An earlier article by Tim Grieve outlined why it would be impossible to invoke the "nuclear option" without breaking the same Senate rules that the option was attempting to change. So why don't democrats just refuse to recognize illegal rule changes? They could walk out, or continue to filibuster until physically removed, if it came to that. Doesn't the example of Rosa Parks mean anything? Isn't "breaking" an illegal law, or change in senate rules, required of all law-abiding senators, congressmen and women? That is, if they are to remain true to their oath of office to uphold the law.

Mark Benjamin's article mentions that high ranking career military officers are heavily Republican in political matters. Republican philosophy is purportedly based on free enterprise and a belief that unregulated markets lead to the best economic outcome for society. The organization of the military is exactly the opposite. Decisions are made in a top down autocratic fashion, and most basic needs (at least for career members of the military) are met: health care, housing, relocation expenses, shopping tax free at the company store (PX), retirement after a mere twenty years. So the military itself looks a bit more like a tax-supported Communist dictatorship than the Republican ideal of a democratic, market-driven, free enterprise society. So why do military personnel lean to the right politically while accepting the ultra left wing "cradle to grave" benefits of military life?

The Democrats in Congress could end the war by refusing to pass any further funding bills for the military. The executive branch could do whatever it wanted with the residual military funding that was still in the pipeline. They could bring the troops home, or desert the troops in the field. It would be Bush's choice. The problem is that most people (Democrats in Congress included) are convinced that Bush is crazy enough to actually harm the troops, rather than accept personal defeat.

So the telcoms are accused of helping the Bush administration monitor all emails, phone calls, etc. made by American citizens over the past six years. I wonder if the email traffic, phone conversations of certain Americans got special treatment by, say, routing them through Karl Rove's office? For example, what happened to emails and other private or political correspondence of Democrat candidates for public office, or John Kerry? This whole thing could turn out to be a lot like the Watergate break in to DNC headquarters by Nixon's burglar corps.

This is the best commentary I have read recently. Pure poetry. Thanks.

The Republicans have been enforcing loyalty to right-wing religious-wacko greed-oriented ideologies for decades - well, at least since Reagan. When have the Republicans ever done what is good for the people or the country as a whole?

The Democratic party works for the good of all of the citizens and supports our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles upon which the United States of America is founded. Those who do not support these ideals should be encouraged to join the Republicans. The Democratic Party needs to be an effective opposition party to counter the Republlilcans, otherwise we are through as a free country.

Are we being even handed? What about our president, vice president, members of congress etc. who have embraced right wing (so-called) "Christian" ministers who make racially inflammatory remarks. What about their support for "Christian" colleges that do not allow inter racial dating? Republicans get a pass on racism directed at blacks and hispanics, but we sure can't allow criticism of a white-dominated government that routinely uses racist posturing to get votes. This whole thing seems a little one sided.

Comments made by Reverend Wright may well be inflammatory, but unfortunately, in most cases, they are also uncomfortably accurate.

Facts:

1) Three-quarters (or more) of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis.

2) Saudis (royal family, ie government?) were a (the main?) source of funding for the 9-11 attack.

3) Saudis are the main source of funds for Sunni/al-qaida fighters in Iraq.

So why aren't Bush-McCain going after Saudi Arabia? Seems to make a lot more sense than Iran -- at least according to their way of "thinking".

Bush-McCain do not care about justice or right and wrong, but are only concerned about making up excuses, any excuse, -even blatantly false ones - to go after Iran. The "Big Lie" tactic, once again.

OK so she (Obama's grandmother) wasn't typical. Instead she was more accepting of blacks than usual. This makes Obama's point even stronger; that she still couldn't get completely away from fearing others just because they looked different. It's hard to get away from racism, even when you want to with all your heart.

On another subject. I appreciated the comparison of the Rev. Wright "chickens coming home to roost clip" and the complete sermon. I thought the sermon was very moving and wish more Americans would view it in it's entirety. Maybe they would understand why the rest of the world views the US as a bigger threat to world peace than Russia or China. Maybe they would be just a little ashamed of some of the things their country has done.