...than telling someone the truth. That's what Colbert did. Did it go beyond "respectful disagreement" (which Bush has completely ignored)? Maybe -- but Colbert is a comedian. He's playing the role of the fool, the person who can tell the truth to the most powerful person when no one else will.

The obsequious people who never disagree with Bush aren't showing him respect. Giving in to a bully or a spoiled child isn't respectful. Standing up in the spotlight and calling a spade a spade shows the highest respect.

It's too bad it takes an entertainer to do this. The Democratic leadership should be so strong.

...for backbone like this. Go, Russ.

Incidents like this show why the strategy of painting ALL Republicans with the same brush is stupid -- it's not true, it's not fair, and it will always come back to bite you in the butt.

Yes, the Republican party is the party of the Christian Right; yes, it includes criminals and slimeballs. However, it also includes moderate Republicans who are responsible adults not insanely drunk with power. Similarly, the Democratic party has principled leaders; it also has its fair share of slimeballs. Imagining otherwise is ridiculous; using the "They're a corrupt party!" strategy is lunacy.

While the Democratic leadership is pointing fingers at the criminal behavior of some Republicans, someone somewhere better be coming up with platforms, statements, strategies, ideas, and programs that voters can vote FOR in November. Focusing on corruption in politics will keep thinking voters away from the polls in droves.

Why do Republicans get to set any kind of bar? Why aren't Howard Dean and Pelosi out there setting a different standard for "victory"?

When are Democrats going to act like leaders instead of whiners? Yes, the President and his minions are behaving like children -- they're doing everything they can, just to see if they can get away with it, and they're getting away with murder. But instead of being responsible adults, the Democratic party is just saying, "Ummm, you're bad! I'm going to tell Mommy!" imagining voters to be Mommy. However, voters don't like voting for children, regardless of party.

Meanwhile, lots of people are dying in Iraq. What weird priorities this country has.

Excuse me? Senator Clinton had a role in her husband's lapse in judgment? WHAT?

And by the way, you can forget about Belinda Stronach. She's nowhere near as intelligent, savvy, or principled as Senator Clinton. And I'm not even a big fan of the senator's, though I respect her intellect and strength of character.

This is the kind of "political" coverage that makes me cringe. Reporters wouldn't dream of hounding Laura Bush about the traffic accident in her past -- in which someone close to her died -- or press her to explain the matters about which she disagrees with her husband. Instead, this story focuses on a family matter in which no one died.

This kind of crap must be easier than asking tough questions of today's leaders, who are in the business of trampling the Constitution and sending soldiers to die for no good reason.

But cheap shots make bad journalism.

Nobody really cares until it hits close to home. Finding out that my own country monitors my private phone calls feels more invasive than when other people are tortured or held at Gitmo. In theory, everyone's rights are as important to me as my own, but in practice, they aren't. It's not right, but there it is.

The same is true of our elected officials -- until the abuse hits their own filing cabinets, it's happening to someone else.

And yes, every corrupt official in both parties should resign, and not just the ones who get caught. But that happens only in the ideal world. Not this one.

Of course the questions were easy. Why do you think he did the interview?

His staff and advisors may have told him he has to get more media exposure, but nobody said it would have to be challenging. So they picked a place where he'd get softball questions. Quel surprise.

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have inspired millions of words already. The events have been invoked to support actions that have created more horror, more victims, and more terror. "International security," code for "9/11," wins or loses votes, determines trade policy, alienates neighbors, and kills people from many countries in Iraq, London, Madrid, Afghanistan, Indonesia. Please. Enough.

Reverent silence is far more powerful than words. A monument is in some ways a futile exercise -- it won't bring back the victims. But it creates a place, a physical location, for reverent silence. In that silence, we may find the humility to remember how the world came to be there, in that place, at that time, and how it has come to be now, in this place, at this time. In silence, we can mourn, remember, learn, give thanks, and draw strength, each of us in our own way.

But please -- no more words.

So far, Feingold is the only candidate I would vote FOR -- not just because I agree with his positions but because he has them. He knows what they are and so do we. He's gone beyond criticizing those in power to proposing different ways to believe and behave.

There's no one else in the Democratic primaries to vote FOR. They all represent votes AGAINST: yeah, against the ignorance, corruption, and fear that the Republicans have glorified and exploited for 8 years. But people want to vote FOR something or someone, not AGAINST something or someone.

There's still time for other Democratic candidates to step up to the mark that Feingold has set. There's plenty of room in the race for a more conservative candidate, like Warner or Sen. Clinton, to propose different policies and philosophies that would give other people, perhaps more people, something to vote FOR.

Until they come up with something better than "support troops" or "create focus groups," go Russ.