John McCain is a hard-core, right-wing Republican as his overall voting record amply demonstrates. He differs from Dubyah in that Dubyah got to the religious right before he did in 2000 and in that he supports modestly more honest, modestly more open government. No one should be surprised that he is currying favor with Falwell & Co. this year and no one should be surprised if, God forbid, he is elected in 2008, that he governs from as far right as Dubyah has.

"Outside of their palaces, we see nothing but back alleys populated by wild-eyed lunatics and freaks, or open stretches of countryside. With a production budget of $100 million, shouldn't we expect to see the city of Rome, in all of its glory?"

We do. Rome, particularly Rome of the late 1st Century BCE, was principally a city of back alleys and what we would characterize as slums. It bore a far greater resemblance to modern-day Calcutta or Mexico City than it did to Mussolini's model of the city in the 4th Century CE or to the Beaux-Arts fantasy "white city". The series' plot is more Aaron Spelling than Robert Graves, but if you know anything at all about history, you have to love the sets.

Oh yeah. Maybe we'd be better off nominating Hillary, thereby guaranteeing a Republican win of astronomical proportions.

I can't speak for anyone else, much less for the "Left Wing" or "Left Wing blogs", but my reaction to the disclosure of your checkered past (and let's not be coy about this, it includes more than stripping for the cameras a few times) is, "who cares?" A fella's got to make a living! What I criticize is the sheer hypocrisy of your newfound friends, who went into hysterics because a former President behaved improperly with a young (but adult) female employee and then fibbed about it, yet see nothing wrong with embracing people whose behavior was much more questionable (having sex with an adult is not a crime; prostitution is) when it suits their purposes. If I were you, I'd wonder about exactly what kind of people I was associating with at those RW hate-fests.

I have another comment; I didn't read your article in the Columbia student paper, but it is creating a straw man of heroic proportions to try to laden the Left with the "hate the troops" label. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Indeed, I respect our armed service people so much, I want them home and out of harm's way rather than risking life and limb in pursuit of a foolish war begun because we have a President who is so dumb or so venal he will risk young people's lives because his party needs a boost in the pre-election polls and besides, Saddam was mean to his daddy.

John Gibson (not the Fox one)

Unless the Democrats collectively start showing some spine, a Bloomberg-Hagel or Hagel-Bloomberg ticket could very well turn the 2008 elections into a re-run of 1912, with the Democrats playing the Taft Republican role. Caving in to Dubyah on his war; dancing around using the weapons the Constitution handed them to deal with cabinet officers who lie in Congressional testimony given under oath, and generally being ineffective may well convince a substantial number of voters that a third alternative is needed. There are few candidates for volume two of "Profiles in Courage" in the Democratic Party nowadays and that is well on its way to convincing me.

Basically, they have the power to control this Administration; they're just too chicken to use it. Quit futzing around with subpoenas and just cut their money off. Prohibit "detailing" government employees from other departments. Force Dubyah and his thugs to pay attention. That or continue to look like laughingstocks.

jg6544

McCain's claque of moderate-liberal acolytes reminds me of the people who used to say, "yes, but Herr Goering is such a generous and charming host!" Doesn't anyone look at the man's voting record, for heaven's sake?

John in California

I trust Obama to try to carry the country as far as he can; I don't trust Hillary. I don't trust Hillary because I remember her husband gleefully sold the GLBT community down the river twice on his watch and then had the gall later to try to tell us he was doing us a favor. I just don't trust the woman.

Bill Clinton may or may not have "reached across" to all voters, but in fact, he didn't win a majority of the electorate either time he ran and probably owed his first win to the presence of Ross Perot in the race. I say that as someone who voted for him in '92 and refused to in '96.

The Democratic Party is a "big tent", but Lieberman left it voluntarily to endorse and campaign for the Republicans. As far as I'm concerned, he left his chairmanship and his seniority behind too. He can vote with the Democrats to organize the Senate if he wants to, but he should do so as the junior-most member of the Senate and the Caucus and he absolutely should not chair any committee or subcommittee. Loyalty counts.

Initially, I was on the side of stripping Sen. Quisling, er, Lieberman, of both his committee chairmanship and his seniority, but I have to admit, Sen. Bayh has a point. It may be possible to keep him under "control" better by letting him stay where he is on the condition that the first, tiniest stray from the path the Caucus sets for the coming Congress and he's out. That would bind him to vote with the Democrats on cloture petitions and confirmations, for example. Still, in the spirit of "trust but verify", maybe it would be a good idea for all of the Democrats on the Committee, not just the chairman, to appoint the staff.