I hear OJ is still hot on the trail of the killer of Nicole and Ron.

They're going to send off one of their Strongly Worded Letters(TM) to make sure their will is done. Same way as they ended the Iraq War!

And caucuses prove NOTHING. Just a bunch of lefty-lefts who can afford to hang out all day and vote for the (gen election unviable) super lefty candidate.

In fact, if anything, I would say the winner of the caucuses should almost certainly NOT become the primary candidate if only because they're near certain to be unviable.

That strategy is bound to swell the ranks of the electorate. Come on and vote! Whatever your choice is, we'll do the opposite!!

Shawn, with your clear commitment to government of the people, by the people and for the people, have you considered voting Republican?

(That's rhetorical, by the way. We all know you're a republican.)

...this report was the same as the ones written about the South Vietnamese government and army, modified by a quick find-and-replace to say "Iraq."

What's gone wrong is that working class voters can smell bullshit quicker and more accurately than starry-eyed kids and rich liberal idiots.

Then how do you explain George Bush? While the haves and the have-mores certainly contributed, I do believe a lot of working class voters voted directly against their own interest and checked the box next to this imbecile's name, to disastrous effect.

That aside, I'm not sure how you see Hillary's campaign as being bullshit-free. Sniper fire ring a bell?

As for matching words with actions, Hillary talks a good game about restoring the constitution and the rule of law. But where was she when the most important vote in this regard was taking place in the Senate, regarding telecom immunity? She apparently had a scheduling conflict. (McCain, always the good authoritarian, voted in favor of telecom immunity, so at least his words and rhetoric match.)

I understand your comment wasn't meant to be thoughtful or intelligent. Maybe I've just wasted my time.

Time to change your name.

Please, stop and think. Her policies are generally more progressive and better thought out than Obama's, which tend to be borrowed or compromise with Republican policies that have not worked.

I have some bad news for you. The general thing you're describing above and attributing to Obama (pandering with badly thought-out ideas that are borrowed from Republicans) is actually what Hillary is doing.

Pay a bit more attention, and you won't get fooled next time.

First, a piece of advice: don't call some respected expert in his field a "dumbass" and then proceed to prove yourself to be the dumbest of all. It's just bad form.

I think this dumbass is saying, in the most convulted way possible, that supply and demand controls price, not the other way around. Yeah, duh, so? What does that have to do with getting a break at the pump at the OIL COMPANIES EXPENSE?

What Krugman said is only convoluted if you can't read very well. Your paraphrasing oversimplified it. But the main point you missed is that this break would not be at the oil companies' expense.

I interpret this to mean in terms of Clintons plan, out of the oil companies pocket into the consumers pocket.

And you would be wrong. The pockets Krugman is referring to both belong to the oil companies. Read it again, a bit slower, or call someone in to help you.

This is relief for people being squeeezed by high enegy costs, not a solution to the nations energy woes.

Um...no. If you'd read the article, you would understand that this wouldn't provide significant relief for anyone. Putting this discount on today would reduce gas prices to what they were 2 weeks ago. Now, I ask you, how often do you long for the gas prices of 2 weeks ago?

Beware the dubious cult of dumbasses disguised as experts and political pundits selling strawman arguments.

Duly noted.

We think transparency should extend to all (including Generals) commenters, while Glenn is content to stop at one very small category. That's hypocritical.

Try and be honest, just this once. You do not at all believe that every commentator on the news should declare their affiliations. How do I know that? Because, if you did believe that, you would find the present situation one of the most crucial examples of WHY we need that, and you would be clamoring for something to be done. But istead, you're defending the practice ("aw, c'mon, all generals are embedded in the military industrial complex regardless how independent they pretend to be, hell everyone knows that").

So the hypocrisy you point at Glenn is the precise hypocrisy you are expressing. You pretend to support full disclosure as a broad issue simply because it's a large enough issue to go nowhere, but really you're happy if the guys on your team do and say whatever needs to be done for your side to get ahead.

Have I got that straight?