AJB writes, "I tend to vote for Democrats, mostly because they are not Republicans. That doesn't mean that I like them all that much, just more than I like Republicans."

I couldn't disagree with this sentiment more fervently as the implication is that you're voting for the lesser of two evils. Clinton disappointed me in his second term, but I guess I suffered a bit of forgetfulness since I voted for the demos the next two times for Pres. Since they didn't win I continued to forget. If Obama disappoints in the areas of civil liberties and restoring the Constitution, it will be the last time I vote for either major paraty as they're beginning to appear more and more alike to me. I know some people think that's "throwing the vote away", but I can't help hoping that if EVERYBODY who was sick and tired of the two parties blending into one, we could actually have our vote make a difference.

Hopeful, but guarded....

Paul Dirks writes, "First of all there's no such thing as a Center. You either care about issues and have taken a position, or you don't care...." This is brilliant and absolutely accurate!

In politics, (frequently by Rahm) the word pragmatic seems to be used an awful lot as a synonym for bipartisanship or the coveted "Center" position, or at least that's the connotation. It's a word to use to bully others into being spineless and not taking any meaningful positions.

"It is a sad day for me, as it always must be when one's illusions are destroyed...."

I know how you feel. I'm in the same boat. But perhaps, one day in the future, we will expand our two party system and will have many more viable choices. I, too, will most likely not vote again, and certainly not for a mainstream candidate.

Anyone have thoughts on which sends the louder and clearer message (that the two party system stinks): not voting vs voting for a third party candidate? Which do the politicos hate more, a high third-party vote, or a high percentage of non-voters? Just curious - never thought of it before.

They probably don't care in the least as long as they win.

Holder says, "If you're going to listen in on attorney/client conversations, as we did in the Clinton administration...."

I didn't even know this was legal - with our without judges! My innocence and naiveté are showing in that I find this outrageous.

Questions: Can someone direct me to more information about this, please? I went to the website (actblue.com) and I couldn't find a place to volunteer. Is there a "meet-up" group around this? Is "accountability now" a slogan or a separate group from Act Blue? They seem to be one in the same. Is there literature (slim jim) that can copied and passed around?

Sorry for my confusion. Extra money is in short supply, but I'd like to help in some way.

I'd like to offer those people who are really different (but I like the suggestion of Barbara Lee): Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, Schiff. Four who will never see the light of day in any presidential cabinet. Not because they're not qualified, but because they really represent something different to the mainstream status quo.

I was wondering, too, when or if someone would mention this. It's not just Iraq, but our entire foreign policy.

Glenn writes, "More generally, discussions of our own role in spawning anti-American sentiment around the world is still more or less off limits in mainstream discourse, ludicrously demonized as "Blame America First" pathology from anti-American fringes on the radical Left and the isolationist Right."

Very true, and I'm surprised you brought that up. If it's not the first time, I missed it.

Know what else is ludicrously demonized (or ludicrously ignored) in the mainstream discourse and not discussed by "serious" and "respected" bloggers? Operation Mockingbird! Perhaps the time will come, but it may be too late.

Educate me. You write:

"This Rule of Law fetish....is not the ONLY core principle of this country. There are others and sometimes they conflict."

What are the other core principles that conflict with the rule of law?

You wrote in an earlier column, regarding the complicit dems and torture: " I'm going to spend the day calling these members and trying to get some response to Cheney's claim. If I'm unable to obtain any responses, I'll post their numbers and encourage everyone to make similar calls."

Whatever happened? I don't think I've missed any updates.

Did you decide to drop it? Of course we've known this truth a long time now, but I think getting the complicit demos to respond to a direct Cheney quote is imperative. Especially with all this BS from the "superior" intellectuals you quote in today's post.

In a previous post you spoke of how Lincoln suspended habeous corpus (plus broke other laws), but that it was during the bloodiest war Americans have ever seen, etc. I can't find the original post where you mention this, but if memory serves me, you mentioned Lincoln's crimes and compared it to how Bush broke the law during our "war on terror" and how one could not compare the two, as I believe Bush was trying to and you almost seemed to justify Lincoln's actions.

Today you write:

"The torture which Taylor, Jr. was accused of ordering occurred during a brutal civil war."

I don't think you're saying it's justifiable to suspend habeous corpus, order torture, etc. during a "real" civil war, but it almost sounds like it. Wouldn't it be stronger to say that even in times of war a President should not suspend habeous corpus or commit other crimes against its people? Lincoln was wrong. Bush is wrong. Taylor Jr. is wrong.

Right?