would at least end the campaign on a bright note...

...for the devine despotism of the Justinian Code. I'm sure Emperor Alexios II and Andronikos, who ordered the execution of thousands of slaves at a time appreciate your endorsement.

You might want to be careful about endorsing the Byzantines. They lost their battle with the Muslims, if you recall.

And you're still missing my point. One more time.

I suspect that you are underinformed about how industrial workers or miners were treated in the 1840s-1860s. They were effectively owned, starved, killed, buried alive and maimed by the thousands. And no, they couldn't just get up and leave, either. I'm not interested in "comparative victimology," who suffered more doesn't interest me - my point was merely that the Federals and the Northern Agitators did not come to the table with clean hands. Their wealth was built on the exploitation of the poor just as surely as that of the Southern slaveholders.

As for your "encourage your family" comment, we were working to get Democrats elected long ago. And we'll keep doing it despite the condescension and snide comments of some of our fellow travelers who think all kindness and intellect ends at the Mason-Dixon. But you might want to think about whether that condescending attitude might be why our party can't buy a win in southern state in a presidential election unless the candidate is a southerner. I've seen more Southerner bashing on these boards than any decent, well-intentioned person should have to tolerate.

And a lot of voters - working people who have nothing in common with the Neocon Corporatist vampires who run the GOP -won't and don't tolerate it. That's a big part of why they continue to vote against their own interests.

And, sadly, that's always good for McCain.

Glenn Greenwald (also at Salon.com) just brilliantly traced the evolution of the whole media-driven "lipstick scandal."

The corporate media is in the bag for the GOP, which means, for this country packed with "low information voters," a McCain coronation.

who asked: 'As for Paul in KY, what on Earth does the Byzantine Empire have to do with the price of Hummus in Constantinople? Are you saying that I'm defending the treatment of slaves in the United States from 1776-1865? I am certainly not. Slavery was an unmitigated horror, and the elimination of it, while it wasn't the sole cause of the war, was certainly its most beneficial outcome. I have said so before, you and certain other posters have chosen to ignore my point.'

The point about slavery in Byzantium (1500 years ago) was that it was much better to have been a slave under Justinian than to have been a slave in the old South. The slaves in Byzantium had many more rights under the law than the poor devils down in Dixie.

That historical truth was to rebut your silly claim that Northern laborers had it about as bad as the slaves.

Glad you're not voting for McLame. Please work to ensure your relatives/friends also don't vote for him.

(Sorry, Advocatus: nobody fights a war that leads to the slaughter of half to three-quarters of a million people over tariffs.)

Yes, they do. In fact, a pretty good case has been made that "where goods do not cross borders, soldiers do." The irritant that radicalized our illustrious ancestors to declare independence was unfair taxation and duties on imports.

But the War of American Succession wasn't caused solely by the unfair and unconstitutional practices of the Federal government against Southern landholders. I never claimed it was. Unfair tariffs and duties were one of many causes that included Slavery, self-righteousness and belligerance on both sides, and a Federal government determined to control all political and economic life in this country, in direct opposition to the stated will and design of the founders. My sole purpose in making that post was to point out that the causes of that war were more complex than "Righteous Federals Good - Southern Slavers Bad."

As for Paul in KY, what on Earth does the Byzantine Empire have to do with the price of Hummus in Constantinople? Are you saying that I'm defending the treatment of slaves in the United States from 1776-1865? I am certainly not. Slavery was an unmitigated horror, and the elimination of it, while it wasn't the sole cause of the war, was certainly its most beneficial outcome. I have said so before, you and certain other posters have chosen to ignore my point.

As I sit here typing, a piece of scrip - phony money that my Grandfather earned in the mines that could only be spent at the company store - sits on my desk. It reminds me that Slavery never really goes away, it just looks for a better suit of clothes to present itself in. One of those suits of clothes is untrammeled Federal power that has no respect for the Constitution, and claims that it has the right - for reasons of national emergency - to ignore the Great Writ, to trample the privacy and autonomy of individuals, and to turn this country into a fearful wreck, seeking an ever stronger hand to protect - and control it.

As it was in 1861, so it is today. And because I fear that unchecked and unconstitutional federal power - the Cheney dream of an American Caesar in the White House - I will work, and vote, Democratic in this and every other forseeable election.

And THAT, in sum, Is NOT GOOD FOR MCCAIN!

-A

A few years ago, John McCain called them "Agents of Intolerance". Today, he is their candidate. Now they are giving McCain their full-throated support. The "Agents of Intolerance" have not changed. John McCain has. That's what McCain means when he calls himself "The Candidate of Change". The Admiral has turned his ship around one hundred and eighty degrees. His "principles" have done a complete U-Turn.

Exactly. Plus HRC's formidable negatives. If you want to lay the blame of a possible Obama/Biden defeat somewhere, put it on the megalomaniacal Clintons.

As to:

"(the only difference between being a slave in Georgia and a factory worker in Massachusetts was that the worker had to pay for his hovel)"

One other, the former was a SLAVE.