't exist to be a normal bank for poor nations -- nor as a wasteful feel-good enterprise as Realname suggests. Its main function is to compromise nations in the interests of Western capital.

"Here's a bunch of money, but you must use it to buy weapons from GE/Northrop Grumman/General Dynamics/Boeing." Or, "here's a bunch of money, but you must sell off your utilities to a WB/IMF-approved private company -- we suggest Enron." (Seriously, Enron was forced on a number of nations by the WB and IMF during the Clinton presidency.)

Read "Globalization and its Discontents" or "Diary of an Economic Hit Man" for a quick course.

Obama wasn't in the Senate when the first vote on the war went down. Furthermore, his transformation into a centrist weasal has been so fast and absolute (on ABC last Sunday he tried to backtrack on pre-senator attacks on Bush's tax cuts) that I would guess he'd have voted for the war along with Hillary if his election cycle had been four years earlier.

This is not to defend HRC's record on Iraq, which is horrible. Only to say that her husband may be completely accurate in this statement, and that once in office there is no way to conclude that Obama would be any different than Clinton on Iraq or anything else (no one knows who either of these people are, let alone what motivates them).

This is the foundation of the US Democratic Party's position: we spent enough on Iraqis - now it's time for them to step up -- and by the way, bench mark #1 is privatizing your oil.

There are no good guys for us to turn to.

As I understand it, there is reasearch out that looked at the health effects of bt crops on rats, with three groups: 1) rats fed bt directly; 2) rats feed bt producing corn; 3) the control. The study found that rats eating the bt corn suffered a great deal more than the other groups (bt fed rats suffered at a higher rate than the control, but in ranges much closer to the control). This would suggest that putting bt in the bees' food would not test for the impact bt crops might have.

I second Kerianfree, small d democrat and captainlarab

The Democratic is pretty bad. Other than Kucinich (who will never win because progressives “decided,” 500 days out, that he can’t) all of the candidates side with industry over people and militarism over peace.

Obama just lets me down more and more each day. Every time he opens his mouth he shows me how much he doesn’t represent me, whether he’s backtracking on previous liberal positions, sucking up to corporations, or attempting to show that his dick is just as big as any GOP warmonger’s.

Supporters say he has to do this to get elected, to which I say: he wouldn’t have to if he really was a leader.

So if I understand correctly, on must assume a black democrat is liberal enough...I guess because he's black.

Hmm...

And based on your equating criticisms of Israel with charges of "Jewish conspiracy,” one must assume that to be Jewish is to support the Israeli government.

Hmm...

Lot of racial/ethnic generalizations there. Maybe you should look into the GOP?