The biggest difference: McCain did not sit and listen to Hagee's "sermons" for 20 years. Obama did. McCain can legitimately plead ignorance. Obama can't.

Did you read or listen to the "offending" remarks in that one sermon In context? If so, how do feel they compare with the statements of Hagee that have been discussed in various of Glenn's posts and following discussion? How do you think people in other countries would compare them?

In the battle of the churches, the spoils are the undecideds, not the true believers. Do you really think McCain would gain from attacking, when Obama is smart enough to turn it back on him?

I thought we determined with Kennedy that the ideas of the church were not the same as the candidate and that the candidate need not agree with the Church on all issues. Did that go by the boards when Obama had the audacity to hope a black man could be president?

Well worth repeating and remembering as the campaigns become more viscous.

But for the first, let's wait until after the repub convention when it is too late to get someone else.

That is what I see as the cause of the current problem that Glenn has illustrated. Any other causes? Is there any solution besides restrictions on ownership?

If the prosecution claims that you were hiding in a bush, then they have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you did so. That condition is not met if there is reasonable doubt that you could have been there. I believe that the judge did not properly instruct the jury. I have no legal expertise; so I might have this wrong. Does anyone know better?

Her first mistake was going to Evergreen. Second, hooking up with a looser. Lastly, getting involved with EF/ELF.

Did she not think that someday this all may come crashing down? She had choices, she chose poorly.

Are you saying one should go to jail for choosing poorly? The rule of law should require that one be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges.

And your post illustrates why laws should be directed at specific acts, not vague generalities like "terrorism". The word carries too much emotional connotation. People should be convicted only for committing specific acts, not for falling into a category (poor chooser, terrorist, unpatriotic leftist loser, etc.).

and she kept her ATM receipt for 6 years? Hmmm. It proves nothing, her boyfreind could have used her PIN to withdraw money, it in no way proves she was there.

I think banks have records of ATM transactions going back six years; a paper receipt should not be needed. She might or might not need to prove she was there to establish reasonable doubt; this is not as simple as you are saying.

and I wish he would...and the sooner the better.

I think it is better for Obama to wait until convention time for a full scale assault on neocon policy. McCain will continue to dig himself in deeper, and then he will make mistakes from exhaustion later.

So if coverage of his speech in SF shows up in Time, how about if everyone sends the "editor" a letter, unless this coverage properly points out the lies? (Mar 19th is the latest search result for Mukasey at time.com now)

"We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

What makes you think this is true? (Given that his speech contains other lies.)

If the chance of two separate coincides happening in relation to a given event are each 1 in 100 then the chance that both coincidences will happen for the same event is 1 in 100*100 or 1 in 10,000. The more coincidences, the lower the probability of all those coincidences happening in relation to the same event.

Assessing the probability of two coincidences requires knowing the number of potential coincidences. With something as complex as 911, that number is huge. Try listing all the pairs of events that would be considered mutually significant if only....... It is almost certain that there will be a few interesting, but meaningless, coincidences just from the random lining up of two otherwise unrelated events.

Yes, I disagree.

Was his " rift" with the more socially conservative repubs just a ploy to help the press to establish the centrist illusion? Looks like it.

wrote:

Actually, it's odd. Many kept calling the Bush Administration fascists and, with their love for melding the corporate with the government, there are some elements of fascism there, but, I kept thinking that the whole bunch reminded me of mid-era Soviet Communists with their emphasis on ideological purity, their inability and disinterest in making anything in government work correctly, and way they kept trying to control the message. And, the emphasis on external and internal enemies, it was just really, well, Bolshevik, not just Nazi.

In the US we currently have the government controlled by big industry. In the USSR, there was no real private industry and the government controlled most everything, or at least tried. I am not really comfortable with any simple labels, but if we must use them, surely fascism is a much better fit than communism?

If you are still around, could you please explain how a man who has not a clue as to which group (to say nothing of subgroup) Iran supports has any chance of "fixing" Iraq.