His was the greatest fall. Remember the lead-up to the war, how he was always the counterpoint to the Three Stooges (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld)? The reluctant hero, the nonpartisan warrior who genuinely wanted to avoid war.

That's what made his betrayal so poignant, so devastating. He had the credibility, the status, to make the underwhelming case for war seem legitimate (not to all of course). I remember reading a column the next day by Ellen Goodman, saying the content of the presentation didn't sway her but the solemn, distinguished messenger did. (It goes without saying that his reputation for integrity and nonpartisanship was the very reason he was chosen to make the international case. That he allowed himself to be used like this--that's the tragedy).

Shakespeare couldn't have written it better.

Bill Kristol? The fool. You know, that jackass put into plays for a bit of comic relief.

In the "sorting years" (8ish - 14ish) when kids are preening and bullying and trying out for different groups of friends, it's so darn hard on the parents. And we find ourselves all of a sudden sort of understanding those cliched, news making mothers who do bodily harm to adolescents in the name of their kids. Because when our kids feel hurt or left out, it just kills us and we get really angry at the whole stinking family two doors down who have raised and are endorsing such wickedness right under their noses. Do their eyes not see?

Then we take a walk in the neighborhood ("for exercise") with the other mother. And we see her worries about her kid from her perspective. And our own perspective changes. We feel a lot less heated. We feel something akin to empathy. Humility, community, a little bit of the golden rule...these are civilizing things.

is like Cheney letting Big Oil decide energy policy.

The point of government is to shape policy in the interests of the people. If you can't or won't do that, step down and let someone else to the hard work of integrating all the variables instead of merely reacting to the invisible hand.

My questions relate to zacgraves' one.

For some of us, Hillary's hanging on did untold damage to Barack Obama's candidacy among independents by removing the general air of excitement around Obama. That last stretch about the working class white voters, etc., all happened when she ostensibly didn't have a chance to win. While HRC fans were crying foul and sexism about the "push" to get her out, which effectively stifled many fair-minded Dems who supported BO, HRC's campaign was taking shots at BO's ability to connect with Appalachians, etc., and nurturing a meme that we all knew would have traction in the general: the elitism thing. It's one of those themes that Republicans perennially use against Dems but felt all wrong coming from one Dem to another.

So, really, what were HRC's motives at that time? Did she really, actually think she was going to win somehow? Was she in some kind of bubble, where she avoided even really thinking about the end game? Or is there evidence (or even a gut feeling among insiders) that she genuinely wanted to sabotage BO and increase her own viability in 2012? Why this nasty stuff right before it was over?

I think you should ignore my last post and chalk my ramblings up to salon derangement. Go and read a good book and think of me while I trudge through these boring articles on truancy...

I don't really think that you dominate the conversation. I think I mean, and I'm having trouble articulating what I really mean here and don't have time to get it perfect, so take it for what it's worth: I think you stay very, very narrow--very literal, kind of like an autistic person or someone with Asperger's Syndrome would. Please don't be offended; I'm giving these as extremes to get you toward what I mean. It's like you stay extremely tight to exactly how you've framed something but sometimes people want to talk about the same thing but through a different lens. I think it's a quality that can be an excellent attribute, especially for anything like legal or medical or editorial work that requires attention to detail and very rigorous or logical thinking. But sometimes I think people need to step outside of that for a moment and see the bigger picture. (If it's of any interest to you, I've thought the same thing about the great Glenn Greenwald, whom I admire very much. I guess I'm circling around Ben Sen's ideology thing. A rigidity of thinking or something)

I think some of the care and detail you've put into your arguments about the freedom of the press are then just abandoned in later discussions about some of the other examples like pornography, etc. Almost all of your responses suggested some inconsistencies with your prior thinking. I was asking for a line on pornography and you didn't really answer the question; instead you gave some factual answers (factual in that they represent your opinions) but didn't really frame them the way I asked the question. Nobody has to, of course, I was just observing it.

ugh. I'm all messed up and panicked about time now. I'm sorry and please don't take offense. I have lots of these issues that I'm talking about so maybe I'm projecting. Yes on procrastination but mine is more (or different) than a character flaw. I'm talking biology here--serious adhd. It can really get in the way of a productive life.

Have a good one.