I'm not usually moved to post twice, but this essay by Wilentz is so bizarre and disingenuous that I find there's just more ground to cover.

But I'll keep it short: If this system is inherently and fatally non-sensical, perhaps former chairs of the DNC or heads of the party should have noted this and worked to reform it. For instance, Terry McAullife, now with HRC's campaign. Or the late Ron Brown, Bill's labor sec'y. Or Bill himself, as President and head of the party, who somehow managed to get himself nominated against stiff competetion and caterwauling about unelectability.

Let's not forget that the look and logic of the Democratic primary reflects what the Democratic party itself, at national and local levels, has determined for itself to be the best way to respesent the needs and interests of Democratic voters.

If Democrats across the nation have been wrong about this for decades, perhaps all of those party leaders, past and present, associated with the Clintons should have done something about it when they had a chance.

I agree this is a fine kind of forum, as long as the questions are actually smart and useful in distinguishing the difference between candidates who rely on a tradition of faith to enrich the possibilities of action in the world and to see a deeper humanity in everyone, including our enemies, and ones who seek public office to impose litmus tests and orthodoxies on government workers and policies. Such a forum for a large audience could have exposed GWB for the retrograde, undemocratic ideologue that he is.

But these same candidates have declined to participate in Science Debate 2008's forum on science and government policy, which was to be be held at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. Clarifying one's stand on faith in public life may be helpful for getting elected, but one's attitude toward science will actually matter IF a candidate's elected. I think Americans are entitled to know if they're going to get another faith-based presidency that sees science as just another set of facts to be ignored, or worse, manipulated to fit the decisions they've already made.

Go to sciencedebate2008.com if this strikes a chord with you.

"What will it take to get the moderators to steer towards comment and get the candidates off of their scripts? This is their job and most of them are not even trying."

It will take prying debates out of the hands of "journalists" -- who are experts in nothing in particular, and less and less well-informed in general -- and put them in the hands of actual people who know what a real question, and answer, is.

As in the last debate on "Compassion" (=religion), actual clergy who work in areas of need of the world far outshone the canned, Sunday-school questions of the moderators. If the candidates would ever agree to debate on issues of science as pushed by Science Debate 2008, real working scientists would be able ask interesting questions that matter. Would it be so bad to have a foreign policy debate with ambassadors and former members of the state department leading the discussion? A health care debate with doctors, administrators, and regular people who have been through the wringer in this country's health system? And so on.

Since journalists have long since stopped asking anything useful of anyone in power, can we be allowed to tap the other 99.999999999% of the population yet?

If Obama doesn't like it, he should "change the rules"? Of televised debates over which he has no control? Which clearly don't HAVE any actual rules?

I said it yesterday, and I say it again: these debates should NOT be moderated by journalists, and there's no reason they are. They should be forums where candidates a back and forth with experts in the various fields that are important in the job of th e president.

Maybe this debate will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and gets other constituencies into this process.

Wait a sec - wasn't Howard Dean declared "too angry" to be president, since he spoke to people's anger, including his own, at the Bush war? Now, of course, we'd call that being "bitter."

Since there is, apparently, a clearly delineated clause in the Constitution that prescribes what level of anger a candidate may display before he is disqualified from the presidency, surely McCain must also be close to being declared "too angry" by ever pundit in the punditocracy.

Otherwise that could be seen as a double standard at applies to Democrats and not Republicans. But I'm sure that would never be the case by such a fair-minded segment of the "reality-based community."

Ladies and gentlemen, Vice President Fox Mulder.

If I recall correctly, this statement -- or any better translation of it -- came in the context of Dick Cheney openly advocating that Israel launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities (clearly as a proxy for the US doing so). Iran's governmental response was, not surprisingly, if Israel did such a thing, Iran would "wipe them off the map."

Would any US government official -- including the current contenders for president, let alone the Bush admin -- say anything substantially different if America's nuclear capability was openly being targeted by the second in command of a foreign country?

Funny, though, how the US provokes a belligerent response from our Global Enemy #1, and then the context for it is completely lost, turning predictable posturing into "policy toward Israel."

There is NO CHARGE for changing your flight, and if you have to cancel your trip, the ENTIRE cost of the ticket is credited to you, up to a year. When you want to use your credit, it's a simple phone call. No fuss, no muss. No "service charges" or "convenience fees."

If more airlines decided that making it easier for passengers to be flexible -- especially given how congested the flying schedule is now -- they might have more of a shot at my business.