MARY ANN AKERS, WASHINGTONPOST.COM: Well, that is going maybe a little bit too far. But that is the criticism.

And, as you read in the “Washington Post” editorial, they even say her trip was foolish, and her idea to go to the Syrian president and say, Israel is ready to engage in peace negotiations. Now, of course, Israel has come and out said, well, we didn‘t exactly say that. That‘s not what we meant.

It‘s an embarrassment for Nancy Pelosi. And I think that, when she gets back, she will be hearing criticism not only from Republicans, but from some Democrats.

Mary Ann Akers, on the Tucker Carlson Show, April 5, on Nancy Pelosi's Syria trip.

She's just another enabler.

(BTW, Shooter should be showing up soon. The FDL "Lieberman in blackface" screen shot is one of his proofs that libruls are racists.)

FDL = Firedoglake.com. Dem blog.

How about Hillary in blackface.....

... to go along with the negro accent she's affected when speaking to black audiences.

Yay, shooter, you fulfilled my prediction! Champagne all around!

At the time Jane posted the Joe-in-Blackface shot, I found it right on the money and was shocked that anyone -- except Joe, of course -- was offended by it. But now, seeing the foofaraw on this blog about whether it was offensive,racist,the right thing, etc., etc., etc., I realize that it was indeed a mistake for Jane to have posted it, even innocently, simply because of the controversy it causes and the anger and hurt feelings on both sides of the argument. All that is a distraction from the main point, both on the original FDL post and here. Moral of the story: it's too bad Jane used the blackface shot. Now, can we get over it and move on?

Glenn, I think you and DC are right to sense some hope. One issue that I don't understand -- and it is tangential, but nevertheless still part of the whole issue of the neocons and their role in what has happened in this country -- is the upcoming AIPAC/spy case.

I'd be very curious about your lawyerly view of this case. On the one hand, there is the concern by some, newly voiced, that the case is a set-up by Gonzales, et al, to expand executive power, viz: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/23/85210/0963

On the other, some are convinced that the neo-cons in government and the media are trying to get these guys off: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articleid=10853.

This is particularly interesting since Ledeen and Rosen were said to be in Italy meeting on the Niger stuff: http://justworldnews.org/archives/001545.html

Any thoughts?

From Thinkprogress, Thomas Sowell in National Review calls for a military coup:

The National Review is on a roll. Here’s columnist Thomas Sowell: “When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.”

And I used to like these guys. (Sleeping Beauty is finally waking up and discovering that Prince Charming was a toad, afterall..)

W.T. Remember prom night and those sweaty slow dances?

Brings back the smell of warm Right Guard mixed with Jade East. Aaah, the olfactory teen memories of the 60s (before patchouli and pot took over.....)

Who wants to bet that if the Dems win the White House next year, they're going to suddenly find themselves being "neo-liberals"? They'll change a few of their terms to be more liberal friendly, and try to peddle the same crap under a new label.

Hillary has picked up a lot of interest in the neo-con camp. I seem to remember Bill Kristol and Rupert Murdoch saying that she's a pretty hunky dory gal.

I think there's a definite difference between the neo-cons and the wingnut Repubs, such as Delay or Santorum. While their goals and power converge, they are nearly indistinguishable. But I don't see Santorum EVER swinging behind Hillary, whereas many neo-cons will back her to the hilt as president, as long as she threatens Syria, Iran and whomever else the PNACers have their sites on.

sites = sights

Is RealName saying that the U.S. isn't as bad as Venezuela and GWBush isn't as bad as Chavez, so we should all shut up?

Isn't that like saying I shouldn't complain about the compound fracture in my leg, because at least I'm not dying of cancer?

I'm not understanding the argument.