What the dems need to do is this. When Bush is giving the State of the Union address, and starts saying how the dems failed to protect the country by not passing an eavesdropping bill. The dems need to stand up in unison, and just walk out. Don't say a word while they do it, but just turn their backs on him. Just the simple act of shunning him, would be an extraordinary defiant act.

Well now that Edwards has dropped out of the race, the best candidate we could of put up, I will have to grudgingly support Obama. But assuming that Obama gets the nomination and somehow wins the White House, here is my biggest fear. Obama, in an effort at "bipartisanship", will call for the country to move forward. That the crimes of the Bush administration should be forgotten. No investigations, no special prosecutors, just let sleeping dogs lie. Does anyone else see this happening? As soon as we get Bush out of the White House, the calls to not look back will be immense. Even if Hillary wins the nomination, it will be the same thing. She'll call to move the country forward. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary or Obama were to issue a pardon to Bush, for any crimes he may or may not have committed. That's if Bush doens't take care of that one already. I can see him resigning Jan 19th, to allow Cheney to become prez to issue him a pardon. Either way the man will get away with everything he's done, which makes me sick.

Speaking of 60 minutes, did anyone see the story on the FBI agent that interviewed Saddam? What disgusted me was the intro to the story. I can't remember who the reporter was, but he made the statement that Saddam was a man that drew us into 2 wars. Yeah it was all Saddam's fault for the second war, right? He wouldn't give up those damn wmd's, so we had to invade. We had no choice. It had nothing to do with Bush, it was all Saddam's fault. The plain historical revisionism on display made me want to puke.

Yes I believe it was the US Ambassador to Iraq at the time, can't remember the name but remember it was a woman. Saddam asked if the US would have a problem with him invading Kuwait, and she said no they wouldn't. But of course the 60 minutes reporter didn't mention that on the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait. He said it was because the Kuwaiti ambassador had insulted Saddam. Said something to the effect that Iraqi woman can all become whores for all he cares. Saddam didn't take that too well, so he invaded the country. Of course the American people must never be informed that our ambassador green lighted the invasion.

To the person that asked why Bush keeps winning every legislative battle, while being thoroughly unpopular. Just read that article posted by associated-individualist. MONEY, that's why!. The telco companies spend huge sums to lobby our senators and representatives. They buy the legislation they want. It's the same deal with every other huge corporate interest group. So the telco companies will get their immunity, even though majority of Americans are opposed to it. They just buy the votes to make it possible.

I was just listening to the Ed Schultz show, and guest host Norman Goldman said a compromise has been reached on the FISA bill. He said that there will be no telco immunity but that the gov't will be substituted as defendant in place of the phone companies. Basically it sounds like Feinstein's bill. So while not technically immunity it's basically the same damn thing. The phone companies will be off the hook. The court cases will be moved to the secret FISA court, so we will never know who or how many people were spied upon without warrants. Way to stand strong dem leadership.

To the poster that noted Canada, UK, France etc are democracies, and would get rid of universal health care if it didn't work. That's a damn good point. One of the most disgusting arguments against UHC, is that it will lead to rationing of health care. As if our system has no rationing of health care at all. 18,000 people die every year because they can't pay for health care. Isn't that rationing of health care? I think we have to get past this silly notion that perfection is attainable. No system ever designed by man has ever been perfect, especially when it comes to health care. Is UHC perfect, no. Yes there are problems, just like in our system. What we need to do is design a system that works the best for the most amount of people. Unfortunately neither Hillary or Obama's health care plans are true universal health care plans. They still rely on insurance companies, the people who cause most of the problems in our system. We must get rid of the profit motive, if we are to truly solve the problem of health care in this country. All hospitals should be non-profit institutions. Doctors need to get paid a reasonable living, but not an excoribitant one. Drug companies that take federal money to develop drugs, should have to let the gov't determine the price. One that insures the company a decent profit, but not an outrageous one. There are lots of things that can be done to solve our health care crisis. Stop seeking perfection and start seeking what works best for the most amount of people.