Corruption in politics has rendered gender a poor indicator as to how much any given senator provides a chance for change -- or for that matter, benefits to women among the population.

Sure, as an example to children, more women are better. And a 50/50 gender split would be a fine thing. But people -- including kids -- are not so dumb that our debate should be limited to gender, or even place too much focus there.

Hillary Clinton would be a poor choice for president if you want a more just world, including for women. As for the Senators, Clinton, Feinstein, Dole, Hutchison, Snowe, Collins, Landrieu, Lincoln and Cantwell -- over 62% of the female senators -- range from center-right to right-wing from a feminist-liberal perspective.

If anything, the female senators show us that by the time you get to that level of politics, gender is not much of a factor in governence. It is symbolism for the masses, for whom gender is still a relevent factor. Though symbolism is not without value, let's not kid ourselves by exaggerating its importance over campaign cash, reactionary pressures and disconnect with real people.

This post ignores everything but the number count. To such analysis I ask: would Nazi Germany have been better if hard-core Nazi women had a more prominent role in government? Of course not; it could have just as easily been worse.

Ideology and courage matter first – for men, women and children. If we get that right, the 50/50 gender split would happen organically, and all 100 would be better.

No honest advocate of democracy, liberalism, self-determination, or sovereignty should cite Iraq’s failure to privatize their oil for the neo-cons/western oil companies as an example of “failure” in Iraq. That means you, Tim. The longer Iraq "fails to deliver" on this score, the better for Iraq – and the U.S.’s soul.

Anyone who uses Iraqi resistance to thieves as a way to bash Bush playing both sides. Stick to stuff that matters, like dead civilians, ongoing civil war, destroyed infrastructure, fractured culture, etc.

Why assume the Manichean approach destroyed the Bush presidency? I think a good argument could be made that the approach was what made this a very successful presidency -- from the view of its operators (e.g. Cheney, who certainly doesn't hold dear any values other than expediency and opportunism).

I would say that the "good vs. evil" strategy came from adroit calculation about human ignorance and fear. Sure, historians will look back on Bush with disdain, but this presidency has so moved the global ball toward corporate despotism (including profit-driven war as an end in itself) that for those who held the strings, this presidency was an audacious masterpiece.

We're not fighting for democracy, otherwise BOTH PARTIES in the US would not be making aid to repair a country we destroyed contingent on privatizing oil.

So if your feel sorry for the US soldiers -- even if you don't give a shit about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis who have died as a result of our invasion and who are left out of Tim's post -- then don't fall into the trap of complaining about the Iraqi government. That's the escape hatch for the next president.

The bottom line is that there can be no working government there. We fucked that place up. The blood of our soldiers and the tankers-full of blood of the Iraqi people are on OUR HANDS. And no amount of white washing about how "we did good and Iraqis didn't step up" will get that damn spot off.

I find the use of a corrupt, US-formed government trapped in a few square blocks of a nation as an excuse to not pay reparations or to invest in fixing what we broke to be an act of absolute racism.

It's a right-wing piece of shit. Just because Bush didn't take this face-saving parachute (probably because the petulant child didn't want to get bailed out by his dad's friends...again) does not mean it's good. In fact, it’s not really much different from the status quo.

There were no credible Iraqis in the ISG. There were no liberals in the ISG (yes, Democrats, but right-wing imperialist types). And the proposal itself, as others point out, called for the theft of Iraq's oil and permanent US presence.

The saying goes: "beware of strangers bearing gifts." Well that suggests this corollary: "You sure as hell ought to beware of known assholes like Baker III bearing gifts."

Only a lazy mind would grab onto the ISG as an “alternative.”

Couric is "long known as a world-class ball-buster with a heart of gold?" Give me a break. She is a puffy media outgrowth. Just because she's the first woman anchor doesn't bestow upon her any special qualities.

If you want to focus on an anchorwoman in the media who kicks ass every day, highlight Amy Goodman.

This is a way to pass off blame on Iraq, which has been destroyed with our tax dollars and military.

The leading benchmark (the one that if not met, so say the Democrats, will result in the end of aid to the nation the US destroyed) is the privatization of Iraqi oil.

Great "benchmark." A real sign we support "democracy."

Again, the "left" -- including Salon -- falls for false choices. I say it's great that benchmarks aren't met, so long as the benchmarks are bullshit imperialist goals like stealing a broken nation's oil. And if those benchmarks aren't met, that does not change this moral fact: we waged an unprovoked war on a nation that rendered it largely incapable of becoming either a civilized democracy or our puppet (which both parties seem to think is the desirable goal).