When was it that Democratic party switched to be solely motivated by fear of future castigation? Were they subjected en masse to Skinnerian conditioning, so that any though of action brings an immediate terror of reprisal? Apparently so, since they are now incapable of acting in any meaningful fashion, paralyzed by the thought that whatever they do will bring censure upon them.

They haven't realised yet that they're going to be torn apart in some of the press no matter what they do. If they make a politically injudicious move, it will be harped on for months. If they don't, then one will be invented. They need to get to the point where they no longer care that this happens, and simply govern anyway.

As it stands now, they are hostage to this fear. Worse, they are displaying signs of Stockholm Syndrome, and slowly identifying with the agenda of their captors instead of that of their constituents. That this should be happening now, when their opposition is at a historic low and the country is clamouring to support them if they'd but act, is even more heartbreaking.

I'd say this bullhorn does deserve to remain as the enduring emblem of his presidency, given its context and utility - it magnifies empty rhetoric to desperate people from the center of the fallout of incompetence.

Decent numbers, but what percentage of those polled were Democrats? Because we know exactly who the Republicans want to run against.

The Republicans are afraid of Hillary Clinton.

Or at least they would be if she were ever President. I think they know, along with enough of voting America, that that outcome is pretty unlikely. And she's the perfect candidate to galvanize their misogynist, anti-intellectual, "that looks like a librul!" hater base. Their Br'er Rabbit routine may have fooled you, but it doesn't wash with me.

Trust me, I'm to the left of Ségolène Royal in a lot of issues, and I probably still won't vote for Hillary. Because she's not a liberal, she's the DLC's stalking horse.

She's the only one that has the experience, via her husband's electoral vicotries, of beating the Republicans for the presidency in the past 25 years.

Didn't know things worked via osmosis like that. So by your logic I have my partner's experience with childbirth now? Excellent, I'll go out and get pregnant tomorrow.

As she said last night, she has been fighting the right wing for 15 years and she knows how to come out on top.

Yes, by becoming indistinguishable from them. Which is perfect if you want a candidate with a (D) after their name, but not so hot if you want one with a truly democractic spirit.

If she is put up as the Democratic candidate, we're fucked. I'm so sure of this I'm prepared to eat my hat, liberally covered in habanero sauce. That will be a pleasure compared to when she's put up and loses, because then we'll all be eating shit for four years.

Apart from no longer drawing a publicly funded check, I don't see how the situation is altered. Until there's a trial or other legal action taken to bring him to account, nothing has changed. His new un-official status doesn't affect his influence on the President either.

I'm afraid that TrueBlue is most likely correct in that this is just a strategic move to free up time to concentrate on 2008. Remember, we have to have some kind of crisis by then so that we can suspend normal elections, possibly for the remainder of America's lifespan.

You could think of this move as if one was serving in the National Guard for appearances, and then went AWOL to work on more important political manoeuvering. Not that any sane politician would do that...

In a poll in which people weren't allowed to vote for Chocolate, Vanilla, or Strawberry.

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it here because I never get a good answer - who is the heir apparent to Bush? Who is incurious, pious but amoral, affably stupid yet pettily truculent, and above all easily manipulated by less palatable powermongers? Whoever that is, it is they who will be placed on the ticket by the neocons and no one else.

I would like to add my voice to the chorus asking that this trope of "genius" be laid to rest. There is nothing of the genius in his words or deeds, only the rudderless navigations of the sociopath.

Civilization is a compact between people that assumes most people will act ethically most of the time. It acknowledges that there will be incidents of crime and fraud, and for these it appoints laws and custodians, but in large it functions with the understanding that most citizens at any one point are working for its contunance and maintenance.

His actions, and the actions of this administration, are a violation of this trust, a calculated and callow betrayal of the social accord that allows civilization to continue. They have broken the mechanism of accountable democracy, plundered the public coffers, and poisoned the channels of communication. These are not acts of genius, they are crimes of the conscienceless.

The pact of civilization is now rent in this nation, perhaps irreparably for the America we have known. The only ones who continue to support these criminals and their actions are the disenfranchised and the sociopathic, who detest civilization in all its measure and believe, wrongly, that they will prosper in its chaotic dissolution.