My only question about this no-surprise-here testimony is: so which bible-thumping brain-draining college did this twenty-something pipsqueak go to?

Ordinarily, you’d probably be right. The Regent University (as in “founded by Pat Robertson”) website used to boast that 150 of their graduates have served in the George W. Bush administration. It’s also the Alma Mater of Monica Goodling of U.S. Attorney firing scandal fame.

However, J. Scott Jennings seems to have a decent (if short) record—he actually went to a real school (University of Louisville), which is also the alma mater of the man he helped re-elect in 2002: Sen. Mitch McConnell.

But, really, the best part of Jennings' non-testimony was his reference to Greek mythology: “I hope that you can appreciate the difficulty of my situation. It makes Odysseus' voyage between Scylla and Charybdis seem like a pleasure cruise.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_go_co/prosecutors_jennings;_ylt=AnmzXw7iejks7zW0yfeXRuqs0NUE

It is this that makes him a tool.

Not a big fan of the pointy-nosed priss that is the Broadsheet icon. Please consider rotating through other pictures so we can see more broads that reflect the look of more women.

Keep the thought-provoking articles coming, and enjoy the hiatus.

Crud, I'm not sure what I can add to this. I agree with just about everything else that's already been posted, especially edspickles comments.

I think girls should hear that it's okay to be a "girly-girl." That you can still like hair, make-up and clothes and still be a kick-ass intellectual powerhouse. It speaks to the entire woman as a whole person and recognizes that the "girly-girl" and the "smart" are not mutually exclusive. And, incidentally, not exclusive from the athlete, the violinist, the writer, etc.

Digging into the lives of a candidate's minor children. So from that perspective, this really needs to stop.

However.

It is fair to talk about Rudy Giuliani the man in a way that limits discussion of his children. What this story taps into is the sense that Giuliani has a bad relationship with his family. And a bad relationship with one's family often (but not always, of course) reflects negatively on a person's character. Giuliani:

• thrice married
• publicly announced his separation from wife number two before telling her personally
• a public and acrimonious divorce that negatively impacted his children

Now, someone can be personally shady and still be an effective president. But the Republican Right doesn't seem to think so, and believes presidents should be made of finer stuff. And many Democrats and Moderates will dismiss sexual peccadillos but draw the line at bad parenting.

This story matters only insofar as it taps into hints of shadiness in Giuliani's character. Let's keep the spotlight on Rudy's shadows but leave the kids out of it.

Questions about what a candidate would do in a given situation is one of the two ways we as voters have of gathering the information needed to decide who to vote for

-Amen to that, J T.

Everyone agrees with what Obama said (sidebar: any Republican candidates have anything to say about it?) but the Dems are saying he simply shouldn't have said it.

B-llshit. If Pakistani President Musharraf doesn't know this already, he needs to hear it: if you have actionable intelligence against the man who waged war against America and murdered 3,000 civilians and you do nothing, we will act.

I don't think it's a highly orchestrated Hillary plan. It's just that the other candidates smell Obama blood in the water and front-runner Clinton has now given the second and third-tier candidates permission to go nasty.

That and the lower tier needs to take out Obama to have a chance at the nomination--heir-apparent Clinton can still be knocked out if the party decides they want a safe-bet [white] male as the nominee.

The posters who’ve noted that the Clintons will relish a fight are right on the money.

And the posters who’ve noted that we already know plenty of dirt about the Clintons and don’t care are also right.

But here’s what makes the attacks regarding Bill Clinton different—this time they’re not really going after Bill, they’re going after Hillary. Bill’s a man who likes to put things where they ought not be. Big whoop. He’s a stud.

But Hillary’s the woman that puts up with it. If Hillary Clinton can’t even control her own husband, how can she, as a woman, be a force on the world stage and stand up to Al Qaeda?

Attacking Bill Clinton is a backhanded way of attacking Hillary Clinton as a woman.

Romney’s kids don’t have to serve in the military to be good people doing good for the community, so that’s not even what this is about.

Helping daddy get elected isn’t serving the country…it’s helping daddy.

Asked if she was satisfied by Romney's answer, the questioner, 41-year-old Rachel Griffiths of Milan, Ill. said: "Of course not. He told me the way his sons are showing support for the military of our nation is to buy a Winnebago and tour across Iowa and help him get elected."

Thank you, Rachel Griffiths, for the smack down of the day.

The coventional wisdom seems to be true (for now). From the Military Times Surveys: "In politics today, do you consider yourself a"*:

Survey 2006

• Democrat: 16%
• Republican: 46%
• Independent: 22%

Survey 2005:

• Democrat: 13%
• Republican: 56%
• Independent: 15%

Survey 2004:

• Democrat: 13%
• Republican: 60%
• Independent: 17%

There’s a certain reluctance among the active military to identify as “Democrat” no matter how disallusioned they become with Republicans. http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks5jan05,0,3861284.column?coll=la-home-commentary

*The balance of the responses are "Libertarian," "Other," or Decline to answer

I am not familiar with this “old boxing expression,” apparently from ye olde days of yore.

And Bush hasn’t challenged Iraq’s sovereignty. He just thinks Iraq’s duly elected leader Maliki 1) was misunderstood, 2) is lying or 3) is deluding himself. Totally different.

Remember, Bush has a degree in Hearts & Souls. After all, he looked Russia’s Putin in the eye and “was able to get a sense of his soul.” Certainly he’s qualified to diagnose what’s in Maliki’s “heart of heart.”

And it's "heart of hearts," you doink.

And I believe it's a struggle between the forces of moderation and reasonableness and good and the forces of murder and intolerance. And what has made the stakes so high is that those forces of murder and intolerance have shown they have the capacity to murder innocent people in our own country. And so I put that in the context of accountability.

Uh, does this mean that so long as there are terrorists and extremists in the world, accountability doesn't matter?