Giuliani was wildly uneven, sometimes shaky, sometimes strong, but never presidential,

Bald guys don't get to be President, Mr. Giuliani. If they did, it's like saying the terrorists have already won.

Sometimes American superficiality in political matters is a blessing. You lose, no matter how well you poll in Pennsylvania. Didn't you see the other nine guys? They all have hair.

If Giuliani really wanted to stand out from the others, he'd have come out in a wig and a dress. He probably could have swayed independents if he'd done that.

"the president's chief political advisor may have been involved in an attempt to mislead Congress -- one more reason they are demanding to see his emails and force him to testify under oath."

Wait, haven't they already de-magnetized the servers that were vaulting those incriminating e-mails? Didn't Rove et al. put faithful GOP interns to that task by now? Haven't they been "lost" yet? I'm imagining Young Republican career opportunists (e.g., future Supreme Court law clerks) hastily spilling cans of Coke on the servers, shorting them out (in case they haven't found any de-magnetizers in time).

her State Department spokesman had publicly reprimanded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, which was not "appropriate ... right now."

Gosh, maybe the flap about the Pelosi trip arose because it scooped Condi's own fleeting diplomatic "coup" -- I know, that's not a word one throws around lightly among Bush Leaguers, given their predilections.

I actually feel sorry for Condi, despite all the terrible damage her enabling of "her husband," her arrogance, and her mendacity has caused, because she seems so hollow, and kind of brittle, too.

There's just a dreadful emptiness to her that reminds me of a manager at a job who lives for their job, and nothing else, and that her job has little to do with helping the country, and everything to do with helping the Party, and of course, the Leader.

Coincidentally enough, I was watching a clip of Nixon (interviewed by David Frost), and about 6:00 into it, Nixon talks about his philosophy to Kissinger, invoking Lot's wife:

Don't look back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJs80eBGYlM

So, seeing that title of this article after having just watched that, it was kinda funny and disturbing all at once -- just like Condi.

As I've said a time or two before, only Democrats are accused of flip-flopping. It's just a propaganda attack the GOP uses against Democrats. Republicans (sometimes) have a change of mind or heart, but they're never called flip-floppers. All part of the media noise management the GOP uses to frame discussions, flowing from the GOP = strong, Democrats = weak propaganda line they take on absolutely everything.

An evolution denier cannot be trusted alone with sharp objects or an open flame, much less the authority of a president.

Hahahah! Thanks for the laugh, Yellow Dog!

From Frank Rich in Sunday's NYT, on Condi's culpability in the Iraq War mess...

As for her answers to Senator Levin’s questions, five of eight were pure Alberto Gonzales: she either didn’t recall or didn’t know.

Amazing, their selective memories. So much for the party of personal responsibility -- like so much of the GOP rhetoric, ideology, and praxis, they only support personal responsibility when it applies to someone else! For thee, but not for me....

And Tom Selleck's a Republican, too, so it's a Chris Matthews love-in, apparently.

I'm so glad you commented on this piece, Ms. Walsh. I about did a spit-take when I read it this weekend. This part of that odious "story" (?) angered me especially...

evolving image as an idealogue has led NBC News to stretch traditional notions of journalistic objectivity.

I just found it funny that it suddenly became an issue, and that the loaded "idealogue" was even used (incidentally, "ideologue" is the preferred usage in the States).

If Olbermann was part of the army of right-wing pundits, there'd be not a problem with him; hell, maybe it's "newsworthy" precisely because Olbermann's is one voice running contrary to the right-wing noise machine -- he's engaging in wrongthink, I guess, so it turns up as news. I can't think of why it was even thrown out there, except as a hit job, as you called it, or else Olbermann's angered some reactionaries somewhere.

And journalistic objectivity has long, long since flown out the window. Does the mainstream press truly not realize how disgraced it's become, how far from journalism and objectivity it's gotten? Give me a break.

Lickspittles and sycophants call the tune, and call it news, and get pissed when somebody like Olbermann comes along, messes up the tidy arrangement, I guess. A liberal with teeth appears, and gets attacked for it.

I never did find out what a 'cryptofascist' was, but it must be something really bad -- why else would the Right's most erudite, elegant and sophisticated speaker respond to it with a crude schoolyard taunt?

Because Buckley's a cryptofascist, of course! That's why!

"Cryptofascism" is basically fascist ideology pursued under the pretense of another political movement, disguising the substance of it in various ways. If you want a case study of the development of the idea, follow the practice of the GOP from about 1964 onward.

Gee, I think Elisabeth Hasselbeck's not quite stupidly conservative enough; how about Ann Coulter? Or Michelle Malkin? I'm sure they'd have all sorts of things they could add to the View.