Elizabeth and John Edwards are exactly what this country needs right now. Caring, compassionate. People with deep abiding values (not to be confused with religious fanatacism) and common sense. And obviously, the intellect which has been taboo in this country's government since 2000.

After Couric's cloying, coquettish interview with the Chimp-in-charge, it is obvious that her "interview" with the Edwards'was a biased attempt to passively smear them. To paint them as ambitious and ruthlessly competitive while sacrificing their family. To be expected at the hands of Limbaugh and O'Reilly. But I am shocked that Couric was so hypocritical, and so transparent in her attempts. She is an amateur. She is not a "journalist". That she had the gall to imply that a selfless woman like Elizabeth Edwards was remiss in not staying home, in light of her own choice of career over her dying husband is truly contemptable.

Can someone find her a flower show to review. Or a pet show. Or the opening of a neighborhood McDonalds. That's where she belongs. Sorry Katie...cute may cut it with the network biggies, but those of us with a functioning brain and heart think you're way out of your league. But then, after Elizabeth Edwards killed you softly, I guess you know that.

EDWARDS 2008. Big time. And a gracious, self-effacing, smart, likeable first lady to show our face to the world. Wouldn't it be loverly.

Maybe the House and Senate plans aren't perfect, but they will force Bush to exercise his veto, a giant public slap in the face of the American public and the congress...both of which have the constitutional right to his respect, cooperation and accountability.

He's scared to death of that veto, because it puts him all alone in the middle of a white hot spotlight without all the dramatic staging and poignancy of his phony New Orleans speech or his cocky walk under the Mission Accomplished sign.

Can you say...hey...where'd all my rats go?

Bush's schedule today in the light of ever-broadening global conflict, catastrophic levels of poverty at home (not his home, ours) widening allegations and appearances of misconduct and possible criminal activity in virtually every cranny of his administration ... this is all that's on his calendar?

It's not surprising, however. But for the unfortunate (or fortunate for Bush) events of 9/11, this is exactly how he expected to spend his presidency. Lots of deference to his supreme majesty, with very little output.

Just before 9/11, a cameraman I know was covering him at the White House and had a chance to speak with him casually. Asked about the burdens of the presidency, Bush replied that it was essentially an easy gig. Lots of time for naps and just plain fooling around. Not those words, of course, but pretty damn close.

It is, however, continually disturbing that he can maintain his personal regimen of plenty of sleep, exercise and leading the good easy life in the face of all the devastation he has wrought. It is so incredibly soul-less. I won't even call him on the ineptitude. The disassociation is plenty.

For four years I have had one child or the other in Iraq, going to Iraq, getting back from Iraq. And so have my fellow military moms. And yet everytime we have spoken out against this administration and its disastrous policies and lack of support for our children, we have been painted as callous, treasonous, uncaring mothers, whose sons would be ashamed of them. (and yet...they are not)

Now, the White House is claiming that the horrible burden of being the parent of a child marching off to war is unhinging Matthew Dowd.

Gosh...how come they're never willing to give any of us that much sympathy? Cindy Sheehan, with her unbearable sorrow is a bitch. Matthew Dowd is merely succumbing to the insanity of dealing with a child in harms way. Is it just a misogynistically Republican mom vs. dad thing? We're hysterical morons, they're sensitive. Or is it just convenient now to selectively acknowledge that war is hell. Or...is it, right from the idiot spokesperson's mouth, proof positive that the joke about sending the twins to Iraq might not be so silly after all? It seems that having blood in the game now gives you a different perspective. Who would have thought it.

It's amazing that every time we have a senior member of this administration with something to say, they run from their hideyholes straight to the shelter of right wing jabber-fests, where they are assured to be preaching to the choir. Except that now a lot of the choir has left the loft.

Fortunately, a lot of America has awakened from whatever was slipped into the water in 2000. And yet, we still have a Secretary of State who believes the podium from which to address international issues is the seriously ridiculous Bill O'Reilly show.

From there, she can claim, with impugnity that "diplomacy" is the process of going in and laying down the law and having the other parties (hereafter referred to as "the enemy") acquiesce to our every whacked-out idea about what the world needs now. You can ask most largely uneducated high school students what diplomacy is, and I would bet actual money that they know it is a process of TALKING AND LISTENING until you reach a solution that PEOPLE CAN LIVE WITH.

Literally.

Given Ms. Rice's gross and disturbing misunderstanding of dipomatic process, it's no wonder the designated halls of statesmanship in this country are venues like the BOR show.