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.

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.

It's all the same - the difference is between varieties of fecal matter. (Hey - it's a family forum...)

The one thing that discomfits me is that the "conservatives" are seemingly the only side willing to accept short-term losses for long-term gains, and to consolidate incremental gains and move forward from there. Far too many "liberals", on the other hand, seem to want all or nothing, right now.

Does anyone think this Bush monstrosity was built overnight, "on the sneak"? No. The roots go back to Red-baiting Richard Nixon running for Congress, and then to his time in the Oval Office. When conditions did not favor their agenda, they bided their time. They plant their operatives within the bureaucracy, and look from within for cracks.

Well-meaning liberals that many of us are, we seem to want the sheer rightness of our principles to carry the day. They do not. We don't build the kind of foundational structures the right wing does, and are the poorer for it.

That changing is what might doom "conservatism". Otherwise, they'll go spend their time in the wilderness again, and be back once short-term memories have faded.

Reading the already-posted LTEs, I am struck by the fact that there are finally a few agreeing that we, as Democrats, have generally been pretty lousy communicators. We tend to be so persuaded by our own "rightness" that we forget that the general public (aka "voters") does not particularly care to listen to, let alone absorb, lengthy discourses on the finely nuanced, cross-referenced facts behind our carefully reasoned positions. They don't, and they won't. Horses to water, folks...

Make it a simple, straightforward narrative, preferably one with a memorable "hook" (for all his other worthlessness, Reagan and his writers had this one down cold) and it's money in the bank.

We, on the other hand, are still, as a group, subscribing to the "one more fact" fallacy. Repeat after me: There is no one additional fact that will change the mind of the public.

The only way we're going to get veto-proof numbers is if voters turn up the heat on some of the Republicans. Voters from their districts. Until that happens, they feel no need to change their votes, and we simply don't have 2/3 of the House - or Senate. Until we do, this is going to be the nature of things in Congress.

Make the narrative immediately accessible and understandable to the average voter and we win. Right now, we tend to bore them to tears.

Disagree all you want, you know this is the truth.

Does anyone think Willard (Mittens) Romney draws an unscripted breath, even during his deepest sleep?

There has been too much Obama/Osama nonsense emanating from the Republicans and their adherents to even think about this being "unintentional" in any way. Willard Romney simply went about it, as is his nature, in a very clumsy and transparent way.

The man is possibly the only more calculating simulation of a human being in public life than the reptilian Norman (Quimby) Coleman, who oozed into the Senate on the occasion of the tragic death - five years ago today - of the great Paul Wellstone.

What we know about both is that first, no memorials will be built to Norman Coleman. No camps, no schools, no community centers will ever be named for him. His name will, in future years, be an embarrassing afterthought for the state of Minnesota. And the robotic Willard Romney will soon be a footnote in his own right in American history. In the unlikely event there would ever be a Willard Romney memorial, I might suggest the ideal material - Plexiglas. Easily seen through, 100% synthetic, and because it does not wear or age well, not nearly as useful as the genuine article.