We should start redefining and undoing all the lies and subterfuge that comprise the war in Iraq. This conflict/occupation has been sold as:

A war to stop WMD in the hands of a despot.

A war to unseat a tyrant.

A war to stem the tide of terrorism by taking it to the enemy.

A war to bring an example of democracy in the middle east.

A war to help the Iraqi people stand up.

A truer reality would be that it is a conflict/occupation with the purpose of:

Establishing and increasing the global military footprint. More bases and garrisons. The larger and more diverse our footprint, the stronger our military capability. With this in mind, it doesn't matter the incompetence of the implementation of the war as long as our bases remain when we "pull out" or redeploy troops. Examples: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. With this military goal (footprint) in mind, the destabilization of Iraq is a winning military strategy, not a loosing one (see Rumsfeld's parting comments on how we don't understand the nature this war.) As long as Iraq is not stable, they need us there.

Securing the resource of water and oil in the middle east. Let's face it. Our interest in the region is primarily oil. We are in constant competition with Russia, Europe, China to secure access to the resource in this region. Securing this access was the reason we installed Saddam in the first place. Again, with this goal in mind, a destabilized Iraq is in need of our assistance to build the infrastructure to pipeline and refine the oil, and protect the resource.

Establishing a war to complete the cycle of military/industrial/congressional complex. Industry builds the weapons. They then sell them to the Military. Congress holds the purse strings and brings home the bacon to constituents (Raytheon, Boeing, Haliburton, etc..) in their home turf. War, any war, completes this cycle and business is booming. With these kinds of pressures on our foreign policy, it is a wonder we can go 2 years without a conflict.

Did we find WMD? Who cares.

Did we unseat the dictator? Who cares.

Are the troop levels too low? Who cares.

Is our overt (sold to the public) military strategy a success? Nope, but who cares.

Is our covert geopolitical/military strategy a success? Business is good. Our footprint has increased. We are sitting on top of the oil. Looks pretty good from this perspective.

When first we practice to conceive.

Transparency and honesty would solve most of this dillema. If Hayes had been told the truth immediately about the mix up, and also the Does, and each party including the clinic were able to weigh in, the Does could have made a more informed decision to continue (or not) with conception.

The clinic's behavior in this has been self serving and despicable. There definitely needs to be government oversight of the clinic. They were left to market forces and their self regulation to handle the situation and we see what resulted.

If Hayes is the baby's biological father then he has rights. These are not the normal circumstances of conception. So what. So the kid gets an extra birthday gift. Roll with it. Life becomes a John Irving novel and in turn becomes more interesting. I envy the child his/her uniqueness.

You are all making the mistake of letting conservatives continue to define the issues. This is not about ethics. The people didn't vote on ethics. They voted out in incompetent government. Sure ethics could be considered at the core of all the Republican's problems but let's be real here. If people were voting out ethical corruption, then they would have canned everyone on capital hill. Lobbying, earmarks, pork, millitary/industrial/congressional complex, vote trading, campaign finance manipulation, vote manipulation etc... are part and parcel to the entire way of doing government now. Ethics aside...way aside.

The public is not anti-war, they are just anti-incompetent Iraq war. The public is not anti-corruption, they are just anti-over the top blatant corruption. The public didn't oust Ney, Abramoff, DeLay, Foley with a vote. These people left because of investigations and exposure, not because the public demanded it.

Conrad Burns is an idiot who puts his foot in his mouth, as is Allen. These people were ousted for incompetence. Iraq war - incompetence. Katrina - incompetence. It's the republicans who are putting out the meme of ethics now in reference to Murtha. Don't fall into it. They don't want someone like Murtha asking the serious questions about the war and it's implementation.

We should learn from the experience of those who go before us. John Murtha is the right person for this job. He stood up when everyone was standing down. He spoke into the silence. He is one of the few in congress (albeit late) to do what he was put there to do.

While castigating Carville for hanging onto an old way of doing business, you have also made the same mistake. It is no longer relevant to divide the nation by geographical regions, and definately not by large regions, i.e. "the northern states","the midwest", "the coasts" etc...

One of Karl Rove's good ideas was to crunch data and determine where the people are with pinpoint accuracy. Data such as car purchasing trends, average household income, marriage status, and so on.

It is better to focus on areas where there is the most potential for voter flip. These undecideds and potential new voters are your real target.

Instead of a "get the midwest" paradigm, democrats should be focusing on a "get the married couple from the suburbs with a median income of $60,000" strategy.