Hwæt!

Isn't it intriguing that in his attempt to cast ridicule on Democrats and cast himself as a victim, he summons up Moby-Dick and Grendel? Both are destructive, vicious, murderous beasts who can barely be controlled. Either this is his megalomania speaking, or perhaps his much-suppressed conscience is leaking a bit and he understands the damage he's done to the country and our political system.

Tim, why would anyone look forward to Rove's memoirs except in a spirit of morbid curiosity? It's obvious it will all be self-serving lies along with sliming of his opponents and critics. The only thing to really look forward to is its predictably poor sales (though he's like to pull a seven figure advance).

Tim, I think your reaction to Kucinich is regrettable, but typical in this culture. He spoke, warmly and affectively. I found his remarks sincere and moving and from the heart. But men aren't supposed to speak like that in this culture, unless they've just come through some devastating tragedy, and then, they're only allowed to mumble "I love you." to a family member, Dad, or buddy. Anything else is suspect.

All three of these candidates, though they can at times rise above mediocrity, fail to be inspiring. I just finished Lynne Olson's "Troublesome Young Men" and was struck by the poetic intensity of so many of the Tories speaking in Parliament against Chamberlain and his disastrous policies. Not one of these three "top-tier" candidates has the power of a figure as little known to Americans as Leo Amery. Closer to home, in this same period, there's FDR hitting major points home simply, powerfully, evocatively in speech after speech (check out jean Smith's new FDR) and every keen line makes me lament that we lack figures who can speak to the head and the heart simultaneously, without sounding like every phrase has been weighed by a team of consultants. The Big Three lack vision, and that worries me.

Diane Feinstein is a mystery to me. How could anyone who has bothered reading the newspapers (let's forget the blogs) for the last six years trust the word of this government on any single issue? To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman: "every word they say is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'.

Tim, I know it's sometimes hard to tell those GOPers apart, but

watch the clip--it's Romney who raised 9/11 twice when Paul was protesting:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Given Austen's racy juvenilia, her wit, her wide reading, and the fact that you would be vastly uneducated if you didn't know Fielding, Smollett, Sterne in that period, it's just plain dumb that someone has to introduce her to Tom Jones, and that she's shocked. Reading that in two reviews has put me off the movie completely; it means that the screenwriter and director don't really care about more than surfaces (Empire waistlines, etc.). It's as false to the period as Kate Winslet giving someone the finger in "Titanic."

What Scherer missed was the outpouring of passion and compassion from the whole range of candidates.

They could not have been more different en bloc from the GOP candidates, each of whom tried to be more macho and punitive than the next. The discussion of Darfur was particularly important and strong last night, with several candidates having been to the refugee camp where a video question was filmed.

The Democrats offered as a group an entirely humanistic vision of how to govern and what individuals mean; the GOP in its forums has offered fear, threats, and punishment. Yes, the format isn't conducive to substantive enough discussion, even this new format, but the stark differences between the parties are being thrown into very high relief.

Joan, I don't believe she's "calm, forgiving." Watch the tape again--look at her body language, look at her face--she is depressed, furious, ashamed. And even her clothing doesn't match "calm, forgiving"--she's wearing an animal print. Camille Paglia would need to analyze the layers of irony there.

It's intriguing to me that Michael Scherer mentions Maureen Dowd in his response, but didn't do so in his original article--and therein lies some of the problem.

Dowd has been beating the drum on this subject, not just dissing Obama as unmasculine, but Edwards, too. Had Scherer been more thoughtful, he would have distinguished in his original piece between his insights and Dowd's, or tried to, anyway. He would have shown himself to be much more careful and not just another journalist jumping on the Dowd bandwagon. Her discourse continues to infect the political scene. She never apologized for faking the Kerry NASCAR quote, was never called out for it by the NYT, and now is peddling an image of Obama that some people might find charming or funny, but that plays into the stereotypical distinction of Democrats as weak on defense compared to the tough guy Republicans. You can't swim in this polluted pool and not get dirty; hence the justifiable and intelligent outrage from Salon readers.

I thought that Maureen Dowd had cornered the market on inanity about Obama, deriding him as "Obambi" and hairless and unmasculine. Apparently not, since she has a big fan in Michael Scherer, whose piece is as tendentious and silly as the fluff she passes off as deep insight. Haven't we seen enough of this crap already? What's next, Scherer's breathless account of their signature scents, à la Chris Matthews? Or maybe he can do a Shopping with the Candidates column or invite them to a day spa and see which treatments they go for--now wouldn't that be thrilling!

Julia:

We need context. Has this ever happened before? Has a President claimed executive privilege for former aides? Has he won?

Thanks.

Okay, he's not only a bully like Bush, as many New Yorkers know from his pre-9/11 sainthood, now it's clear that he's also as incoherent and stumbling as Bush. Oh the humanity!