I'm loving the comments thus far.

stevio, have you read Naomi Wolf's The End of America? Haven't read it yet, but from what I've heard, it's some scary stuff.

Yes, how dare we impugn the character of our mercs! I hadn't realized the extent to which our military had been outsourced to private contractors. This scares the crap out of me. Some of these mercenaries used to be in the army. Perhaps some others didn't make the cut. Who are these people? I suspect a disproportionate number of them are people who, due to circumstances or temperment, were not a good fit for the armed services.

So we give them guns, no real rules and no accountability. This is a recipe for disaster.

"Well, we've always known that Democrats seem to revert to type, and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything."

Yup, those tax and spend Democrats. Always ready to raise taxes for no good reason. Just wasting the people's money on silly things like the so-called "War on Terror" and funding the troops.

Actually, Blackwater is refered to as "The Coalition of the Billing."

If Blackwater is "our team," when will I start seeing non-profits sending care packages to Blackwater? Where are our "Support Our Mercs" bumber stickers?

"I find it pretty amazing how little credit any of the people who opposed this war in the first place get for being right all along."

You shouldn't be. Congresspersons opposed to the war from the start were in the minority. The minority is often marginalized and dismissed by the majority.

Obama, to his credit, was against the war from the start. I think that's important. But how would Obama have voted had he been in the Senate then? He's been resting on his laurels since he's been in the Senate, so I'm starting to wonder.

Barack, what have you done for us lately? We're going to have to start seeing more from you than hopeful sentiments.

Is it some sort of learned helplessness? Why does the Democratic leadership roll over time and time again? Why do they continue to allow Republicans to frame the debate? Why do they move further and further to the right? Yet still allow Republicans to accuse them of being beholden to the left-wing?

I wish they were beholden to the the "left-wing" at this point, because that's where most of the country is.

There are crazy right-wingers with columns in major newspapers and as commentators on "centrist" news shows. They have their own radio shows. But where are the "crazy left-wingers"???

Democratic leadership, grow a spine.

I defended Jenna Bush. She's just the president's daughter, she doesn't make policy.

But she goes and interviews with Diane Sawyer then Larry King.

You jumped in the pool. Now swim.

Anyone who does not have an opinion on the Iraq War isn't paying attention. And they're not paying attention to something that's like, kinda a big deal or something.

Say you don't feel comfortable discussing your opinion because you're the president's daughter. But don't say "it's complicated" and "I'm no expert."

"Drunk monkey in suspenders" and "bringing sexy back" ... tee hee.

I personally think voting for a third party will depend upon who the Republican and Democratic candidates ultimately are. If it's another Bush vs. Gore, where there's a massive and important difference between the candidates, I think it's unwise to vote for a third party candidate.

But if there's little substantive difference between the candidates and both are worthy of the office, now might be the time to send the Democratic leadership a clear message--listen to what the base has to say and govern with a little dignity, initiative and courage.

It's tough love, but if you want change in your party, you have to vote for it.

Bush is concerned that expanding S-CHIP to the "not quite poor enough" will lead to fewer of the "super poor" being covered.

What Bush doesn't seem to get is that, thanks to him, the "not quite poor enough" aren't "moderately comfortable middle-class" anymore. The Brady Bunch, they ain't.

The "not-quite poor enough" are the fragile middle class. They're one pay-check away from disaster. One illness away from financial ruin. They can't afford to take sick days. They're two-parent households that still struggle. They have massive credit card debt and no savings. They can't count on their company pensions. Their jobs are being outsourced overseas. And if their job provides healthcare coverage, it's through an HMO with limited providers, high co-pays and deductibles, and the HMO denies their legitimate claims, creating even higher out-of-pocket costs.

Bush's tax policies have helped create the "not-quite poor enough." As their creator, Bush ought to step up to the plate.

Bush SAYS he is concerned that expanding S-CHIP to the "not quite poor enough" will lead to fewer of the "super poor" being covered.

I happen to find this almost, just a little, vaguely justifiable argument to be complete and utter bullsh-t.

I agree that if an issue is a national priority, the nation overall should find a way to fund it.

So increased cigarette taxes are not the ideal way to fund a national program like expanded health coverage for kids.

It isn't ideal, but I think it's the only method that has a chance of passing right now. So if it's a choice between taxing cigarettes and expanded health coverage for kids, my vote is for the kids.

However, the issue should be revisited once Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy are repealed. And the tax code should be simplified (but NOT into a flat-tax) and loopholes for big corporations closed.

Let this be a lesson to those who almost always post as "Anonymous." You run the risk of having your arguments lumped in with ridiculous troll anonymous writers because we can't tell you apart.

If you really want to be heard, most of the time, it's best to pick a name. Even if that name is "Anonymous123."