McCain did indeed turn in one of the most disappointing performances of his political life this past Sunday. But as several posters have noted, it merely served to encapsulate what became painfully obvious during the 2004 campaign.

He sucked up to Bush despite being bitch-slapped royally in the 2000 primary. He "sort of" spoke out in support of Kerry's war record, but refused to call out the cowards who were behind the smears, just as he had refused to stand up for himself in 2000.

Many Democrats have in the past taken the position that McCain would be better than most other Republican presidential candidates. This is, of couse, like saying shooting yourself in the balls is better than shooting yourself in the head. While obvious, you certainly wouldn't like either very much, though you might-barely-survive the former.

Many Democrats also have been less than thrilled with their own candidates of late, which likely gave rise to some of the affection for McCain (or was it merely because he pissed off so many of the Bushies?).

One of the things Democrats have to get better at is coming out in strength for their own nominee, even if he/she was not their preference in the primary, and in fact may not be very attractive to them at all. The Republicans did this in 2000, and again in 2004. Many who I spoke with had no great love for Bush, but held their nose and marched to the polls because they thought the Democratic alternative was unbearable.

Part of the Democrats' problem, at least as far as the more progressive wing of the party is concerned, is that progressives don't care much for politics. Alas, it is politics -- which today means raising gobs of money, standing on stage with people you don't really like very much, and being willing to throw a rhetorical punch with relish -- which enables one to be in a position to govern.

I suspect that some saw McCain's earlier incarnation as embodying a bit of what we wish our own candidates had, and viewed him as a tolerable alternative because he was not a foaming-at-the-mouth reactionary. Well, the time has come to abandon any hope that McCain can do any good for the country, just as surely as he could never have done much for progressive causes.

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL

You are not being paranoid. What amazes me is that you (along with so many others) are consistently surprised when this administration acts as though it is not bound by any rules (silly ones, like the law and the consitution).

This president's personal history has been shaped by a life in which the rules have never applied to him. He got into college despite having little in the way of qualifications because of who his father and grandfather were: the regular rules of admission did not apply to George W. He got out of Vietnam and into the Air National Guard because the regular rules did not apply to him. He did not have to take a military physical which likely would have revealed his drug use because the regular rules did not apply to him. He did not have to complete his Air National Guard Service because the regular rules did not apply to him. He did not have to succeed in any of the business he worked in or ran because the regular rules did not apply to him. He did not have to get more votes than his opponent to become president because the regular rules did not apply to him.

What part of this guy's background would lead him to ever consider the fact that he couldn't do something simply because there was a rule against it? He has never once been held to any of the standards the rest of us live by every day. He has absolutely no familiarity with the concept of personal responsibility and the consequences of one's actions.

The rules, in the eyes of George W., are for suckers, and not for the annointed ones.

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL

I've always wondered why people with no sense of humor, subtlety or irony are drawn to read someone like Keillor, who has such a wealth of all three. For those issuing the negative critiques, please re-read the essay, keeping the above qualities in mind. And try not to move your lips while doing so.

Huffington's point cannot be understated. When a former hawk now comes around our way of thinking about this mess, they should be commended for the courage that it takes in this day and age to acknowledge a mistake. I think, however that the word Hamsher -- and Warroom -- is looking for, and this is particularly apropos on Easter weekend, is penance. Because these one-time hawks were more than just wrong about some wonkish policy initiative. They lent their voices to an ill-fated misadventure which has cost thousands of American lives, and so much more. In a very real sense, they have blood on their hands, and it will take quite a bit of hard public scrubbing if they wish to cleanse themselves.

So congratulate them indeed on coming around and admitting they were wrong, but demand their penance as well before they are forgiven.

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL