She has this exactly right.

If you lock a guy away for years, in brutal conditions, on the scantest of evidence (or none at all, just a hunch), can it be a surprise that he develops a bit of a grudge, and perhaps a nihilistic mind-set?

I'm not sure I buy the argument that the US "created" the 9/11 hijackers (though I can track the argument in theory), but the argument that we created the circumstances that led this particular individual to turn suicide attacker is a much more credible one to make.

It's clear that Scalia's main goal now on the SCOTUS is to carry Cheney's water.

More importantly, are either related to that bell-weather stat generator, Niefi Perez?

Hagel would certainly be an admirable choice for SecDef, SecState or NSA.

As the article noted, however, almost all of his core domestic positions would be adverse to Obama's stated platform and anathema to Democratic voters. This makes him an impossible choice for VP, a job that requires active campaigning on the party's platform and support for its agenda.

"The true test of a candidate for President" who wants to bring dramatic change to Washington is whether he can actually get elected in the first place.

Obama knows that money equals success in electoral politics. He can give a million speeches about what he'd like to do as president, but if he never gets elected it won't matter. Public funding of presidential campaigns in the era of 527's is a sham. The right has long cornered the market on despicable and excessive use of 527-sponsored smear campaigns (See: Boat, Swift), which means the Democratic candidate will need his own war-chest to effectively direct responses.

Eliminating "old school" politics involves overcoming a Catch-22. You have to play a little "old school" politics to get elected in the first place so you can bring about the change you'd like to see. If it makes you feel better, picture Obama as Capt Kirk in his approach to the Kobayashi Maru exercise.

Don't all Republican insiders dream of being "the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by." That is, if they're not already there?

As I'm sure others have or will point out, the newest FISA legislation is impossible to square with the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately, we have a Supreme Court right now that may very well have a majority that doesn't see it that way. If McCain wins, that "may very well" becomes an absolute certainty.

I suppose you could make a convoluted two-pronged argument that bails the Democrats and Obama out on this. First, that an Obama administration would never provide the requisite cover letter to protect the telecoms or others who broke the law at the government's request. Second, that Obama will appoint at least one, probably two, new justices, ensuring that the expected challenge to the law will succeed, and ensuring that solid precedent will exist for never encroaching that far on the Constitution again.

I certainly believe that that both of those propositions could be true. But that doesn't make this legislation stink any less, and it doesn't mean we still can't call out our respective senators and representatives if they voted in favor of it. Passing legislation that you know is wrong, that you know is unconstitutional, and justifying it because you think the courts might bail out your idiocy down the line -- particularly if you're doing it for political reasons -- is simply inexcusable.

Ah yes. Another mope who insists on "supporting the troops" unless one of them says something that disturbs his narrow little world view.

Whenever a former military man or woman speaks out against one of the right wing sacred cows, that person is pilloried 8 ways to Sunday, their military service be damned. But god forbid someone relies on their sacred right to free speech and criticizes one of the heroes of the right who happened to have served; then the cries of ingrate, coward and traitor rise from the aggrieved.

Listen to Washington and Eisenhower. They both understood that blind allegiance to militarism was anathema to the US Constitution and the ideals upon which is was formed.

Sadly, the flaw in 3-D technology is that not everyone can enjoy it.

I am one of the many out there who lack "stereo" vision. While almost everyone has a "dominant" eye, they still focus both simultaneously. However, I focus only one at a time. Generally, the right eye for close in -- reading, for example -- and the left for distance (anything more than a few feet).

This doesn't mean I see nothing out of the eye not being focused. In fact, I seem to have better peripheral vision than most; since the unfocused eye isn't doing much, it tends to pick up movement quite easily, and the shift from one to the other is nearly instantaneous.

Ah well. Perhaps some day they'll be able to transmit the such cool effects directly into the optic nerve center.

Amen.

There's been an utter lack of context in any of the reporting I've been able to scan on this today. Until someone tells us who made the cut and who else was denied, this sounds like a non-story based only on the number of seats, the relative importance of The New Yorker and a little quick math.

What were they supposed to do: make room for him because of the flap over the cover? And at the expense of whom?

C'mon, it's Faux Noise that's supposed to rely soley on innuendo for its "News."