Generally Amused, you comment on the excessively "wimpy" democrats in Congress at present. You are wrong. They are not "wimpy," they are corrupt power mongers who are no less willing to subject you or I to authoritarian policies than are the titular "bad guys," the Republicans.

Why does strong advocacy for adherence to the purported ideals of the Democratic party, and targeting those incumbents who clearly refuse to stand up for those ideals, for the law, or for their oaths of office, imperil the party...create a danger of "fracturing" the party? Rather than fracturing, perhaps a strong and coherent challenge to "business as usual" will succeed in pushing the Democracts back toward a more acceptable posture. Personally, with the likes of the execrable Nancy Pelosi in power, I have small hopes for the Democrats and I think as a party I can support they are terminal. (Her appearance on yesterday's Leonard Lopate show on NPR was revolting, more so than her appearance last night on THE DAILY SHOW, but only because with John Stewart, she didn't veer into political sniping, accusing vocal critics of the status quo as being "unserious" or merely "hecklers," as she stated on the Lopate show.

Personally, I will refuse to vote for Obama this fall. I have this luxury because I live in a state sure to go for him; if I lived in a swing state, perhaps I could not indulge my conscience...but perhaps I would. After all, one has to finally say "NO!" sometime.

"My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy."

This statement of Cindy Sheehan's, which you condescend to dismiss for its naivte, or something, is much more compelling and true than any of the mealy-mouthed self-justifications for her own corruption and complicity with war crimes and violation of the Constitution that Nancy Pelosi has deigned to utter.

So, you'd rather have someone representing you and acting as Speaker of the House who colludes with war crimes and violation of the law and evisceration of the Constitution and who lies that she is "unaware" of any crimes committed by the President, and who dismisses critics as "hecklers," than someone who asserts a position you personally disagree with, but which is at least arguable, and is closer to reality than what is purveyed by the Democrats who enable Bush.

You're part of the problem, just as Pelosi and her fellow criminals are.

All things being equal, I don't think I'd necessarily support Sheehan for office either, but she's a damned sight preferable to the corrupt Ms. Pelosi (and her ilk), whom your original comments would indicate you consider to be more capable or better prepared than an amateur like Sheehan. To the contrary, a smooth, committed, calculating and skillful criminal like Pelosi is far more dangerous to the Republic than a well-meaning but naive "amateur."

I stand corrected. In rereading your original remarks, I see that you do not imply support for Pelosi, but disdain for the inexperienced Sheehan. Fair enough, but I would rather send to Congress an armada of amateurs intent on supporting the rule of law than all the Pelosis or their Republican opponents who might defeat them if their constitutents refuse to vote for them. I do perceive in your remarks a favoring of experienced politicians over those we might elect with little or no experience. I say the problem derives from these experienced politicians, who have bought into the system, and who are committed to their own careers in office rather than to their constitutents or to upholding the law. After all, it was a Congress FULL of experienced politicians who gave Bush authority to pursue his illegal war against Iraq, and who have supported his chain of cimes subsequent to that time.

Compared to so many who have been in Congress for years, Sheehan looks pretty good.