Thanks for the link about McCain's voting record. While I don't want to get off track and into detail about his specific policy positions and I certainly am not inclined to defend him, I stand by my main point, which is that he is not as bad as others. Have you seen Mitt Romney's responses to the Globe's survey about executive power? And McCain's real positions on the Christian right, Bush tax cuts, and campaign finance are somewhat obscured by the political reality of having had to run to the right to get through the filter (barely) of the primary season. (In the same way that Hillary might say she had to vote for a flag-burning amendment--political reality calling for both the left and the right to run right, inexplicably). As for his "hundred years" comment, I maintain he is deliberately misunderstood on this point to political advantage. He clearly meant another hundred years in the way that we are still in Germany fifty years after that war. I try hard to live by the Golden Rule, which is to say that I simply can't stand the kind of dishonest interpretation of comments like Michelle Obama's "really proud of America" or John Kerry's uneducated troops joke or, well, you get my point.

I certainly don't want a McCain presidency, but there is a smaller difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton than there was between George W. Bush and either Al Gore or John Kerry. (imo)

As an aside, the word "moderate" is misleading I think. Some people use it to mean being in the middle on most positions, while others use it when they feel very strongly on most positions but in a way that's not aligned with either the left or right. John McCain has taken a public stand against torture (to his detriment on the right), this latest vote notwithstanding; he clearly aligns more with the left here. But on abortion, he is most definitely on the right.

Anyway, I hope Obama rallies enough supporters to render this whole Nader thing moot.

Bill: I say this around my house all the time, German accent and all. My kids think I'm nuts.

"Karl Rove and others at the White House were subpoenaed to testify before Congress but they refused to appear. And the Justice Department has refused to turn over hundreds of documents in the case."

You may be right about the top down regarding nonsupport of McCain--being a ruse, that is--but I am positively immersed in right-wing world in terms of neighbors, friends, and family, and they didn't get the memo. They don't like McCain b/c he's "too liberal." They'll vote for him, of course, b/c if as you say Rush is supporting him then they will eventually absorb the message. But they think Hillary is a socialist, too. I keep telling them that she is not nearly liberal enough for most liberals.

Anyway, I will read more about McCain. But I worry that the left loses credibility if we just paint each Republican candidate as the same evil villain. How is that different than the National Review discovering each election season that the presumptive Democratic nominee happens to be the most liberal Senator? (that being an epithet for them, of course). I see myself as capable of nuance, which is not to say that any of them are acceptable. Just that they are not equally evil. Does that make sense? I mean, the man has genuinely pissed off the right-wing establishment, no?

Glad to know I wasn't the only one spending the whole night catching up on Hogan's Heroes!! But I was searching for Shultz saying "very, very interesting" b/c I SWEAR it was him. Not "very interesting" but "very, very interesting." I just couldn't find any video of it, but I did see references to it on google.