For heaven's sake, what does Maureen Dowd want? Is she actually looking to throw the country into the arms of one of the 'Bush lite' Republican candidates for another four or eight years of tragedy? I am getting thoroughly tired of her consant cutting down of leading Democrats. No candidate is perfect, but at this point I'd have to say that any of the leading Democtatic candidates would represent a major improvement over any of the Republicans. And it's time that Dowd recognized this and considered the potential effect of her constant bashing of the people who represent the best hope we have of turning this country away from it's current disastrous course.

I have long been aware that when I start receiving the message about the ink cartridge being low I can usually print quite a few more pages before the print actually starts fading. I simply use the warning as a signal to be sure to have a new cartridge on hand. I just don't actually change the cartridge until I actually need to.

Isn't Ann Coulter's complaint that Elizabeth Edwards is trying to "censor" her an outright admission that she is incapable of writing or speaking anything but the personal attacks that are her specialty, and that Ms. Edwards asked her to stop?

It's certainly aggravating to hear right wingers blithely spouting off about about how "Clinton committed perjury" without the least awareness of the actual legal definitions that make the assertion so highly questionable. This is just one of countless instances of how the right wing noise machine manages to pollute our public discourse with their questionable or outright false assertions which, unfortunately, all too often are not effectively challenged.

Chessequette,

The legal distinction between lying under oath and perjury is absolutely NOT "laughable" or the "affront" that you claim. The distinction is between something that may well be morally deplorable but does not subject one to legal consequences and something that carries very deffinite legal consequences. I have no doubt whatsoever that Bush administration apologists would trumpet the very same distinction if it suited their purposes.

Sorry for typing the name wrong, Chrisequette!

What you have said is, sadly, all too true, Mr. Olbermann. And I only wish that there was a snowball's chance in h___ that either Bush or Cheney had it in them to actually comprehend what they have done, finally face up to their responsibility and do what you have suggested.

Just the thought of what we could be doing with these resources contrasted with what we are actually doing with them sends a wave of sadness through me. When, oh when, are we going to get our priorities straight?

Just how does Andrea Mitchell get away with claiming that polling indicates a majority of people think Libby should be pardoned? What poll is she looking at? A poll of the core supporters of the Republican party?

Actually, there's something appealing about Opus' ability to find something good to hold on to in life amid all the negative things going on that could too easily overwhelm us. I don't think he's ignoring all the bad that's going on. He's just reminding us that there is more to the world than that. That is cause for hope...and a gift.

Is there really any question of what Gen. Petraeus is going to say when the time comes? It doesn't matter what the situation on the ground will be in September. The general will maximize some faint signs of progress somewhere amidst the carnage, minimize the difficulties elsewhere, declare that it is enough to justify continuing with the president's policy and make a plea for patience and fortitude, saying that it will just take more time. What else can he do? What else has Bush himself been doing for years now? The script might as well have already been written out. We know what it's going to say.

As someone who follows baseball only in a very sporadic fashion, perhaps I can offer something of an outsider's untainted perspective to this issue. Personally, I don't buy the argument that, because other players have quite probably been violating baseball's drug policies too, Bonds should somehow be given a pass. Rather, it seem to me that ANY player who is found to be using steroids or other banned substances ought to be dealt with in a way that clearly shows that such behavior is not acceptable. In other words, breaking the rules of the game MUST have consequences.

If it is such a sure thing that Bonds has in fact depended on steroids to achieve his successes, then why is he still playing? And how can any records he establishes be accepted?

My strong impression is that the taint of probable drug use is much more the issue here than racial attitudes. It isn't just that Bonds isn't "cuddly" or that his personality grates on many people in ways that to some extent feed into racial stereotypes and anxieties. It's that he is widely perceived to have CHEATED. And that is not something to be honored.

Gonzales' capacity for evasion and stonewalling seems to be virtually limitless. In any reasonable, healthy political climate such egregious behavior would long ago have resulted in his removal from office. The fact that this has not happened is clear evidence of just how badly broken politics is in this country today.

Preventing Iraq from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda, avoiding genocide and stopping the conflicts in Iraq from expanding into a regional conflagration would seem to be worthy goals. But at this point I wonder to what extent any of those goals can realistically be achieved. My fear is that no matter what we do now things aren't going to be pretty. That's how badly Bush and his minions have messed things up.