Which would be better for Bill: to be a former President, or to be the husband of the VP? What would that make him, the Second Gentleman? He'd just be in the way. And Hillary is more powerful in the Senate than she would be as VP.

What she should go for is Senate Majority Leader. I think Barack should tell her, "I'll back you as a replacement for Reid, how 'bout that?" She'd be a vast improvement over Reid.

I know, I know, never gonna happen. They know which creepy fascist cult leader brings 'em the bacon.

But Moon hates America a thousand times more than Rev. Wright ever will.

...why even mention it? As stated above, she already mentioned Bill's example, why didn't she stop herself there? Most of us manage to keep from blurting out everything that pops into our heads, otherwise we'd get chased by mobs regularly. Or at least slapped. Is her id that unconstrained at this point?

Or did she have a few shots beforehand?

Reid's only solidified his hold on the Senate Majority Leadership position recently? That's the most depressing thing I've read all day. Durbin? Schumer? Gah. I'll take Clinton over any of 'em.

I still say Obama should support her in the Senate, or in the Supremes, or somewhere, in exchange for ending nicely, and campaigning for him. I have no problem with him offering her some sort of a quid pro quo, and I sincerely think she's earned it.

Just not VP. Not while we still have a Second Amendment ;-).

The needs of vets can be made vivid and compelling in many ways. But Obama's way is almost always about putting him and his history and creds - true or not - first, with The Other always coming in a poor second. This isn't self in service of history, it's history in service of self.

In case you haven't been paying attention to the Presidential race--which, like it or not, is now between McCain and Obama--there's been a bit of back-and-forth over the Memorial Day weekend because Obama rightly hit McCain for voting against educational support for vets. McNasty's response was to beat his chest and shout, "NOBODY'S with the vets like me. ME! ME! ME!"

"And that's why I can screw them over."

So, yeah, it was time to make the story personal in return. Good on Barack.

cestmoi123 sees no distinction between "news" and Married With Children? Very well then. Unlike most entertainment, however, media conglomerates are not putting out the news solely with an eye to profits. They are, instead, pursuing a form of marketing, basically softening up the populace for their political agenda.

Consider one of the most obvious examples, the Washington Times. This paper has been running at a loss for years, supported by Rev. Moon, a foreign cult leader who despises America and its democracy (far worse than Rev. Wright ever could). And yet, Republicans fawn all over this man, because his ideological goals mesh with theirs.

In the larger market, if the media owners wanted to sell to the half of America that's more left-leaning, they would do so. But they don't (see Donahue for an example), because they see the political promotion of corporatism to be more important than quarterly profit in one particular sector.

What to do? I, unlike others here, do not propose the return of the Fairness Doctrine; I think it was only possible because most opinion in America (both elite and hoi polloi) was centered around a postwar political consensus that no longer exists. However, I strongly support breaking up media monopolies. The resulting companies can be as right-wing or left-wing or MOR as they like, but with more voices will come more striving to earn a good reputation for factual accuracy.

Unfair to single out the media companies for this special emphasis against concentration? Tough. Other industries are not specified in the very first amendment to the Constitution. There's a reason for that. I am not going to consider Viacom's interests to be more important than the very survival of our democratic Republic.

But then, I am a United States citizen, cestmoi. You are a consumer.

There should be a price for hate...If there is any healing in this party, it will come when Obama has the guts to stand up to his own supporters and stop the hate that pours from them.

Nothing is so edifying as a lecture on hate from someone with a screen name like "damnthat[other poster's name here]."

Oh, and this is good too, from ShanwWM: "Well, scew you toad...You will pay dearly for your hate and lies."

Feel the love!

What other poster? Perhaps you should read the screen names just...a...little....more carefully before you spout off.

I was assuming your name referred to erstwhile Obama supporter Xrandadu Hutman (spelled differently, I know, but still...), because I'd seen your posts responding to his/hers before.

If not, and it refers to (an awful Olivia Newton-John movie? Bad times at Kubla Khan's stately pleasure dome?) something else, I'm sorry. My bad.

Very interesting explanation for the name. I appreciate that.

And now, to paraphrase The Princess Bride, let's get back to killing each other like civilized people!

I second the idea of giving Bob a "snitch and die" T-shirt.

Scott doesn't exactly impress me with his new-found rectitude, either, but better late than never, y'know? I sympathize with Bayard's point of view, yesterday, that McClellan is trying to reclaim his soul. Loyalty to one's employers is one thing, but what about the American people having a right to know?

So how about it, Mr. Dole? Does Omerta override loyalty to one's country?