Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've been able to ascertain about the creation of the Department of Homeland Security makes it look like it was used to de unionize large portions of the federal workforce. This would partially explain the sudden reversal of Bush's vehement opposition to its formation. Suddenly, it became a GREAT idea after it was explained to him that it could accomplish the goal of denying organized labor representation to many federal workers.

So... how to fix it? Start with allowing organizing by labor of positions that were formerly unionized.

If elected, Obama will tell us that offshore drilling is still too risky and environmentally unsafe.

Let's hope so.

After all, as clearly stated by Obama (backed up by pesky facts), we only have 3% of the petroleum reserves. Add to that THAT fact yet another FACT that the oil companies already have millions of acres banked that they AREN'T drilling, and (yet another fact) that it would take years to get any "new" oil from offshore on line, it's a red herring and a non issue to DEMAND that we "drill, baby drill"...

We ARE NOT going to "drill baby drill" our way to energy independence, no matter what you true believers on the right wing fringe have been brainwashed into believing.

But just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that somebody isn't out to get you.

There's a LOT of "liberals" who ARE NOT pacifists. Kick me and you'll wish you hadn't. A LOT.

If anything it humanizes him a little more. In contrast to the "he's scary" mud being cast about in all directions by the McCain camp, it reinforces that he has a very human relationship with his family.

Sure, McCain's campaign has been awful in too many ways to enumerate. And sure, ANY Democrat had a head start just by being "not Bush". But, I think it rather blind to not admit that Obama has run a masterful campaign, on his own stated terms. The enthusiasm for his candidacy, as measured by the huge outpouring of financial support in predominantly small amounts, is reflective of the tone and competency of his campaign.

I hope he can govern with the same competency that he's shown in campaigning.

Hey... right up front I'm in favor of sendin' Joe to sleep with the fishes... but....

Since I use Photoshop every day of my life professionally I have developed a sense about photos that is sort of automatic. And that photo looks like a fake composite. Joe is out of proportion to Palin. Does it look that way to anybody else? I mean... his head isn't THAT big is it? Or, conversely, hers that small. There's just too great a disparity between the two figures.

Not that it makes any difference to the story... just professional curiosity.

No quarter given...

I'm tired of a "president" who thinks he can govern by soundbytes and then can't even deliver his own accurately.

It's not that McCain totally flubbed his nasty little phrase... it's the sentiment he was TRYING to convey that is most offensive.

It's pretty funny... and anything that mocks McCain is fair game at this point. BUT... as a guy who uses photoshop all day professionally, I have to agree that I would be VERY surprised if this wasn't a crude example of a totally fabricated photo.

After looking at the Getty site, I am even more convinced that it's Photoshopped. There's just too many clues. Lighting, size, perspective....

I do this all day, every day for a living. I could be wrong, but.....

We DO need to actually win the election before we perform the post mortem. Eyes on the prize....

Newt Gingrich? Isn't he from the last century or something?

His little chickens are coming home to roost and he's playing the whining victim card. What a putz. I never could understand how ANYONE could characterize this hooligan charlatan as some sort of great thinker. This just solidifies that thought.

Karm, Newt... Karma

I'll admit it. I have never had a passport. Canada is the only "foreign" country I've ever visited and then only 50 miles or so. I'm neither proud nor embarrassed by this; it's just the way things worked out for me.

Saddled with "accidental" children from an early age, and existing for long periods on the "income" of a musician, I simply couldn't afford to travel abroad. I realized this, and instead dedicated myself to knowing my immediate beautiful Pacific Northwest surroundings as intimately as I could. If I couldn't see Kilimanjaro once, I WOULD experience every trail around Rainier; every headland on the magnificent Oregon coastline. For the most part I've accomplished that. Does one experience negate the need or worth of another? I would say not, and that goes both ways. So many people are not just unaware of international geography, but are also near completely ignorant of even the next neighborhood over.

So, I would say that the benefits of traveling are a mindset more than the actual experience. As Patrick said, many well traveled individuals are not possessed of the curiosity that would make their travel have any sort of personal impact.

I can read, and do widely. With the internet, I can "see" a lot of places, and "talk" to a lot of different people. Would I love to be there in person? You bet! Can I afford to? Probably not. Which leads me to one final point: Although I realize that I do live a life of relative luxury when compared to vast swaths of humanity across this globe, I would maintain that one doesn't need to travel internationally to experience grinding poverty and wretched conditions firsthand.

... until McCain starts babbling about "Harriet the Hairdresser needs a tax break too!"

Somehow I don't think this fits their current narrative.

seems to boil down to a variation on that famous Yogism: "It's too popular, nobody goes there anymore"; distilling it down to: "Obama' has too much support. Vote for me!"