Whether Nader has good ideas or not is besides the point (unfortunately), as a lot of people not running have some great ideas. But those folks and Nader share something else, too: none of them stands one chance in a million of being elected president of the United States in November.

The real point is that the only reason Nader is running is raw ego. On Sunday morning he admitted as much in response to Russert's question about potentially aiding McCain. Nader said that there's no way the Democratic candidate won't landslide the Republican. Sadly, Russert did not ask the logical follow-up: "Then why in the hell are you running, since you concede there's no way you're going to win?"

Nader has come to believe that he and he alone can save America from our two-party system. He used to be quixotic, then he became a nuisance. Now he's utterly irrelevant.

Nader made a respectible mark for himself with his consumer advocacy crusading in the 60s and 70s, through public activism and legal action. He inspired a generation to believe that you could, using public pressure and the courts, change the way industry (under cover of lax governmental oversight) treated the consumer. He has said in the last few years that he's not interested in "legacy." But that claim is contradicted by this announcement that he's making yet another futile run for president, a run in which the only effect he could possibly have is one inconsistent with everything he's previously fought to achieve. Thankfully, Ralph is right about one thing this year: he's unlikely to have any effect.

Gosh, nationwide concern about the economy couldn't possibly be stoked by Bernanke cutting rates like Crazy Eddie with an overstock of Zeniths, now could they?

Brilliant.

I for one am tired of seeing "Anonymous" at the end of posts. If you can't stand behind your words, you shouldn't hide behind an anonymous posting. The number of people with legitimate reasons for posting anonymously is miniscule; many merely have a bloated notion of how much people care about what they're writing; and most people posting anonymously are just rude cowards, throwing stones from behind a parked car.

Thank you, Joan, for doing the right thing.

Tim Howe

"It's not good policy on the merits, and it's not good policy as a message to send to our -- people who have, in good faith, signed a treaty and worked with us on a treaty."

Maybe it's just me, but I swear he was ready to say "as a message to send to our TROOPS." He's so used to saying that any criticism of him is somehow a threat to the people he put in harms way that it just comes out automatically.

Every member of Congress, and anyone campaigning for a seat in Congress, should be required to read this book. (Assuming they are able to read --- and if they're not able, they should have someone read it to them, explaining the big words where necessary.)

For the multitude of posters who know nothing about Illinois and Chicago politics, I'm sure Glenn's piece is reassuring.

However, nobody who knows anything in this town thinks this is nothing. To start with, Obama's connections to Rezko are stronger than he has indicated. In fact, Obama himself once descibed Rezko as kind of a "polictical godfather."

The main point of the whole issue, though, is that it utterly refutes Obama's claims of being a new kind of politician, of rejecting the "old politics" and the influence of lobbyists. Rezko has been a shifty character in Illinois and Chicago politics for some time, operating in the shady world where the big money players are. The same world that recently led to the last Illinois governor, George Ryan, getting a one-way ticket to a federal penitentiary in Indiana. Obama's long-time involvement with Rezko must show one of two things: either Obama's judgment is ridiculously bad (or he is the most naive bumpkin to ever fall off the turnip truck); or he is part and parcel of a tradition of favor-trading that goes back a century in Chicago.

Glenn is right about one thing: it's very unlikely that Obama has any criminal liability in any of the Rezko dealings. But Obama has been ignoring Chicago press questions about his relationship with Rezko since his Senate candidacy, and if he'd dealt with the issue candidly then, he wouldn't be facing the mis- and dis-information that's coming out now. Again, not a good indication of judgment.

All this being said, I supported Obama financially and as a worker in his Senate campaign. I voted for him in the Illinois primary (after much soul searching; I don't think Clinton is a bad candidate at all). So I am not some Obama-hater or Hillary booster. But this stuff matters, regardless of who you support.

If you're looking for more info, I recommend a visit to Chicago's The Beachwood Reporter (www.beachwoodreporter.com), which has done a good job of synthesizing many of the Obama-Rezko issues.

The question is: did she denounce AND reject the assertion that Obama might be a muslim?

There's some distinction between bashing your face into the wall and running over the catcher.

The wall will not remember; the catcher might. Let's say it's August, man rounding 3rd, throw coming in from center. Baserunner's been running through catchers since spring training. A little voice in the catcher's head says "hey, this guy's gonna be coming hard." Maybe it distracts the catcher for a split second. Maybe he takes his eye off the ball for just a moment to see where the runner's at. Maybe that means he doesn't field the throw cleanly and when the runner hits him, the ball pops loose.

That's why you always go hard into ANY base ANY time. At least, you do if you expect me to pony up forty bucks to get in and $6.50 for a Miller Lite so I can watch you do your job.