The voters of Florida and Michigan are not being disenfranchised. There is no right to vote for a party's leader in our ridiculous system. Seriously, if we're talking about disenfranchisement there are way bigger problems (that are worked into the system, and not just a result of an exception), such as people who work at 8 PM on Tuesdays in Iowa, or people who are not members of a party in New York. We're all disenfranchised a little bit by superdelegates, whose votes count more than ours for some reason. Hell, any pledged delegate could "disenfranchise" the voters by choosing someone else.

Blame the system, blame the two parties, blame whatever. But Florida and Michigan voters aren't being deprived of anything. They're subject to the whims of their parties just like everyone else. If they don't like it, they can choose not to be a member of the party they feel did not do right by them.

But of course that'd actually give them a CHOICE. And that's not what this is about, is it?

That's what it's really about, isn't it? Self-preservation. Not doing the right thing, proving yourself trustworthy to the American people... it's all about self-preservation. And they're not even trying to hide it.

Does it seem to anyone else that Wright has a point? This is far from saying that inocuous actions by private citizens cause God to want to kill other people. This is saying that a government's foreign policy actions need to be examined in how they cause people to react.

How ridiculous that we can't even acknowledge that simple fact in the USA these days. Invading and taking over foreign lands can cause people to want to kill us. NO! LIAR! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA??

I literally haven't heard a single person acknowledge the sense in some of these statements. And if Barack Obama had any integrity, he'd stand right up and say these things in no uncertain terms.

The path to making America safer is to stop antagonizing other nations. If you aren't willing to do that, you don't care about the consequences.

Florida and Michigan voters are NOT being prevented from voting in November.

There is NO RIGHT for individual citizens to choose a party's nominee for an election. Period. These people are chosen by the party, at the whim of the party. If you don't like the way the party does business, you are not required to be affiliated with them!

However, I expect Clinton (and later McCain) to drive the "disenfranchisement" angle as far as it will go. And ignorant and gullible people will fall for it.

See my previous statement about "disenfranchisement." The Clinton campaign is peddling lies in order to trick the gullible into thinking FL and MI voters were actually disenfranchised (when in reality nobody has any express right to help determine a party's nominee). Expect the same from McCain.

But of course Clinton would be OK with that, since he'll be the only person on the ballot ready to be president.

It's awful that Obama would write such a thing.

...Wait, he didn't?

Then who cares?

Anyone who thinks Wright represents Obama is either an idiot or is just trying to raise hay.

John McCain: Twice as America-er as the other guy.

That's why McCain supported John Kerry for president in 2004, isn't it?

This is the guy who thinks Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda in Iraq are the same group. He probably shouldn't be giving anyone foreign policy advice until he can figure out who we're fighting.

I hope these people who wouldn't vote for a former smoker watched McCain's ad. Or is it OK for him because he's a SUPER-AWESOME WAR HERO?

Thank you. Of course the letters have already started up with the bullshit, but don't worry about that. Keep up this kind of in-depth, meaty stuff please.

"The only question is whether or not it'll be nukes."

You mean that we use on Iran? My guess is yes.

"...the Military Commissions Act can serve as a get-out-of-the-Hague-free card."

If anything has been demonstrated in the United States over the past 6 years, it's that you don't need to prosecute people to imprison them.

I don't generally believe in vigilante justice, eye-for-an-eye, or anything like that. However, I would fully and completely support the next President rounding up all of these people and sending them to one of our secret prisons. (Note that I would NOT like to see them tortured themselves. That's where I draw the line.) It would be delicious seeing their desire for unchecked Executive power used against them.

And frankly, they are the most dangerous enemies America has.

Can you please, please, PLEASE stay on War Room permanently? The other guy, instead of reporting this, would've probably just copied a Clinton press release or showed us some vapid YouTube music video about Johm McCain and called it a day.

"Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned."

Why can't the AP call it torture? It's torture? To frame it as "harsh interrogation techniques" makes it sound almost sympathetic. The right-wingers can go "Oh no, we shined a light in the terrorists' eyes! Why don't you cry about it, you liberal pussy!"

Of course, a good portion of people would say the same thing if the media rightly called it torture.

True. It reminds me of the "Welfare Queen" myth. Does it happen? Almost certainly. Does it happen enough where that scenario should drive the discussion? Absolutely not.

But don't tell that to the right wing.

For the past couple of weeks we've had the opportunity to read about hypocrisy and wrongdoing that were largely uncovered by anyone else in the media.

This week we're back to reading about advertisements.