... could easily be done in such a way as to make it much better for people in the US, Canada, and Mexico. The only hard part of that would be getting the agreement past the corporations, who like it fine just the way it is.

Andrew Leonard makes the same mistake -- I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not intentional -- that many other pundits make. These agreements aren't really about the citizens of one country vs the citizens of the other. That's just the corporatist framing. They're really about the citizens of all the countries involved vs the corporatists. And because the corporatists largely get to write the agreements ...

The Obama campaign keeps reminding me of my martial arts training. Obama keeps using his opponents' attacks against them. I think it bodes very well for the GE ... and for the nation, if he's elected.

When certain people complained that Obama wasn't getting scrutiny, I actually hoped that he would get more scrutiny ... that the press might look beyond the supposed "rock star" reactions and examine his record and his proposals. He's not perfect, of course, but that kind of scrutiny would have been a great boost for his campaign.

Alas, I should have known better. That would have been much more difficult than the "scrutiny" that involves parroting lame attacks.

1) That NAFTA has anything to do with "free trade". Please. Using "free trade" to describe any effect of NAFTA shows that one either doesn't really understand what free trade really means or doesn't know anything about NAFTA. (Or one is using the term "free trade" in its relatively more recent, manipulative usage.)

2) That renegotiating trade pacts somehow pits the people of one country against the people of another country. The actual effect of trade pacts like NAFTA et al is to pit corporatists against everyone else. Unfortunately, most negotiation is dominated by corporatists and their hired representatives.

When did "vetted" come to mean "relentlessly subjected to dishonest attacks"? Sure, candidates should be able to deal with such attacks. But to pretend that such attacks are the norm, and to give 'em continued credence in the absence of anything concrete is a disservice to democracy, and such behavior should be criticized. (And praising the "political astuteness" of using such attacks is simply disgusting.)

I'd love it if Clinton and Obama where both vetted in the original sense of the word.

(FWIW, I've vetted them both for myself, and I happen to think Obama comes out ahead. But neither Whitewater nor Rezko were involved in my process -- other than being easily dismissed -- so my sort of "vetting" wouldn't count in the media.)

Glen Greenwald writes: "There's no way to sustain that level of self-righteous moralizing without genuinely succumbing to the delusion."

I disagree. The other way to sustain that level is if it contributes to being paid large sums of money. Now, it may be that he's also delusional, I just don't agree that he necessarily is. Does he really buy both sides of this, or is it just part of the gig?

Whatever happened to basic, traditional, good-ol' all-American distrust of the government?

Oh, right, that's still in effect for things like corporate regulation, public schools, single-payer health care and so on. The police state thing, not so much.

Bush et al want followers. Obama wants participants.

There's nothing, nothing so frightening to the people currently in charge than the possibility of a motivated and informed citizenry.

Maybe Democrats should, like, get together and send all the reporters, like, flowers and cook for them and stuff.

Then maybe they'll stop reporting rumors, exaggerations, and blatant lies as if they were "newsworthy".

GlenGreewald wrote: "There's been way too much tension and hostility between the Washington press corps and Republican politicians. It's nice to see them finally getting along better."

Oh, absolutely. For 7 years -- more if you rightly count the 2000 election -- the DC press have been all over the Republicans. No minor factual bobble has been too small to headline, no slip-up has been too minor to subject to days of scrutiny. It would be enough to drive anyone crazy. Though it should be noticed, of course, that through it all Republicans -- however understandably irritated by the constant distraction of the press -- have stuck to their ideals of fully open and accountable governance.

"And I am Marie of Romania."

a) It's against the law and

b) he's a state governor who was previously the state attorney general

... I don't much care.

Now, I personally happen to think it shouldn't be against the law. But it is. And my understanding of how these things work -- which is admittedly almost entirely second-hand at best -- is that prostitution operations tend to be associated at least on some level with organized crime and/or corrupted law-enforcement officials. Given that, his involvement -- even if it's only as a customer -- compromises him, at least in appearance if not in fact.

tommydsz writes: "the outrage is gonna come from the Left

personally I dont care what Mr.Spitzer does in his private time as long as he does a good job running his office..but the problem is that even the left is guilty with all this moralizing..wait for all the feminists to now start ganging up on him for abusing a poor hapless woman and using her body for sex.."

Last I knew this was still a point of contention between some feminists, but I think it's worth pointing out that many feminists think prostitution shouldn't be a crime. Especially given that (a) the laws involved are far more often enforced against the women involved and (b) the laws (and sexist enforcement of them) tend to make life worse for women in the business.