I think it's possible that Obama is using a lot of this "bipartisanship" talk and so forth as window-dressing for a liberal agenda -- sort of a reverse on the way GW Bush spoke of "compassionate conservatism" while taking a hard right turn into reactionary country. I'm hoping that Obama's post-partisan talk is really a way of recapturing the "sensible center" in an imaginative way, so that he can push for change and reform and attack critics for being partisan and going against the spirit of compromise.

That's what I hope he's doing. Otherwise, he's just selling everybody down the river and giving us more of the same -- but the thing is, events seem to be progressing in a fashion that it will require liberal boldness on Obama's part, even as it allows him to appear to be pragmatic and centrist, with the Right as the voice of unreason from their vantage point in the wilderness.

As for no one party having a monopoly on truth, well, I'd love to know what truths the GOP hasn't trammeled into dust in their day. There isn't a single of their ideas (except, of course, more money for the rich) that they haven't sacrificed for the sake of power, so maybe the only truth the GOP really ever had was that wealth belongs to the wealthy, and everybody else can go fuck themselves. And if that's the truth they've got a monopoly on, then they're going to be out of power for a long, long time, and leave Obama a wide range of options for getting America back on its feet again.

The latest TIME magazine lamely lays out America's healthcare woes, talking about how the US spends more than everybody else on healthcare, but we have poor health. The untouched irony of it is that those other countries the US is outspending (and underperforming) are all First World nations with national healthcare.

So, with single-payer healthcare, they're getting better results for their citizens for less money. Which of course counts for why the US, lone among First World nations, absolutely refuses to consider actual single-payer, even as costs skyrocket, Americans are less-healthy, and are paying more for their care than their First World "peers."

I know the private insurance lobby is powerful, works hard to keep alternatives to it off the table and beyond the pale, but can they really control our healthcare politics to such an extent to keep the US away from single-payer for another generation, until our health system completely nosedives? Or will the US just do away with employer-covered healthcare and really disgrace ourselves?

It bothers me that the Democrats are just as timid re: single-payer, even though it fucking works. The ideology of for-profit healthcare and private insurance will keep the US lurching along with that open wound, solemnly administering Tic Tacs in lieu of actual medicine and necessary reform.

Obama should make it a top priority to address the conditions that fuel anti-American hatred. In Afghanistan, this means rebuilding the country; in Pakistan, not propping up unpopular despots like Musharraf; in Israel and the Palestinian territories, throwing the full weight of American diplomacy behind a two-state solution.

I had to smirk at "unpopular despots" -- is the problem only that Musharraf was unpopular? What about a popular despot? Seems like the best way for the US to create a fuel shortage in anti-Americanism is to stop propping up despots in the Third World and trust democracy to yield better results than dictatorship and despotism. When our country has the self-confidence and courage of its convictions to act on its democratic rhetoric in our foreign policy, I think we'd find the world a more peaceful place, and our country's security better guaranteed.

American money and military aid flows throughout the Middle East, is responsible for the propping up of many despotisms, and is a key point behind anti-American hatred and our diplomatic weakness abroad. The full weight of American diplomacy? What does that mean, anyway, given the loss of our country's prestige abroad over the years? Our diplomatic strength is heavily tied in entangling alliances and arms deals, and that speaks volumes for our prospects are arbiters of peace, versus architects of endless war.

I think our country would be better off getting out of the region, leaving despots to face their people without our help, restoring the State Department to its former glory, rebuilding foreign trade (in real goods, versus just arms deals with kings and tyrants), rebuilding America, and practicing what we preach in the terms of democracy. That would leave terrorists twisting in the wind.

In the anti-meritocracy that is the GOP, Fleischer is sure to be rewarded with another cushy post, but let's celebrate small victories.

Actually, Ms. Walsh, the GOP simply puts a higher priority on loyalty over results. Therein lies the secret of their perverted notions of merit. Ari Fleischer has loyally served the forces of corruption, mendacity, greed, and misrule without hesitation, so, of course he will continue to prosper within the GOP's ranks, regardless of results.

Superpowers aside, I've never sensed that "Heroes" has much at all to do with comic books. Rather, it's like a superheroes show for people unfamiliar with and uncomfortable with comic books and superheroes, versus any kind of confirmation of the genre in any way, shape, or form. I can almost see the creators of it cynically pitching the show to executives, nobody in the room having much comfort with, love of, and/or familiarity with comic books.