... you could point out that Salon is a public corporation, and publishes its financials for all to see.

Yahoo has it all collected in one convenient place, at

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SLNM.OB

By following the links, you can find out everything you want to know, including what Joan Walsh's salary is (it's on the Profile page). It's all up there. You can check the income and the outgo, and determine for yourself whether or not there is a mysterious Hungarian sugar daddy backing them (hint: there's not).

However, the Politico is not a public corporation, so they don't have to publish such things.

If Sen. Obama votes to go along with the leadership to grant George Bush a blank check to escalate the war (and that's what it is, despite the claims of Sen. Reid), the air will immediately go out of his online balloon. You can't rally the netroots by moving from antiwar to pro-war when the rest of the country is running in the opposite direction.

Too bad, too; I admire Sen. Obama in many ways, and as a supporter of the original congressional authorization Edwards has a lot to answer for. But what matters now is what our leaders are doing now: fighting the war, or helping to prolong it.

The Asian Tigers prospered because they pursued policies that are 180 degrees opposed to the policies the IMF, World Bank, and US government demand that African countries practice. They rejected "free trade" and practiced smart mercantilism instead.

As long as Africa is in the thrall of the international institutions that purport to "help", it's doomed. The mountain of debt keeps it enslaved, and furthermore the proposed programs for forgiving the debt mandate that the debtors pledge to continue to follow self-destructive policies that continue the tranfer of money from the poor to the rich.

If you want a TV show where the writers imagine that God speaks through a politician, you can watch Fox News or the Family Channel.

A number of Republican senators have attacked Gonzales, but that doesn't

mean that they will vote for cloture. Consider Arlen Specter. The man

huffs and puffs, but always backs down and does Bush's bidding in the end.

They must have something on him.

I'm afraid that they'll fall short of 60 votes and the no-confidence

measure will be dropped.

It shows poor judgment to not only put Tina Brown's book on the front page of Salon as the lead story, but also to give the author a "blog" (which, unlike Salon's other blogs, has no comments) to blather on further. A book review might have been appropriate.

Celebrity news is bad enough; the Paris Hilton story at least has something to tell us about class, wealth, and justice in the US. But Princess Di is a non-story. What does it say that we're so fascinated with her? Nothing at all, because we are not.

... not to know who Indira Gandhi was, and therefore to think that a female president is in any way worthy of note.

Ambitious female politicians too often think that, to advance, they must out-macho all of the men, and demonstrate their willingness to make war, crush their enemies. They think that they must show that they completely lack any stereotypically female instincts, so that people will think that they are qualified for office.

Let's go down the list: Margaret Thatcher. Golda Mier. Jeane Kirkpatrick. Indira Gandhi (yes, Broadsheet, India had a female prime minister). Every one of them was an aggressive hawk. Even Madeline Albright, always eager to show her toughness. It should be no surprise that Hillary Clinton is the most hawkish Democrat in the race.

Now I do think that on average, women are considerably less war-like than men. However, for female political pioneers, I would suggest that it is exactly the reverse: a sort of overcompensation is going on.

The next time Sen. Clinton agrees to an interview, here are some questions that you might want to ask her:

The foreign policy advisors that surround you, as far as I can tell, unanimously supported the Iraq war. Do you have anyone on your foreign policy team who saw through George Bush at the beginning? If not, what does this say about the foreign policy team that you are building?

It appears that the Bush administration is intent on provoking war with Iran, and you yourself have engaged in Iran war talk ("no options are off the table" and the like). How do you propose to deal with Iran? And what would the consequences to our troops in Iraq be if a conflict breaks out?

A group that has been given sanctuary by the Kurdistan provincial government has been launching attacks into Turkey, and Turkey has been threatening to respond militarily. How would you head off a conflict between the Turks and the Kurds?

One of your chief advisors personally profits from the union-busting activities of the firm he heads, even though he has "recused himself" from this work. Even George Bush made Karl Rove sell his direct-mail firm. Why do you allow this massive conflict of interest?

Do you believe that Third World countries should be forced to use most of their resources to repay investors for past loans, and to sell off their resources for private exploitation? If not, how would you reform international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank?

You tried to reform health care in 1993, and it didn't work. Are you going to take another shot at it, and what did you learn from previous failures? Also, considering the health care systems of other countries, which do you think offers the most lessons to US reformers?

Your opponent, Sen. Edwards, has been talking a lot about poverty, but we haven't heard as much from you. How would you address the problem of persistent poverty in the US? Are you satisfied with the welfare reform enacted during your husband's administration? What changes would you make?