There are a few grains of "good idea" nestled in there amidst his self-promotion. Too few to compel me to look to him instead of elsewhere for the same notions.

We will only succeed in modifying our current run of environmental damage when doing so becomes a matter of national policy, with emphasis on: in-town public transportation, high-speed intercity rail, cellulosic ethanol (preferably enzymatic, if it can be commercially viable), wind, geothermal, solar, hydro, and some very carefully overseen nuclear power, coupled with the complete redirection of our present combustion-based energy infrastructure towards the development and deployment of the above alternatives.

Hydrogen is likely a Utopian dream. Reforestation is vitally important both for sequestration and other practical reasons. And we desperately need to preserve clean water sources.

Oh, and slowing down worldwide population growth might not be so bad an idea either...

The rentboy also known as Jeff Gannon...

Not only a planted question, a planted questioner, with White House press corps credentials, provided to him...somehow.

That said, wasn't Hillary Clinton supposed to be smart? On top of things? Running a perfect campaign organization?

Didn't she try to claim she's better than all of that? Nice try...

Willard Romney doesn't read as quite so "manly" or "tough", now does it?

I think it's time for dog-torturer Willard Romney to be referred to by his given name in commentary. It seems a perfect, if incremental, antidote to his posturing. Maybe it'll catch on...

And an aside to Joan Walsh: It's past time to remove the "anonymous" option.

Do they ever do it themselves, when their supporters go off the deep end? Hardly. And it happens with much greater frequency. Pat Robertson alone could outstrip the entire Democratic side of the equation.

Really, if anyone on the Dem side had any vision whatever, I'd expect nonstop vilification of the Repubs from pillar to post. And when someone says something extreme, back him or her, and urge whoever it was only to say it again.

The "T" in T. Boone Pickens must stand for "Typical Swift Boat Liars coward".

He and the rest of them would never be willing to sit still for an impartially overseen review of their lies. How could they?

(I especially relish my memories of Kerry carving up John O'Neill on Cavett - the source of his particular animus regarding Kerry...)

If only Kerry hadn't gone quite so "Senator" on us. As in long-winded and monotonic.

Pickens is a weasel, a liar, and a coward. As is O'Neill, as are the rest of them.

Giuliani showed us by his actions what "leadership" was to him on 9/11: Find the nearest TV camera, jump in front of it, repeat.

Clearly, the most dangerous place in the world to stand is between Giuliani and a television camera. Even more so than between me and the nearest coffee machine!

If someone in Washington WATS (a place pretty heavily filled with actual Willard Romney contributors, not just supporters) has access to the info on who's behind this, there really ought to have been a leak sometime before now. That's just the way politics works, and that it has not happened yet indicates that it is in fact very likely a Machiavellian manipulation by Willard Romney himself, to paint himself as the victim of religious bigotry and thus garner sympathy.

A risky game? To be sure. Then again, Willard Romney made his multiple millions as a venture capitalist and investment banker. He's used to high-risk/high-reward strategies, and there's no bigger reward than the presidency.

Willard Romney is the source behind these calls, with the appropriate level of "plausible deniability" in place, no doubt.

A weak dollar makes American exports more attractive to the rest of the world, and thus helps reduce the U.S. trade deficit.

Do we make anything at all here in the US anymore that anyone else, anywhere, wants to buy, with the possible exception of cheesy actioners and sleazy porn?

The problem I have is not choosing between Clinton or Giuliani. The problem is, that is the choice we may be given. The country deserves significantly better than either of these two, let alone a forced choice between them.

All that said, I will vote for Clinton if that is my only alternative. And I will not be happy about it.

There is no other possible interpretation. He comes from a bigoted "faith", he is running as a member of a near-explicitly bigoted party, and he is making an overt appeal to religious bigotry a part of his campaign.

That he is doing so while protesting that he ought to be exempt from having his own bigoted "faith" examined seriously is only one of the ironies of this transparent phony's campaign. That, in all likelihood, he was the driving force behind the now-infamous "push poll" is the crowning touch.

Willard Romney is a bigot and a fraud. That, sadly, makes him a near-perfect Republican candidate.

With that answer, Senator Obama revealed why he may very well be the best choice for not only the Democratic Party, but for the United States.

We know from recent painful experience that working from "the gut" is a very bad approach. We know that having someone in the White House who will keep three fingers in the wind and carefully nuance a comment to sound appealing to multiple constituencies is a mediocre approach at best.

Having someone in the Oval Office, on the other hand, who knows that making decisions based on good information - acquired before the panic of a crisis sets in - serves the nation well in the long run.

Obama gets it, and seems to get it in a way that few others seeking the presidency get it.