Krugman decries the "venom" in the current Democratic campaign and writes that "most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama." The then offer three examples of attacks on Clinton, but attributes none of them to supporters of Obama. The first and the third -- Whitewater and David Shuster -- have nothing to do with supporters of Obama. The second -- Clinton's praise of LBJ -- he writes "was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Mr. King," not stating who did the casting.

He adds "that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality," comparing it to Bush's Operation Flight Suit. But he offers no evidence that Obama, or anyone on his campaign, is responsible for this, whereas Bush obviously was responsible for dressing up as he did. Furthermore, "seems ... close to becoming" does not even charge that it has become a cult of personality.

I don't understand how such an intelligent and level-headed person can be so irrational about Obama, when Obama may be the only hope we have of ending the war and the torture.

The one thing that the article does not mention is the main reason that Bush wants to grant the telecoms immunity. It is so that there will be no trial, or pre-trial discovery, in which the telecoms will be required to reveal the extent of the crimes they committed at Bush's request. In other words, this is to protect Bush more than it is to protect the telecoms.

Lantos may have been the congressman most concerned about protecting animals.

With regard to Commandment IV ("Recognize that not all terrorists are the same"), it is true that not all terrorists are the same. George Bush, after all, is the world's leading terrorist, yet he is not even meant to be included in Commandment IV. A terrorist is a person who, at the time that he is labeled a "terrorist," is engaging in terror or planning to engage in terror. We use the word "terrorist," however, as a synonym for "enemy" or "someone the U.S. fears." It would be more productive to deal with enemies and people we fear without labeling them "terrorists," except in response to specific acts of terror in which they engage or plan to engage.

It is ironic that, in an article criticizing the Clintons, Mr. Conason would smear Obama. I don't know how else to view this sentence from the article: "That the same charge [having spoken and acted carelessly with respect to race] can plausibly be made against the Obama camp does not absolve them [the Clintons]."

Dole is right, except when he says that McClellan "should donate [his profits] to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.'" This suggests that McClennan has done something wrong to Bush. In reality, by having promoted Bush's lies, McClellan has done something wrong to Bush's victims, such as those killed and maimed in the Iraq war. If McClellan donated his profit money to a fund to help those victims and their families, he might be worthy of a bit of respect, because that would show that his change of heart was for a non-mercenary purpose.

Losers in primaries always endorse the winner. The reason that Hillary is praised so much, simply for doing what is right, is that, in the campaign prior to her concession, she said that McCain would be a better President than Obama and she gave McCain other ammunition against Obama, such as her and Bill's playing the race card against Obama. Thus, her doing what's right came as something of a surprise and a relief. But I fear that it won't make up for the harm she did previously; I hear that McCain is already using her statements against Obama in his ads.

Mr. Bayard asks, "Do suspected terrorists deserve the same rights as you and I?" But most of the people we have imprisoned and tortured (to death, in many cases) were not suspected terrorists. The Bush adminstration did not suspect them of anything; they just swept them up or accepted them without question from their kidnappers. The fact that the Bush administration knew that most of them were innocent, and knew that torture, even of the guilty, would not yield useful information, suggests that sadism has played an important role in Bush's policies. Do not give Bush and his underlings credit as being merely misguided. They are evil.

Steele did something sleazy in the recent presidential election. I think that he bused school kids from another state -- Pennsylvania, I think -- into Maryland in order to pad the crowd at a McCain function. It was something like that; does anyone remember?

Here's what Wikipedia has on it:

Steele lost the general election [for the U.S. Senate] to Cardin on November 7, 2006, getting 44% of the vote to Cardin's 55%. The Washington Post reported that on election day the Steele campaign arranged for buses of low income people from Philadelphia to distribute fliers at polls. The flyers contained incorrect information, including a statement that Michael Steele was endorsed by prominent state Democrats and African American leaders who had not, in fact, endorsed him. The homeless people were falsely identified as volunteers although they were paid, and the campaign funds used for this purpose of hiring the homeless were not timely or properly reported or attributed to the campaign.

President Obama ought to do more than not raid marijuana clubs. He ought to pardon every person now in federal prison for drug possession, pardon every person with a criminal record for drug possession, and instruct the Justice Department not to prosecute anyone for drug possession. (He should do all of the above with respect to drug distribution too, but one must be realistic in one's demands.)

A journalist should ask Obama whether he believes that the nation would be better off if he'd gotten arrested for his youthful "transgressions" and not been allowed to attend law school.