As a student at Columbia's School for International and Public Affairs, I am proud that the university went ahead with the talk. Anyone who watched it saw Ahmadinejad backtrack on several issues; make ridiculous statements (that there "are no homosexuals in Iran"); and try to turn every valid question around as a referendum on the US. In short, it made him look like the provactive, empty leader he is.

Speaker Silver's reaction, which is unfortunately all too common today, is anti-American and the worst form of intellectual cowardice.

it's sad. as much as i like clinton (especially since he's been able to do the things he SHOULD have done in office now that he's out of office) it's time for the democrats to stop cruising by on past victories and/or leaders. dynasties are for sports, not for the presidency.

...by the leadership of Harry Reid. Can we get someone with a pulse in the Senate leader position after 2008? Please?

Don Orsillo is generally a very good play-by-play guy, and is even better when next to lunatic Jerry Remy (yes, I am a Sox fan). I think the problem with last night is that TBS committed the cardinal sin of announcer-pairing: they picked two guys with similar voices. If one guy is bland, and he sounds just like the other guy, you've got bland squared. But even if they're zany voices: double the zany is no good. Having two different voices makes a huge difference; otherwise it just sounds like someone having a conversation with themselves.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.

- Neil Gaiman

...how internet accessibility on planes is worse than American Airlines showing hours of 'Everyone Loves Raymond' on their flights?

let's face it: 150,000 Iowans have more say in national presidential politics than any group (besides maybe those 300,000 New Hampshire voters) ever ought to. i am in favor of anything that makes this ridiculous process more representative of the country as a whole.

locals are never pleased with college students voting "outside" of their homes. but for many students (as it was for me) the state they attend college in becomes their home state for those four years. let them caucus.

"With fees, penalize people who make enough money to be fuel efficient but choose not to be."

there is not a single resource that is properly priced in this country. we need peak/graduated pricing for ALL of our resources the way we do with electricity. only when people are paying the true price of their gasoline, water, oil and electricity will we see the end of enormous SUVs, 30,000 square foot homes for 3-person families and endless waste streams.

make sure you have the right context: when obama was praising reagan, he was speaking of his ability to bring people of different politcal leanings together to accomplish difficult policy goals. he didn't praise all of his policies. he actually contrasted reagan with nixon and clinton, two polarizing figures who were unable to work effectively across party lines. to wit: we've heard all about "reagan democrats", but you NEVER hear about "clinton republicans" or "nixon democrats". obama was trying to point out that, for all of the bad things that did come out of the reagan years, at least he attempted to forge alliances across the aisle in order to effect policy changes.

every Dem complains about the same old backbiting, divisive politics perfected by Bush-Rove over the last 7 years. they complain about triangulating Dems like Kerry, and that primaries always churn out the same kind of bland Dems that don't stand a chance in the general (see Gore and Kerry). and then many back Hillary, who has been using the same old tactics, is the same old triangulating politician. then, a truly transformative, once-in-a-generation candidate is practically sitting on their face -- the one they've longed for -- and they don't even realize it.

you say you want to take the Dem party back? who do you think took it away from you in the first place: the DLC/Clinton machine.

Obama is praising the way Reagan was able to win over Democrats to his ideas; he wasn't endorsing the policies. isnt that what we want? a Dem president who can convince Republicans to sign onto meaningful climate change/immigration/energy/economic legislation? or do we want Hillary to sign watered down garbage into law?

Obama is winning over moderates and conservatives (check out how the killed Clinton in the rural Nevada sites) like no Democrat before. Imagine how he will be perceived overseas should he win in November. He has more soft power in one photo than Clinton could ever muster in her so-called 35 years of experience. Around the world, sure, she will be seen as an improvement over Bush. My dog would be an improvement over Bush. But she would still be seen as just carrying on more of the same. A quarter century of Bush or Clinton? No thanks.

Imagine what legislation could get passed if Obama won >60% of the vote. REAL climate change legislation, REAL health care reform, REAL immigration policy. Clinton would eke out the election by mere tenths of a percentage point. And then watch her "experience" bring about "change."

they're too good and too dominant. they have won every which way, and they've almost lost every which way. the giants may make it close, but they will not win. accept it, and the next two weeks of hype will go by much faster.