I mean, it's not like the Dem YouTube debate was all that spontaneous and populist - the Dems still managed to get back to their talking points most of the time - but compared to almost any other political event for either major party that I've seen in a long time, it was a breath of more or less fresh air.

But what else it was, at base, was an opportunity to see who the candidates were when they were surprised by something, even if the surprise only lasted a few seconds till they could swing around to the talking points again.

None of the Republican candidates - and most especially not Romney or Giuliani, who are not very intelligent men when all is said and done - can allow themselves to be put in such a position. Except for McCain and Paul, neither of whom has any chance of being elected and thus have nothing to lose.

And need I add that refusal to participate in such an event shows a remarkable lack of a sense of humor? I mean really, when did the ability to laugh at oneself become such a political liability?

Oh. Now I remember. When Bush, who has so many laughable qualities but doesn't see any of them in himself, became pResident.

Harrington and winkandanod, one of the question videos at the first YouTube debate was asked by a snowman puppet. No mystery, but as I said before, no sense of humor either.

the lamest-ass thing I've seen on Salon in a long time.

I mean seriously: even allowing for ironic intent, a cartoon panda who can only say "gimme some crack" is supposed to be funny?

I like most of your stuff on Salon. But this just sucks.

I don't want to detract from your big sendoff, but...could you take Julia with you?

I'm just askin...

I play poker in my basement for fun and friendship, bragging rights, and maybe a few bucks. I enter tournaments to make money. I suspect most players feel that way.

Harpo needs to stop taking himself so seriously. He made me wonder if *I* sound like such an embittered old fart every time I talk about the "good old days."

"Thank goodness for the internet or we wouldn't know any more than Wolf Blitzer."

Funniest thing anyone's said in my general vicinity in weeks!

Emma, you would be correct that no candidate's religious affiliation or lack thereof would matter, if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that Giuliani and pretty much all the other Republican candidates offer up their religiosity as a reason why people should vote for them.

If the Repugs will leave religion out of the conversation, so will I. And so, I daresay, will most of the rest of their opponents. However, if they insist, as they seem almost constantly to do, on using their supposed religious "bona fides" as a selling point, then their deviation from the straight and narrow of those religions is fair game. As in this column.

And you knew that before you made the comment, now didn't you, Emma Grace? C'mon, fess up!

I'll say this, though: you're right about Rudy's manipulating 9/11. As he apparently manipulates damn near everyone and everything, including his alleged religious faith.

How much can you ignore the logic of this posting? It is NOT about him being a Catholic, or having a loony wife (I believe he does) or his having been married three times.

It IS about him claiming some sort of moral mantle, then when he fails to live up to his own standards, telling us we may not call him on his failings.

It is, in other words, the same sort of infuriating hypocrisy practiced by the Bush administration. I for one do not want to live through 4 to 8 more years of that, and I genuinely wonder if America will survive as a nation if we do elect such a person.

The above may be applied to pretty much all the Republican candidates, with the possible exception (only possible) of Ron Paul, and to more than one Dem candidate as well.

But in any case, hypocrisy is not off limits, so get off the high horse, OK?

I can't quite understand your attitude, Mikey - the snotty, snooty, I-coulda-done-it-better attitude, I mean. Wasn't there ANYthing of importance said last night, by your lights?

I saw seven people trying to get a message across, and Olbermann handling a tough assignment pretty well, all considered. With varying results, and varying levels of candor, it's true - but you doing that bitchy thing all over them just seems kinda...pathetic? Reaching? Trying for relevance?

I'll await your "analysis" of the next Repug debate to see if you're like this again, or if you fall into worshipful mode.

I'm reminded of Lily Tomlin's observation that she was "worried that the guy who invented Muzak was thinking up something else."

Rove is not "gone" in any real sense. In fact, I wouldn't put it past him to pull this resignation stunt just so we'll all think we can take our eyes off him.

Karl Rove is the incarnation of evil. Everything he does has some other agenda attached, an agenda that bodes ill for America and Americans.

If Republicans come within 10 percentage points of winning even one election anywhere in America in 2008, you may count on it that Rove was up to some dirty tricks in those precincts. Either that, or someone who emulates Karl was at work.

The trouble with this administration is that they make paranoia look reasonable.