Maybe it's just because I am getting old, but I don't see success coming from runs by either H. Clinton or B. Obama, and not because of gender or race. For Hillary, I think it's too late, and for Barack, too early. Timeless candidates should be of the George Mitchell or Leon Panetta types. In age, they may be getting old, but in energy and freshness of views, they are timeless. And electable, I believe. I would vote for Gore in a minute, but Gore and Mitchell or Panetta would be a sure win for me. I wish the party were having a discussion instead of a popularity contest. I don't want McCain as our next president. He has shown that he can be bullied.

I would have voted for Feingold for president or vice-president, but his seniority and committee seats in the Senate tell me he is making the right decision, and I'm happy to support him there. Most of all, we need a Democratic candidate who can win back the Executive in 2008. Otherwise, our big win right now will be greatly diminished.

It was so easy to fix, really, just replace "economy" with "people," and we have the new slogan for Democrats, not Carville's "It's the economy, stupid," but Dean's "It's the PEOPLE, stupid." Too bad Carville is too worried about where his personal income will come from after Matalin is out of a job to realize that. Dean appeared on The Daily Show the day after the election so that Jon Stewart could apologize to him for having doubts about the 50-state strategy and grass roots organization. Terry McAuliffe, who helped lose it for the Dems in 2004 by following the advice of "centrists" like Carville, appeared on "Hardball," no doubt because Dean was busy taping the Daily Show. Dean seems to know where the "people" are; he even thanked the Stewart audience for helping the Democrats win.

Anyone who is really astute knows that Howard Dean and the reinvigorated DNC turned around plenty of rural votes in Indiana and elsewhere that cinched a Dem takeover in the House. Anyone who really follows politics knows that many netroots organizations supported Dean and the DNC in Montana and Virginia to pull those states in for the Senate. Joe Conason is right. Carville is not only wrong, he is stuck in his old slogan: "It's the economy, stupid," but it's Carville's personal economy, not the nation's, that he is now crying about. Get a job, James. Harold Ford is a grownup. He can take care of himself.

not to mention that it would make Stephen Colbert extremely happy!

The most perfect sentence in a perfect article. I could hear his voice, see him on the screen, as close as I have ever been to Mr. Bourdain, or to Beirut. War reporting of the kind this country hasn't read since Hemingway, e.e. cummings, or Ernie Pyle. Thanks, Mr. Bourdain, I have saved your article to reread when this madness is finally over.

Is anyone else getting tired of the Rumsfeld answer that he thought about that last night? It's his stock in trade, besides his infamous addition that thinking about it (last night) gave him an epiphany. But not clarity, it would seem.

It's giving me a headache. Did he really run a successful corporation?

Pardon me for being so blunt, but this is the answer Democrats need when the "cut and run" phrase comes up, as it does daily. This was suggested by a writer at Daily Kos, so I am just furthering its usefulness here:

Cut the crap and tell us you do NOT plan to keep permanent military bases in Iraq.

No one pushes on this issue, not the Democrats in Congress or the cowardly members of the press. Yet, the American people, when asked, are not in favor of making Iraq a U.S. colony. Both houses of Congress recently passed separate amendments saying that we will not fund permanent bases in Iraq. That bill went to the Congressional Conference Committee to sort out differences. There were no differences on that amendment, yet, contrary to established rules, it was pulled, killed, without consultation with the authors, without discussion, except on a couple of blogs and in one article in the SF Chronicle.

When asked about permanent bases, administrative spokespersons invariably claim they have no plans to establish them. But they have already been established, so that question can be weaseled around, like crossing your fingers behind your back, which I'm sure Bush does when signing his now infamous signing statements. So the question needs to be turned into a statement to catch the lie: Tell us that you will not keep permanent bases in Iraq, under any circumstances. And then watch the weaseling.

Until someone explains how and why these amendments were quashed, "cut and run" is irrelevant. Well, it's irrelevant, anyway. Look who's saying it. Is Senator Frist encouraging his two service-age sons to enlist?

Cut the Crap.

A more interesting statistic would show the number of U.S. v Sealed and Sealed v. Sealed cases in the three administrations prior to this one. I think that might be more revealing than Leopold's speculation about one case. The comparison might be along the lines of presidential signing statements. Yes, I would like to see that.