The last time the Iowa Democratic caucuses mattered was in 1988, when Dick Gephardt ran for president.

In 1992, Iowa's own Sen. Tom Harkin ran and got 76% (or was it 74%?) of caucus support, so it was a no contest. That's when Bill Clinton got only 2%.

In 1996, Clinton was running for reelection, so that year the Iowa caucuses were window-dressing. In 2000, it was Gore's to lose. In 2004, the buzz was that Dean was a shoo-in, well sort of, if it weren't for Gephardt's surge. Then - poof - they fizzle and Kerry wins the caucus.

It's a long time to Janauary 3rd. Anything is possible.

I wish Iowa would find another reason to feel important rather than continuing with this ridiculous side-show.

There are so few participants in the Iowa caucuses that it borders on silliness that this first test is touted as a barometer of future success for the one who garners the most support. The Iowa caucuses are given a status that far exceeds what is warranted.

I never thought I'd see the time when anyone out did Bush by using others' suffering and pain for political advantage and photo ops.

But, I dunno, Giuliani is closing the gap.

I can't find a good link, but I recall that a photojournalist, Nita? Nina? Berman? did a photoessay on wounded soldiers, I believe in 2004. I seem to remember she mentioned that some of the wounded were "asked" to return a portion of their signing bonuses.

Also, Karen Fragala wrote about this, I believe, in Newsweek at least a couple of years ago.

Well, anyway...more to the point: It's about time that the military rank-and-file and their families began to face reality. If they continue to support this illegal, immoral War of Choice, I wish I could ask them to return my tax dollars that were wasted on executing this ridiculous war.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: And I really bu -- I really mean that, I spent a lotta time reading about Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln had no earthly idea that the Gettysburg Address was a great speech. All he knew is after having given it, he was condemned by a press corps that thought the person that preceded him was much better. Because it, it, because of the length that his, of his predecessor's speech. You know, history, it's just, it, I, I've always felt that there needs to be a long leash to history. That you can't judge a administration, immediately. And, particularly one that has pushed hard for some big ideas, like, like, my administration has done.

There he goes again. Articulating his big ideas, just knowing that history will be kind to him.

January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough -- when BUSH is HISTORY!

Is Snotty going to be "grilled" on this latest revelation by Tim Russert on Sunday? Or will his publisher tease out the details a while longer? The April publishing date is a long time off.

I smell a rat on this one.

I have made many informed decisions in my life based on seeking the facts, solid information from various sources, and even on some thoughtful opinions from those with whom I generally disagree.

But, I have never, ever seen Oprah's show, nor read her magazine, nor do I care what her opinion is on Obama, Clinton, or any other presidential candidate.

Sheesh! She's successful by today's standards based on financial wealth, but that doesn't make her opinion any more valuable than my Uncle Joe's or Aunt Eleanor's.

...even if he hadn't put all that time, effort, and money into getting reelected a little over a year ago.

So, one does wonder what the real reason is for his abrupt resignation just over a year into a 6-year term.

Larry Flynt doesn't usually go off half-cocked. In matters such as those being discussed regarding Mr. Lott, Flynt has proven to have his ducks in order.

Hello, Mr, Livingston!

Reading about this Gang of Eight at their debates, makes me think that the eventual GOP nominee has not walked on stage yet. GOP voters are vacillating to the point where they've lost their equilibrium, they are off-course, lost, lacking in conviction, in disarray.

I wish the You, as in We the People, actually had some clout in picking presidential candidates, rather than leaving it up to a few corn farmers in the hinterlands to set the course.

Oh, please, please, please! Don't settle on any one candidate ALL through the primaries!

...support so many of this administration's policies and incompetent nominees?

begins to ask voters on the campaign trail to forgive his "accounting mistakes" now that he's confident they've forgiven him for his extra-marital "mistakes."

My sister just phoned me. She says Fox News is already pondering, "Will Hillary benefit from this?"

When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton replied, "Because that's where the money is."

When asked how he "got around" so much and had meetings with both Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, the gay escort replied, "Because they know where the sex is."

In 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan created a national rule that squared with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. The Court's ruling decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.

Craig would have a difficult proving actual malice.

...had to correct that! It's that anal thing...:-))