Oh no! A moderate Senator is in danger of losing his primary to an ideological partisan! It must be an undemocratic purge that spells the end of pragmatic biparisanship in Congress! I'm certain that as we speak, dozens of politicos and columnists from both parties (say, David Brooks and Cokie Roberts) have already written hundreds of column inches about what a sad day it is that an incumbent might get ousted simply because he doesn't consistently match up with his party's voters' ideals.

What? They haven't? But they did when it was Joe Lieberman! How is this in any way different?

Oh yeah, because it is the "extreme Left," who want withdrawl from Iraq SOMETIME in the near future and accountablity from the Bush Adminstration for its lies and failures -- they're the crazy ones. Not the guy worried about Mexican immigration in Rhode Island.

So, explain to me why Katie Couric debuted as CBS anchor last night and not Keith Olbermann?

"Shoot! Now they tell me I gotta keep sayin' 'Within the law.' Durn! I don't even know what that means. Well, whatever...

Blah blah blah terrorists! Blah blah blah blah protect your family! Blah blah blah 'within the law'!

Oh, I so totally rock as Presdint!"

He holds her hand long and tight... until she mentions her husband. You can see the exact moment when Matt registers, "Oh, damn -- he's probably watching this!!"

I invite you to join with Senator Kerry (see above item) to mail your current sentiments to 2004. When it would have meant a damn.

I couldn't see him because of all the breasts! For shame, for a woman to have breasts. I'm sure the President was completely offended.

"What are you going to learn with four more years in the Senate that you don't know now?"

Answer for both Edwards and Obama: How to stand up to Republicans when it matters.

"If something happens in the future, then we are doing something presently."

Future past imperfect? Subjuctuntive present pluperfect with a twist? Only Bushogrammatocryptographers know for sure!

"The more you suffer/the more it shows you really care.

Right?"

This is more telling than almost any other story on the administration's failure in Iraq. I remember too a clip from the Daily Show showing that, I think, the CIA director in charge of tracking and preventing Islamic terrorism didn't know the difference either.

The real difference that matters, though, is that historically Sunnis have been relatively open to interaction with the West; Shi'a have been more insular. Moreover, the great grudge held by Shi'ites, which resulted in a terrorism in the '70s, is held against the Sunnis themselves, for the Karbala massacre of 682. The Muslim world is about 80% Sunni, 20% Shi'ite, but Iraq is abotu 60% Shi'ite, 40% Sunni. How does a minority hold power over a majority? Brutal force. What happens when that force is lifted? The minority lashes out at the oppressors, and those who aided them. In the case of Iraq, that's us.

In answer to the question above, Osama bin Laden, as a Saudi, is Sunni. That he has become radicalized against the west is a bad sign indeed. For the conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites is as bas as ever, but now they both hate us too.

One of my all-time favorite novels is The Dead Zone (seriously!), precisely because of King's skillful use of a metaphor to tie the book together and give it a richer, deeper meaning.

It is, of course, one of his least supernatural books. I've enjoyed a lot of King in my life, but this is the only novel of this that stays with me. (The Kubrick film of The Shining, on the other hand....!)

Chad, you seem to be arguing that no voting system is perfect, so it doesn't matter which one we use. Wrong.

Sure, there is the capacity for error, or even manipulation, in any system that is by definition kept secret from all but a few eyes. But some are far and away better than others -- lower rates of mechanical counting error (I believe ScanTron is the lowest); fraud limited to a much smaller field of votes.

Touch Screens, on the other hand, can be altered globally by the mere "updating" of software, which is proprietary -- which means that NO ONE but the private company that makes it can see the code or know how it works. Not to mention the machines with wireless components, which can be hacked. In either case, no trace is left, the election is altered, but no one can show how or by whom. This is not theory. Computer and election experts have demonstrated for at least the last three or four years that it can be done, here's how someone could do it, and here are places (Georgia) where it probably WAS done.

Keef is right, and the Democrats have again shot themselves in their two left feet for not making this a central theme and campaign platform after 2000. If no one can ever verify any votes, there is no protection against either fraud or error, and people SHOULD distrust the system. I do.

If you have a touch screen without a paper receipt, vote absentee and lobby your state representatives, governor, and Secretary of State until something is done. This is not a conservative or liberal issue, it is a democracy issue.

"Jesus, he doesn't ride a donkey, nor does he ride an elephant," Stephens explained.

Perhaps the good pastor has fogotten Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem on a donkey (John 12:14-15). It was then that the downtrodden people recognized their Savior.

Will the saviors of the nation be borne by the donkey party this election? I don't know, but Pastor Stevens might want to consider the symbolism of Palm Sunday one more time, just to be sure.