Joe's a FOX Democrat, and I know his ideological patter: "I WAS a Democrat," says Joe, "until they went crazy." Same as about 2/3 of the "Democrats" exhibited on FOX. Be it "until they went crazy on civil rights," or "until they became Socialists!" or "until they let the women go wild." None of it true.

There's only one reason why Joe can be speaking like this: Joe's loyalties are obvious, and they're to Israeli right, which makes him a natural ally of the Jesus freaks. It's only his past that's stopping him. Why, he marched with Dr. King! Don't we know how liberal he is? And ban video games! And get off my lawn, you kids!"

It's revolting what DC is accepting as "centrist" these days. "He believes in Work Camps and Strength Through Joy, not Death Camps. He's not crazy!"

I distinctly recall the cable spinners, including especially Matthews, going hysterical with the Clinton 'perjury' and 'obstruction'. Well, there was none, when you really got down to brass tacks. No convictions whatsoever. The obstruction count was especially rich, because it required a retroactive conspiracy to get a job for Monica at a time that she already had a job.

And there was, in this case, a question of "no underlying crime," after all. Having oral sex with a woman not your wife is immoral, but it's not a crime, White House or no. But any time you raised that in that awful time, you were yelled at.

Now, you have a secret agent being exposed for political revenge. Ms. Plame is, in fact, a covered agent according to the act. So there was an underlying felony, in all likelihood committed by the Vice President, and covered up by Libby's lies.

What world do these morons like Klein and Carville live in?

Crash all the time. They brag about the 3rd-party apps they let on. It's not a feature, it's a bug.

Hey, I don't care about Di, and I don't think good Americans care about the private lives of British royalty. We're the other guys, remember? They friggin' burned the White House! They spent the whole damn 19th century trying to subvert us! They loved the Civil War, and almost recognized the Confederacy, which would have screwed us.

Princess Di was a relatively decent woman, and that's why she was far better off living on her own. But the brainless fascination with Di is no better than the fascination with all the celebutards, who are our equivalent of royalty. The hell with 'em all.

I'm reminded of a story during the '90s, whose name I can't remember, that told of how Queen Elizabeth got by on welfare when Royalty was abolished. I look forward to that day.

Weird. The eagerness to sample that raw male energy, and it's the only kind of male energy she likes, evidently: the old tribal, racist fear-mongering kind. Kind of like her Guiliani/Mussolini connection. A trope of masculinity, and then only in the tired old sociology of the tired old hack.

What's she doing in Salon? I hope she's working for free.

Those who are "disappointed" that the war isn't over yet even though the Democrats control Congress. There's this little thing called the constitution, Snerdley. The President may not really be the Deciderer, but he has constitutional authority here. When the Democrats passed two measures that would have put a lid on the war, the President, as is his power, vetoed both. The Democrats, at that point, cannot end the war unless they get 14 or 15 Republicans to vote with them. The fact that they didn't rests on the Republicans -- and if they voted their consciences, the war would be over by now. They're the ones with the responsibility.

I never hear, in all this complaining, what the Democrats should have done next to make the complainer happy. Pass the same thing, over and over? Can't imagine that would be a winning strategy. Stop all funding? I don't think so. Contort our faces into a rictus and stamp our feet?

There's only one thing wrong with the Democrats in Congress. There aren't enough of them.

I'm appalled by the negative tone so many letter-writers take on Salon. This is a visual treat, and an amusing take on the subject, and it gets compared to Family Circus. Jeez, in case you didn't notice, Family Circus would never talk about Atheism or anything else aside from those darn cute kids doing something crazy again.

The same haughty blowhards take aim at Tom Tomorrow, too, when the only Salon writer who deserves scorn is, we all know, Camille Paglia.

Let me join with others in thanking Mr. Shapiro for conducting an interview that produced a real portrait of the woman as a candidate. I also liked what I saw: a thinking, pragmatic president.

For those who disapprove of "Hillary" so much, look at

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/?splash=1

and regard the titles at the top. Now, the point about a reporter saying, McCain, Edwards, Obama and Hillary also stands, though not so strongly as long as the campaign refers to her as "Hillary" over and over.

I do hope that the party takes a more adventurous stance in '08, but what this interview showed me, again, is that Hillary would make a very competent president, and wouldn't that be a change?