I agree with all the supportive comments with regard to Paul, and am astounded that a Republican is spouting such ideas.

However, I disagree that the Republican Party will pay any substantial price for suppressing him. My experience has been that most Americans, Republican or Democrat, simply don't want to hear about blowback because we don't really want to believe that America could ever be anything but pure and just.

All the terrible aspects of our foreign policy since at least World War II - toppling democratically-elected leaders, stifling reform in autocratic regimes, etc. - make us very uncomfortable when people start detailing them too thoroughly. People don't like to be reminded that we enabled Saddam's dictatorship throughout the 1980s.

We as a people would never vote for a politician who discussed the unsavory bits of our past with any regularity.

It's a sad state of affairs when America when liberals think it's okay for a public figure like Al Gore - a once and perhaps future candidate for the presidency, no less - to only accept questions handed to him on index cards. Is this so fundamentally different from Bush's carefully screened crowds?

God forbid anyone in the audience have a spontaneous, politically incorrect query, and that his Highness, Lord Al, might have to answer something he found uncomfortable. Like maybe his gluttonous energy use, for example, which is terribly inconvenient as he constantly jets around the globe preaching... about carbon footprints and such.

I have a few questions that might be inconvenient for Gore. Does he support the reinstitution of habeas corpus guarantees? Does he think warrantless wiretaps of American citizens are okay? Would he be willing to go on record - without cute qualifications - in saying that he believes warrantless wiretaps are unconstitutional and should be forbidden once again?

Call me cynical, but I think it's an even bet as to whether any of the current (or, in Gore's case, potential) Democratic candidates, once in office, would be willing to give up these trappings of the imperial presidency. Kucinich or Gravel, perhaps.

The notion that "we've lost some of our soul" is quaint, romantic, and fashionable among lefties and artist-types these days. Maybe it's even true in a limited sense, but not so much when you consider the broader context of our history.

America's boastful rhetoric about its status as "shining city on a hill" has always been self-serving and hypocritical. It's clear by a rudimentary study of our history that we at no time were willing to extend our exalted democratic traditions to people in other parts the world if that meant going against our economic interests. No, in those cases (Iran, Chile, etc.) it was all about buying despots who protected "our interests" (really, those of the elite like the Bush clan) and human rights be damned.

That Americans appear to have turned on themselves since 9/11 is indeed regrettable, but the developing world is well-acquainted with just how vicious, petty, and selfish we can be.

It was easier for the U.S. to appear virtuous in the Cold War years, when our adversary was so obviously a totalitarian state that did not even indulge in human rights rhetoric. It's a new, messier world these days, and that post-WWII image of the U.S. was bound to fall.

I thought both Gore and Kerry were weak candidates: transparently phony and apparently capable of speaking only in talking points. Of course, I always thought Bush was ridiculously fake as well, but he had the advantage of being a warmonger, which is attractive to a significant number of Americans - provided they don't have to do the actual fighting.

Obama, though probably no more intelligent than Clinton or Edwards, appears to genuinely wrestle with the myriad of contradictions and difficulties of any aspect of public policy. I like that he appears reluctant to offer a new social program for every problem.

Clinton and Edwards appear, by turns, shrill and shallow. Clinton, with her absurdly bad, affected Southern accent (especially pronounced when speaking to black audiences), is positively tone-deaf to the nuances of both verbal and non-verbal communication. Edwards, the former trial lawyer, gives the same speech over and over like he's rehearsing his closing argument. He looks like a complete lightweight when asked a question he hasn't rehearsed.

After the idiocy of Bush, I want a president who can be thoughtful on his feet. Obama would seem to fit that requirement.

Let's see... we buy the largest, most gas-guzzling vehicles of any country on the planet, then whine about gas prices. As long as we remain like junkies in dire need of our next fix, the oil companies have us exactly where they want us. But it's all the fault of the energy companies!

This is a great example of why so much rhetoric on the environment, sustainable energy policy, etc. is a joke - even among so-called progressives. Americans will do anything but conserve. I cannot abide cry-babies who drive SUVs (alone) to their jobs every day. I hope gas prices go to $5 a gallon just to hear them wail.