According to Michael Sherer's recap, it went something like this:

Hume wants to do a role-playing game. Three shopping centers near American cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attacker is apprehended and may have information about more attacks to come. The question goes to McCain. "How aggressively would you interrogate those being held at Guantánamo Bay for information about where the next attack might be?"

What I didn't see was any reference to the unlikelihood of anyone currently at Guantanamo knowing anything about a plan that would in all probability have been developed after their incarceration there.

Any one of the Ten Little Republicans could, and should, have taken that tack and pointed out the utter absurdity of the question in the first place.

Terry:

Please. Why would any self-respecting liberal vote for this guy?

Perhaps because he has a lot to offer. Certainly as much as anyone alive today, and much more than most.

"RealName" (takes some courage, that...)

He oozes anti-charisma. He already lost. Aren't we tired of recycling the same dudes over and over?

And your candidate would thus be...who, exactly? Hillary Clinton, with all the charisma of a Swiss watch? And if another Clinton isn't recycling, what's the word mean?

John Edwards? Look, I like the guy, but he has zero chance of winning. He's already a trivia question to most Americans.

Barack Obama? I like him a lot more than either of the preceding two, and would vote for him if Gore doesn't get in, based on the fact that he has a talent for finding the center, and we don't need more polarization right now - hasn't six-plus years been enough to show you that?

Chris Dodd is just too...Senatorial. He's a good man, as was his father, but he's not going beyond the Senate.

Bill Richardson's a great candidate but a no-go campaigner, and that's a very valuable distinction if you're at all serious about electoral politics.

Dennis Kucinich? Please.

Holier-than-thou Ralph? May well-deserved obscurity overtake him - and fast!

Or one of the Republican't midgets? People whose applause lines involve advocating torture should experience a few sessions of it first. Besides, they've had their chances and look what happened. We'll be a generation recovering from their damage.

No, if Al Gore got in he'd be my candidate before he was done making the announcement. I can not think of a single Democratic candidate who is better equipped to take the wheel right now. He's right on every position of import, and sharper than anyone else in the field. If he hadn't been usurped in 2000, can anyone, literally anyone, claim we'd be in the same mess we're in now? And when he stepped back, it was in his (now sadly recognized as naive) belief that it was in the best interests of the United States to not drag the fight out and exacerbate the already-forming divisions. I think he knows better now.

My ideal ticket, in fact, would be Gore-Obama. Richardson for State, Clark for Defense, Clinton maybe for Democratic Majority Leader, Dodd for UN Ambassador, Kucinich for Representative from Ohio, and so on.

I'll just say this: You offer nothing. Repeating the same tired grouching about Al Gore that has been going on in some "lefty" quarters accomplishes nothing. And if you want to cede the "center" as something someone else defines, I hope you like life on the margins, because that's all you're going to have remaining at that point.

No doubt the Republican'ts will fight dirty. No doubt we need someone who knows how to fight back. By your comments, you reveal yourself as unable to accept the possibility of anyone learning from experience. If Al Gore is the same naively optimistic Al Gore as he was in late 2000, I'd be greatly surprised. As, I suspect, would he.

And my first name is Alan, just in case you're being careless instead of rude.

They made an offer, and quite a generous one at that. It was rejected. The answer now is to send the original bill back again. If it's vetoed again, the proper response is to send nothing further.

I have been thinking about that whole asbestos subplot, and its introduction this late in the game. My instincts tell me it's a pointer to something - is this how the feds will finally send Tony up? Or is it yet another of the show's red herrings?

Somehow, I'm pretty sure Tony gets busted, convicted, and sent to prison. I've felt that way since before they expanded the "mini-season" we're wrapping up now.

Sadly, with Cheney having to be first (what sane human would wish for his ascendance?) and there being until November of next year, January '09 at the outside, there simply isn't time to hold hearings, vote a bill of impeachment, and conduct the trial.

What should happen is that in January 2009, once Bush is no longer president, he would be seized by federal marshals (on his leaving the inauguration would be a nice touch) and bound over to The Hague for trial on war crimes charges. And Cheney needs to be sent there as well.

I hear Milosevic's cell is available.

Nothing will change unless and until a veto-proof majority happens. Until then, same old same old.

And thanks, by the way, all you "third-party" voters. I've never heard of a better way to make sure we lose the gains we've already made. Even though they fall short of where we'd like to be, we're closer than we've been in years and have the chance to get over the hump next cycle, and you're going to toss it all on a tantrum or two? When you learn how to count votes, call me...