While I believe all opinions are valid if you have an interest in defending them honestly, at some point, there's just no point posing your position in certain audiences. I don't think the people who write letters at Salon are suddenly going to be moved by your arguments, convincing as you might believe them to be. I don't believe they are suddenly going to say, "what a dope, I've been. This Iraq war thing is a great idea. More war, more US domination of world resources!"

What I'm suggesting, for your own benefit, is that you find a place where the people share your general views regarding US relations with the international community. Perhaps, then you can argue about whether Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani had the best quip about Iran last night, or whatever it is they talk about. It seems like you will only get frustrated here.

HOwever, if you like, you can respond to this post by claiming that I am trying to censor you.

I'm another who thinks they don't get the white guys right--McNulty, try. I just watched the turgid 16 Blocks, and saw literally no difference between the two characters. Or the newsguys; I feel like I'm watching the Big Carnival. Surely management working for large corporations don't yell at women over the cubicles, 'get your ass over here'. Hardboil as much as you like, but there are still some pretty banter-stifling laws out there. Would if editors were as single-mindedly veracity obsessed, as well, but anyone who reads the paper--a white house source, insiders say, etc--knows better. I can't imagine that a beltway paper is more stringent about sourcing than others...

Lastly, enough with the 'real people' actors. Actors are good at acting, 'real people' aren't good at acting, or they would be actors, not 'real people'. The last season was nearly unwatcheable due to all the unbelievable acting...

All that being said, this is still one of the best shows on television, and the great actors in the show, minus the ones mentioned here, are just amazing...

I think Glenn is right that the reaction to the Kucinich issue is more illuminating about conservative screed than what it says about the judiciary. But I think there's another crucial element being left out here. Why are private companies using the public airwaves to include and exclude candidates in primary debates in the first place?

Certainly, any defendant of this practice would be hard pressed to find a legitimate--and democratically based argument--for doing so outside of free market paradigm. As we saw with Ron Paul's exclusion from a Fox debate recently, the criteria broadcast corporations use are not objective for the most part. They are not even sensical. Why should private national polling be the basis of including candidates in the first place? Isn't that what the primaries are about in the first place? Isn't the primary the actual tally of who supports who in the states? And why should the polls used to determine eligibility in the primary debate be national, when the primaries are state based? Really, there is no way to defend that on any logical or democratic grounds. Perhaps even more important, the content of these debates, which are (or should be) vital to our democratic process become the exclusive property of corporations, who will not let other corporations use them freely for analysis or discourse. That's just crazy, especially in the light that we already have a national non-profit, non-corporate national television structure that anyone can access.

We've had two full years of of network and cable dominated discourse over who is viable and who is not. In that time, I or Glenn, virtually anyone could have scoured the country with a grassroots campaign and could have emerged from total obscurity to become a household name. That is if networks weren't controlling the process to exclude that very contingency.

But there has been a sharp decline in the quality of funny disses on this awful comic. Come on people, the only reason I even come here is to savor the mordant spite!

p.s. the only thing as bad as Kansas O'Flaherty, is Opus.

I have to agree with Joan about the groupthink mentality overtaking true Obamelievers. I did vote for him and I am from California. I gave my vote to Obama because an Obama win would strike a larger note than a Clinton one would; a message saying, no more political business as usual.

That being said, the reality is that Obama is business as usual. You don't have to look to hard to find a political platform not very different from Clinton's. You don't have to look much harder to see a leap-frogging political trajectory, based more on caution (and more often political cowardice) than actual hutzpa. I simply can't believe that Obama wouldn't have voted to give Bush authority to start the war if he had been in the senate. All of his political manoevers since then indicate someone at least as politically self-conscious as Clinton.

Lastly, on the Multicultural issue that Joan brought up; indeed, Obama would be the crown jewel of multiculturalism if he could simply lose the race euphemisms (the skinny kid from Kansas, or whatever he said at the 04 Convention). Obama is dark-skinned, but he is not the descendant of slaves. His refusal to ever talk about his skin color has left people to wonder if he is worried about being perceived as half-black, or even half-white. Indeed, Obama could have handily won the Latino vote in California, if he had appealed to voters as a true transnational and multiculti--a half sister who is half-indonesian, a wife who is African-American, a father who is transnational immigrant from Kenya, and a mult-state and multi-nation upbringing.

But he has chosen to downplay those attributes, and it could be at his own peril.