Stop blaming Pelosi and Reid, They already took a vote last summer and Bush vetoed it. They tried. Demcortas need a veto proof majority to stop this war and funding, and they they don not have it.

That is not true.

The vote on the war was a game of chicken, where the Democrats blinked before Bush did. The Dems did not have to go back and put together a new bill to Bush's liking, just because he would not sign the first one. They could continue to submit the same bill repeatedly until the funds run out, and then blame Bush for not working with them to fund the troops. Seeing as they have a commanding majority of Americans supporting them in this, it really doesn't seem too much to ask.

They simply lack the political will to end a disastrous war that their constituents want finished. Because, in the moral calculus of the Democrats, keeping their cushy jobs in Congress trumps the fate of thousands who are killed each month in Iraq.

That is not to suggest that the Republicans are better; actually, they are far worse, working to run out the clock on Bush's presidency simply so they can blame the war's failure on the Democrat who comes next.

All in all, this country profoundly lacks effective leadership.

I am confident Mr Scherer recorded the young woman's speech impediment because he assumed -- as do I -- that those who sent her to tell her dramatic tale believe that her speech impediment was evidence of her "attempted murder

That was how I read it too.

So, granted, the quotes Scherer pulls from this gathering are pretty extreme, putting a much higher value on a cluster of cells or the definition of a word in the dictionary than the fate of a million Iraqis and the long-term viability of representative government in the US.

But Brightstar65 had a point in showing that those questions enjoyed a seed of legitimacy. And his comment brought out the real extremism.

He points out (correctly) that gay marriage should be a states issue, not a federal one. No controversy there, it's written in the damn 10th Amendment. But what reply does he get? That marriage is a "human rights" issue, a comment profoundly ignorant of the point or context of the conversation.

He also says he supports abortion to the first trimester, a viewpoint in keeping with the majority of Americans. And what reply does he get? Some idiot says he thinks it should be legal to murder kids up to 1 month old. He also gets yammered for not providing any support for his opinion (news flash: an opinion does not require support). Well, here's the support Brightstar didn't provide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_trimester_of_pregnancy

Check it out. A majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester, but believe it should be illegal in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Whether or not you share that belief, the fact remains that Brightstar's views put him in the American mainstream.

For his trouble, Brightstar gets called a troll, simply because he's not toeing the line of some extreme leftists. That, certainly, was the most ironic post on this thread so far.

I'm a long-time Salon subscriber and a liberal resident of Santa Cruz (2nd in liberalness only to Berkeley). But I have to say, the performance in this letter section by my fellow travelers makes me embarrassed to be lumped in with you guys. I thought we liberals were meant to be the party of open-mindedness, civility and tolerance, not just the same old dogma as the right but turned on its head. Did all that change? Did I miss a memo or something?

Considering he's a Republican, and will eventually be asked a number of objectionable questions, it's only a matter of time before someone is tasered at one of his rallies. This "don't tase the questioner" quote will make great "gotcha" material.

They've got Karl Rove bolstering her campaign full-time now, having left the White House to fulfill his new duties. Because of course, being villified by a nationally-recognized villain like Karl Rove is sure to increase your credibility. It's ridiculous to suggest that Karl Rove doesn't know this, and isn't writing his anti-Hillary pieces with exactly that in mind. They've identified Hillary as the candidate they can most easily beat -- in fact, their only hope to win the White House in 08.

Shapiro is here to shill for Hillary. Everything Hillary does is golden, and anything bad she did must be misunderstood.

My question is this: Will the other candidates get their own dedicated shill to write on their behalf in Salon? Why or why not?