I stopped watching nearly all television in 1976, and other than trying to stay current on its imbecility via sites like Media Matters and Crooks and Liars, have watched no TV news during that period. This interview with Kucinich and his wife leaves me convinced that I'm still not missing anything.

It's hard to imagine what it must be like to be a regular consumer of television "news." Clearly it's the equivalent of a fast food diet. Lots of empty calories, leading to a host of defects in the body politic.

Yuck.

Though enormously frustrating, Bush's behavior on Iran is hardly a surprise. The policy is always decided beforehand and current events are spun to support it no matter what the circumstances.

Remember tax cuts? First we needed them because the surplus was so large that the money could be returned to taxpayers without having a negative effect on the budget and paying down the debt. Later when the bottom dropped out of the high-tech boom, tax cuts were just what the doctor ordered to give the economy the boost it needed. Diametrically opposed circumstances, same "solution."

At this point, Bush's behavior is positively buffoonish.

Thank you for all you've done Tim. Alex has some big shoes to fill. From my perspective, you nearly always did a fine job of providing updates throughout the week on what was going on politically and managing to keep the prose to a minimum so those of us that have to work too could stay abreast without investing so much time we'd find ourselves on unemployment.

I was very grateful for Krugman's unvarnished, honest commentary in the Times about Bush fiscal policy and the war in Iraq, but I'm disappointed by what he's doing right now regarding Obama and Clinton.

For better or for worse (mostly worse, IMHO) the blogosphere is full of passionate individuals who lash out at others that do not share their views. Anyone who has spent any amount of time on the web knows that this is not just confined to politics. For all I know, there is a group somewhere arguing vehemently about different versions of Barbie. Some folks in any area seem to get worked up to the point of apoplexy when someone disagrees with them.

Here in the Salon comments section, in just the last week, I've seen both Obama and Clinton supporters be rude, predict doom if the other candidate is nominated, etc. Frankly, I have no idea if there is a bias one way or the other concerning which supporters are more vicious. It's a red herring in my opinion, and I'm sorry to see Krugman use his national stage in the NYT to descend to the same level as the right wing pundits that have done so much to debase attempts at rational debate in this country.

By all means, let's have a spirited debate about candidates' policies, styles of governance, abilities to motivate, but let's remember than when it's all settled after the convention, we still need to work together toward the larger goals we do agree on.

Sean SIberio, I applaud your post. Enough is enough of the childish hijacking and name calling that has become the order of the day in many letter threads. There are many of us who frequent Salon who hunger for intelligent and spirited letters of many points of view. Right now, it's just too damn easy for folks to either hide behind anonymous or, when bold enough, to use their nom de plum but still conduct themselves very poorly. I think there are enough fair-minded folks here to make a self-policing system work.

Assuming for the moment that you are not actually a Republican troll sent here to sow discord and really do think Hillary is the best candidate, you really should cease and desist from the name calling of Obama supporters. By now, anyone reading these threads knows that you do not support Obama. The Obama supporters will not be swayed by your attacks on them and their character and the folks that are undecided are more likely to be repelled than attracted by your approach.

If you really want to help Hillary you need to be more civil.

1. Can Salon please eliminate the anonymous option. It is being abused to a ridiculous degree these days. It's not as though most of us posting are using our real traceable names anyway. If I'm not willing to stand behind my words here, I'm not going to post, even if the only way you can identify me is by my screen alias.

2. What I thought I saw in the debate last night was that both Clinton and Obama have very similar policy positions, the differences in whether they would mandate everyone pay into health care or talk directly with Cuba right away not withstanding. Compared to the current occupant and the Republicans in general, I would gladly vote for either one in the general election. Personally, I will vote for Obama in the Texas primary because in my judgment he has the greater ability to inspire and motivate. There is so much that needs to be undone from the Bush administration and to be done to move us to a better place that I think his ability to move people will make that easier. He's right that there are entrenched interests that will not simply roll over and allow the agenda most of us would like to be enacted. There will need to be a groundswell of pressure from us that they will not be able to resist, and that will require getting folks motivated.