First things first.

This is not censorship. The GOVERNMENT has taken no action. This was an editorial decision that might just suggest that the "infighting" story was not sourced as well as it could have been, or was determined to be a little too snarky, or whatever to justify losing a good circulation pumper like a trip to Africa with a former president who still draws rock-star crowds.

Second.

Infighting in a presidential campaign? This is news? I HOPE there's infighting in the campaign of whoever our next President is. That means there's dissent, a willingness to buck authority, differences of perspective and opinion. Things that have been utterly lacking in the current administration. People involved in the top levels of presidential politics are competitive, strong-willed and opinionated by nature. It's ridiculous to think there wouldn't be infighting.

Third.

It's completely understandable that Sen. Clinton would want such a story killed, as part and parcel of such a story (if done properly) would reveal quite a bit about strategy. What candidate would want a public airing of their strategic decision-making?

Fourth.

Notwithstanding the strategy argument above, and more as a general observation, too much of political coverage today is devoted to the horse-race aspect of campaigns instead of ideas. As noted above, infighting is expected -- and should be encouraged -- in campaigns. Unfortunately, the way it usually gets covered is as some indication as weakness, and you can bet that's how the right wing would try to paint it.

The comparison is not fair, because the only point of going to Ground Zero with Rudy would be to gawk and be a part of a photo op, while the point of going to NOLA with Edwards is -- apparently -- to actually do some work on the job still NOT done by President Bush.

Now, if Rudy wanted to raffle off a chance to come to NYC and accompany him as he visited sick first-responders and clean-up workers in hospital respiratory wards throughout the area and apologized for giving not a single rat's ass about their health, well then, sign me up.

kevmornj notes that the "brass" in the British army decided that Harry shouldn't be in Iraq because his mere presence would endanger the rest of his unit, but still thinks that Jenna should go.

While I agree that by not enlisting in the first place Jenna and her sister keep our military brass from worrying about that scenario, I doubt that the decision here would be any different than that of the Brits, which was, I believe, the correct one.

It's only fair to criticize these two ladies for not serving if they're actively out there promoting their father's policy, and I don't really know that this is the case (other than supporting him in a generic sort of way). Picking on somebody's kids is bush league (no pun intended), and it would be nice if we showed a little class in that regard.

God, I hate to do this, but in response to Modeler I have to note that at least Reagan stood for something and knew what that something was. That said, he was wrong about most of what he stood for, and wasn't the brightest bulb we've ever had in the White House (though not the dullest, either). However, that he looks downright brilliant next to Thompson's dithering is mindblowing.

But hey, Republicans have a thing for actors. Reagan and Thompson are professionals, but look at the off-broadway cast for the GOP: W, who tries to act like a legit CEO; Cheney, who tries to act like a human being; and the long list of GOP office-holders and supporters who try to act like homo-hating straight guys.

Actually, Ms. Perino shows the how diligently the GOP will revert to form anytime they are challenged, by parroting the same refrain: "taxes, homos, 9/11, lather, rinse, repeat."

Pushing 47, and with no past military training, I'm too old, fat and slow to stand alongside Mr. McGough in battle.

However, in the spirit of supporting the troops -- especially the troops that Rush, et.al., are trying to smear -- I pledge the following: if I run across Kingston, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or any of the other scum that have been disparaging REAL soldiers who happen to disagree with this administrations so-called "plan" in Iraq, I will slug said scum as hard as I can right in the kisser, and gladly stand trial or face civil suit on behalf of Mr. McGough. I cannot take a bullet for him, but I can do my 30 days in county jail if need be.

I'm fairly certain that Mr. Randolph, being just two hours south of Chicago, can pick up WGN/720 AM pretty darn good at night (maybe even 12 hours south of Chicago with the right atmospheric conditions). I know that's not the same as TV, but of all the major sports, baseball works the best on radio, and is certainly better than dealing with internet TV feeds.

Rudy mocks Sen Clinton for knocking an unfettered free market, then talks about how you have to have some regulation, not only of the market itself, but of the legal system to boot.

Proving once again that Giuliani's strongest suit is hypocrisy.

Just to get the chronology straight, it's my understanding that the Army was in Fallujah first, and had things on a pretty even keel. Then the Army was pulled out. Then the Blackwater guys got whacked. And THEN the Marines went in and basically just sterilized the whole place.

W once again demonstrates that he is a bit unclear on the concept of a representative democracy. Which is a bit odd since he's so driven to bring that system to others around the world.

Perhaps some nice librarian can explain to him that, in representative democracies -- like the one we pretend to have here -- those elected representatives are generally EXPECTED to listen to the folks that actually elected them.