The official G.O.P. line goes a little something like this:

What will the Democrats do now that The Surge is working? All of their war criticisms were founded on the erroneous notion that not only were we losing in Iraq, but we'd already lost. For their own political futures, Democrats actually secretly (and not-so-secretly) wanted the U.S. to fail. But now The Surge is working and George W. Bush has been vindicated. Democrat-desires to pull back now amount to "pulling the rug out from under the troops" and undermining their successes. The success of The Surge has Democrats caught with their tails between their legs.

This makes we want to beat the crap out of someone, namely the reporters who parrot the party line. Of course the U.S. troops can do their job of providing security and increasing the troops allows for this. But these troop increases were necessarily temporary and were intended to give the Iraqis breathing space for national political reconciliation. This has not happened.

The troops performed their task of securing the country but this task was never the goal of the mission. It was a means to an end. Now, suddenly, we're expected to believe this end never existed (or, as Charles Krauthammer says, this end was never realistic to begin with and should thus be ignored). The troops, through the course of normal rotations, are coming home starting this spring. What happens to security when they leave? What are we trying to accomplish in Iraq and what's the plan for making that happen? How many more Iraqis and "Coalition" soldiers have to die before we figure out something as basic as "what is the mission?"

HE get the pill to begin with?

Reid converted as an adult and did not do the standard Mormon missionary work. Mitt Romney was a missionary.

What does it mean to have a president who's done missionary work? To believe so strongly in one's path to God as the path to salvation that you believe it's an explicit duty to get others to see things the same way? Should such a person ever be president of the United States? Wasn't George W. Bush enough of a missionary (in action if not title) to last a lifetime?

Why do policians aspiring to high office always seem to choose the "attack option" rather than hammer out contrasting policies?

Well, there aren't big differences between Clinton's and Obama's policies, so that tactic won't work.

Clinton is making a huge mistake attacking Obama on character. All it does is highlight our own doubts about Hillary Clinton's character as well as her husband's. And it makes Hillary look mean-spirited and desperate. She's squandering the sympathy and appearance of strength she'd garnered after the N.H. hostage situation. Hillary Clinton needs to stop this line of attack NOW. Focus on Obama's lack of experience or even that he's too nice to get things done in partisan Washington.

Why do people suddenly notice a woman is running for president only now that it's Hillary Clinton?

For the same reason they notice "Black Candidate" Obama now--the candidate actually has a chance of winning the presidency. Hillary Clinton has the funding and political machine to survive a grueling campaign process. In fact, she's viewed as the establishment candidate and the frontrunner. This is not to discount the trailblazing of women like Carol Moseley Braun.

Oh, and Parson Jim, you're absolutely correct. Feminists want women to be political and business leaders even if they have the qualifications of patio furniture. Feel better? Silly me, I thought the "qualified" stipulation was implied. When women are just over half of the population but still minorities in positions of power, something is very wrong.

Why, no such thing!

Says a senior White House official, "Iran must be blocked from acquiring nuclear weapons. That they don't have them now doesn't mean they won't have them in the future. We must forever remain in the process of blocking Iran. It's a never-ending struggle. We cannot win. We can only lose."

Okay, so maybe a senior White House official didn't say that, but that definitely seems to be the tone thus far.

It's sort of a "chicken or the egg scenario." When there are more women in positions of authority, men and women will become more comfortable with the idea of female leaders. And these female leaders will also have the money and connections to bring other women up the ladder. However, to get to the top, women need money and connections.

Also, presidential candidates don't just come from the ether--they come from the Congress and the State House. More women in these positions will increase the already tough-to-break-into field of presidential candidates.

You're right that people overwhelmingly vote for the candidate that matches whatever political or moral ideals they cherish (whether they be male or female). What I think is worth considering is why are there so few viable female presidential candidates? Women and men would vote for them if they were there. And their not being there has a lot to do with institutional old-boy networks that make it tough for an outsider to break in.

modeler writes of Bush and Cheney: "These two men are not happy with the war in Iraq they did not really win and want more blood, including American blood."

Call me a foolish optimist, but I can't see that level of bloodlust in them. I do agree, though, that Bush/Cheney trumpeted Iran because they weren't happy with Iraq. We weren't greeted as liberators, Iraq didn't suddenly turn into some sort of utopia post-Saddam and the war hasn't paid for itself in oil revenue. It's a mess with no clear end in sight. But if we leave, we "concede defeat." So what's the solution? Why, enlarge the conflict!

It's like the article on The Onion: "Bush Announces Iraq Exit Strategy: 'We'll Go Through Iran'" http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_announces_iraq_exit_strategy