"...no politician dares to express these majoritarian views. Right-wing neocons with clearly fringe views have succeeded in making the mainstream views -- the ones held by most Americans -- off-limits to mainstream political leaders..."

Yes, because the mainstream in this country doesn't write the checks that are the lifeblood of politicians. Pick your issue and you'll find, more often than not, that the views and wishes of the so-called mainstream, in spite of the implications of the word, are being marginalized by fringe voices, driven by ideology and/or greed, and amplified by money.

Excuse me, this is news??

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d0a842c3d2

This irrational stubbornness is a desperate, perhaps unconscious ploy by the Clintons to save their marriage. If she were to win the nomination, there'd be a basis for continuing it, in fact a mandate to continue it. If she loses, what's holding it together vanishes, it's toast and they have to face the horrible, fully public mess that will ensue. Who can blame them for wanting to postpone that moment as long as humanly possible?

One suspects the rats are leaving the ship already and this guy James was the only one left they could find to go on TV for Bush. What a moron, and aggressively moronic as well.

Well, of course.

I'm old enough to remember my great-grandpappy's stories about crossing a substantial chunk of the U.S. in a covered wagon (this was after the railroads were in, but they were too poor to travel by rail with all their stuff). At times, progress in rain and mud so slow that one night's campsite was in view of their campsite from the night before. A lot of very hard work over weeks and weeks, and sometimes not everyone made it.

New York to L.A. in six hours is a gift from the gods. It will cost what it costs. Airlines will grow or shrink to fit the demand at the prices they have to charge to stay in business. All this clothes-rending and hair-tearing about it shows a distinct lack of historical perspective, IMO.

I admit I stopped reading after the second paragraph. The (presumably cherry-picked) quotes from Tabibi's "vicious" and "unfettered" prose were more than enough to convince me he's not fit to roll Hunter Thompson's spliffs.

It's a matter of where you set your standards. Tabibi, in my eyes, is not a particularly incisive writer, nor does he take on any issues that are particularly challenging. I thought HST, in his time was both a marvelous writer and someone who called us on shit no one else was willing to call us on.

So sue me.

Part of the reason it's rattling is that it's kind of worn out, frayed around the edges, tired, rusty and in need of some serious R&R.

I can't find a link to it, but didn't Obama, the same day he made the bitter speech, tell a different crowd how he respected the place of guns in our culture, that his problem isn't with hunting, or a son receiving a gun from his father as a rite of passage into manhood, going on that first hunt, etc. -- that his problem with guns is their possession and use in urban environments? I'm sure I saw that and thought it would go a long way towards, if not endearing him to stone gun-nuts, at least offer some push-back to anyone saying he's a stone anti-gun-nut.

A link to this Guardian article has already been posted. It is utterly amazing that Bush has the gall to talk about appeasement of the Nazis when there is ample evidence that his own grandfather, the founder of the Bush financial and political dynasty, was way too involved in the rise of Hitler and Nazism in the 30's and even, it appears, into the U.S.'s involvement in the Second World War. No one is saying Prescott Bush hung out with Adolf or even believed what Adolf was doing was good. But the old man certainly never did anything to show that his hands were clean. The connection may be a little vague, but one would think it would be enough to keep Prescott Bush's descendants from pointing fingers at anyone where the empowerment of Hitler is involved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Exactly right.

I need to go from L.A. to Missoula, MT, this summer. I looked at flying, at driving (trains don't go there) and decided to give the old Grey Dog a look. $154 round trip, less time each way, less money round-trip than driving one-way and I get to look out the window the whole time. Probably meet some "interesting" people, too.

He's creating this issue. Obama would never presume to announce that he's the winner this Tuesday. You just know he wouldn't. Wolfson saying, "He'd better not," is a dishonest way of positing that Obama could be capable of such a rash and disrespectful act. Akin to the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Wolfson, I suppose, thinks we're too dumb to see through his act.

pointing out the fact that every thought passing through Lieberman's cheese-like head has to pass the test, "Is this good for Israel or is this not good for Israel?" (including during his performance of his duties as a U.S. senator) is not Jew-baiting. People like you who try to make every comment unfavorable to or in disagreement with someone who is Jewish into "anti-semitism" are the problem, not the solution. Crawl back under your rock, please.

The Repunks are terrified of running against Obama. Not only will he beat McCain, he'll inspire Dems to come out of the woodwork, Indies to swing left and even some of their own, the ones who have the brains to be disgusted by the last eight years, to vote out their senators and reps in favor of the Dem party.