I'm also considering Nader if only so I can vote for somebody, and it helps that what I know of his politics comports with mine, plus his track record of service to the nation and humankind is unmatched (even if, as rumor has it, he's a pain in the ass and not really a nice person).

As far as Congress goes, my congresswoman is Diane Watson (PhD in psychology), the most liberal member of Congress (National Journal), member of the Black Caucus, and so popular she was unopposed in 2006. This time she's got a hopeless rightwing white Republican opponent - I don't think he'll get more than 20% of the vote (in 2004 a libertarian ran against her and got 11%). In 2004 Kerry got 83%. Though Obama lost California in the primary, he took 61% in our district. I think he'll do better than Kerry in the general - I have yet to see anything but Obama and No on Prop 8 (banning gay marriage) signs. (Actually, there's a vile rumor about a McCain poster somewhere in the neighborhood.)

Just for curiosity's sake, my Los Angeles district is classic gerrymandering. The area where I live is like the head of a fat, long-necked goose. My area is mostly upscale (and very upscale) and white, a home of entertainment industry biggies (not including me). The district itself is 39% Hispanic, 27% black, 21% white, and 11% Asian. We are the proud parents of, among other fearsome gangs, the Rollin' 60s Neighborhood Crips, the biggest street gang in the city and awesomely violent. They're in the belly of the beast (the goose), along with one of the richest black neighborhoods in the country (Ray Charles, Tina Turner). I imagine there are other congressional districts just as diverse, but none more so.

IOW, I'll vote for Watson, of course, though she doesn't need me either. Her votes overall are impeccable. But when Feinstein's turn comes up, I'm withholding my vote.

though I'm online constantly, I must have gone to the bathroom when this came up and I'm tired of seeing it with absolutely no hint of what it means, and I can't find it on Google or in Wikipedia

I will be much happier when I know (it doesn't take much these days...)

Obama's not interested. It offends his sensibilities, not what he's all about and if we thought different we weren't listening, waste of political capital, confrontational, politics of the '60s, let's move on, it's so 2001-2008, it's what the Left wants so fuggeddaboutit because we can use'em and lose'em like a cheap whore and they'll always come back for more 'cause where else are they gonna go and if we thought different we weren't listening, and so on ad nauseum. This constitutional lawyer-president is fine with letting this black stain on our history become permanent.

Congress, the source of the money for something like this, is definitely not interested; understandable, given its complicity on both sides of the aisle - and the foreknowledge of its leaders that torture was occurring and their approval of it.

The media aren't interested; understandable, given their complicity. On the other hand, if it seems there's enough public interest in it (an interest the media will assiduously refrain from encouraging), that would mean there's money in it, careers to be made from it, prizes to be won, and so on - so the media herd could change its mind as easily as a school of sardines. Have we seen this before or have we seen this before?

The public isn't interested; understandable, given its complicity (aka voting). Yawn. Change the channel. Where's my 401K? I want my MTV!

Never happen.

I so hope I'm so wrong.

thanks for the h/t - and for the Urban Dictionary link! I bookmarked it, now on my dock.

but never behave like one (that is, as a disgrace to your profession) and may you never, ever be invited to a cocktail party in Georgetown or the Gridiron Club's annual lovefest between journalists and politicians.

I seriously hope you're making more than David Broder, Jonah Goldberg and William Kristol combined.

As for Rubinomics: the NYT revealed today that the government has promised to "print as much money as needed to revive the nation’s crippled banking system."

And here's a number I haven't seen until just yesterday despite reading the NYT and LA Times and a host of other news media every fruckin' day, from that same NYT story: "In the last year, the government has assumed about $7.8 trillion in direct and indirect financial obligations. That is equal to about half the size of the nation’s entire economy and far eclipses the $700 billion that Congress authorized for the Treasury’s financial rescue plan."

I would have liked to have seen Paul Krugman or Robert Reich in the economics department of Obama's administration.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, any number of other countries, as well as all the former monarchies - and all of these countries have proven to history that family ties do not at all guarantee competence, perhaps just the opposite, as we've learned to our chagrin - and "chagrin" cannot begin to describe the destructiveness of and our reactions to the murderous, corrupt and incompetent Bush regime. GW simply could not have been even considered for president had he not been the son of a president, no matter how mediocre.

But too many voters somehow love to place their faith in the son, daughter, wife, cousin, nephew, or even husband of a ruler or legislator. I think part of the logic (to abuse the word shamelessly) is "S/he may be a fool, but s/he's OUR fool!"

It makes no sense - but then of course that's why they do it.