If they really wanted to derail his nomination they could. And why not? Whether the President of the United States is outside the law is a yes or no question. The same is true of whether torture is United States policy or not.

The real way to stop his nomination is by putting holds on it. Do not allow it to come to a vote of any kind. Senators have this tool at their disposal. This is one of the times when using it makes sense.

If, and only if, the answers are "No, the President is not above the law." and "No, torture of any kind, including but not limited to waterboarding, is not permissible, it is not United States policy nor will it be it United States practice." should the holds then be lifted so consideration of Mr. Mukasey can proceed. Then and only then do we even need to see who votes for, and who votes against.

Clinton came off as duplicitous and evasive, offering statements and responses that were self-contradictory and meaningless. The other candidates pointed it out repeatedly.

Notice that there are no gender ID terms in the above sentences. And they are both factual.

Clinton will hurt the Democrats and America even if she wins the election. Downticket losses are the potential political cost to the party, another four or eight years of dishonest government by DLC/Republican-lite types are the inevitable cost to the country.

Is there no Senator willing to exercise this tool, unique to the Senate, to derail - or at least sidetrack - this nomination until Mukasey gives a straight answer?

Because the Civil War, World War I, World War II, those were all just walks around the block, now weren't they?

What are they smoking over at the RNC?

She wants credit for breaking feminist ground, and she wants to use her gender as cover when things get rough.

Oh yes, and she stalls, contradicts herself, and outright lies when caught out. Clearly, all very important qualifications for the Presidency.

I'll (reluctantly) vote for her is she gets the nomination. I suspect she'll even win (a Pyrrhic victory) in November 2008 should that happen.

First, we see localized breakdowns. Not all at the same time, not all in the same place, not all even quite like each other, and they are the warning signs. The fires in SoCal, the water shortages in the Southeast, levee failures in New Orleans (coupled to wetland loss and overall subsidence, a very bad combination), all of these and more are pointing towards a grim future.

You think it's bad we went to war in the Middle East over oil? Just wait. We can adapt to less oil. We can even make a transition to no oil when we have to - it won't be easy, true, but it will be doable.

Anyone want to try and live without water?

And population is part of the problem, like it or not. There is a fairly set amount of water and it's going to serve an ever-increasing population. Simple math, really - less for everyone.

Development has been catastrophic, and its consequences will only worsen with time. Any local or state pol worth keeping would impose an outright long-term watering ban on lawns (including corporate complexes) and golf courses, lifeted only when reservoirs return to 120% of "seasonal normal" levels. Violation would be penalized by having their watering systems removed at the violator's expense (the lawn death penalty) as well as fines.

And as bad as it is in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, it's going to be far worse in places even less prepared to adapt. Of course, they're far, far away, so it's easy to forget about them.

All I ask is for the dynamite and acetylene concessions when the pipelines are built to drain the Great Lakes for the convenience of the "Sun Belt". Ought to be a lucrative business, that...

Note: The preceding graf was humor...

Get used to it, folks, someday we'll all look back on this as the good old days.

Kucinich may have some good ideas - in fact, there are a number of things where we agree, and they are things that do matter.

He also is completely devoid of anything even close to charisma, and is a terrible communicator. Both effectively disqualify him from receiving a major party's nomination for President, let alone a chance at winning the general election.

And "losing pure" is the last thing I want to do this time around. As it ought to be for any thinking person. I'll take the incremental progress, thankyouverymuch.

Edwards has Joe Trippi, who presided over Howard Dean's flameout in Iowa during the last cycle. Trippi does like to "go hard" and for that, there is no further explanation. That Edwards isn't close to "closing" anywhere likewise requires little analysis - he simply isn't, and Democrats seem to love shooting their wounded. Related? Maybe...

And if I were Obama, and the third-place guy was beating up on the nominal frontrunner, I'd be more than happy to sit back and let it happen. Encouragement? Why? It's not required, if the thing desired is already happening. Axelrod is well enough versed in Chicago insider wars to know that this can only help. And keeping a presumably safe/honorable distance isn't a bad idea.

Beats the 9/11 conspiracy stuff all to hell, though - at least backroom collaboration between primary campaigns is somewhat plausible.

Oh yes, and tinfoil hats require ground cables in order to be useful other than as antennas...