...but that doesn't mean he will actually hold up his end of the agreement and spend time with the children. More likely, he will simply not show up and will only disappoint them even more with each no-show.

At least that's been my experience...

So-- don't let the fear of his getting visitation keep you from doing what may ultimately be best for both you and your children. Changing your home environment and making it safer for all of you can only be to the good. (Hopefully, your financial/job situation will allow you to make this choice.) If your home life has been shaky and unpredictable, your children will appreciate (even though they may not be able to verbalize it) having a more secure home environment.

After thought: Of course, you don't have to say anything negative to your children about their father, though you might want to acknowledge that he is sick and (so far) unwilling to seek help to get better, which is why you and they need to live separately from him, at least for now.

Your children will see the truth for themselves, and will not appreciate hearing their father being bad-mouthed (especially after being told he is sick). It's confusing enough to love a parent who is incapable of acting like one without having it rubbed in your face.

You cannot go wrong by taking the high road when speaking to your children about their father, alcoholic or not.

Hooray!!! It's about time!

In fact, freezing out Fox will probably do more good than bad for Obama's campaign. Like others here, I only wish that the rest of the Democratic party would do the same and leave Fox to the Publicans and Lieberman et al.

I'm trying to imagine the the effect on Bush's administration of being on Air Force One or in the WH (or in Cheney's hotel room!) and not being able to see any of the majority party's representatives... what would that be like?

Would they eventually change the channel, if only out of curiosity? Or would they just start a rumor that the "Democrat" party no longer exists? ...thus proving their out-of-touchness with Reality?

by any members of the senate, and we could have that vote for cloture that was evaded with finesse this week... just more informally. Even a few short of 60 would still make quite a statement.

How about Gore/Webb in '08?

"Today's Senate Republicans have no intention of giving over Bush, regardless of how badly he ruins the nation."

They're only trying to outlast him, just as Bush is trying to outlast this war, and leave the defeat for someone else. What is unbelievable is that the GOP seems to be in a similar state of denial... thinking that they still have a chance of winning anything in 2008, just as Bush seems to think he can still "win" in Iraq, based on nothing more than his will. None of them really believes in the mandate of the midterm elections; Bush because someone else has always saved his skin before it was too late, and the Publicans because they've seen Bush get away with so much for so long.

I can't help but see our wounded in Iraq as really being casualties in our war at home. A war over what our Constitution really represents. We're simply too advanced and sophisticated to fight our own civil war on our own ground, when we can fight it over there instead, even if it means unnecessarily spilling American blood over there.

The filibuster seems to be most effective lately as a threat, rather than as an actual tactic. Perhaps Harry Reid really should consider calling the GOP's bluff and letting the filibuster go forward. I agree that it only makes the the minority members appear to be even more obstructionist. ...as if they didn't pay mind to the results of the mid-term election, and like Bush, keep expecting to play for an extra point, essentially a do-over.

In the meantime, and in pointed contrast, the Democrats in both houses can begin and continue the many investigations we have been promised.

I continue to believe that if the Democratic committee chairs (Conyers, Waxman, et al) do as they have promised, then the inevitably embarrassing testimonies will leave the GOP no choice but to stop Bush by any means, impeachment, if necessary.

But it means that someone has to ask the tough questions, and then follow up with even tougher ones. No more letting things slide... This is why the majority party has the power of the subpoena. Let's hope they use it!

Since my last comment seconding letting a filibuster go forward, I have read something in the Washington Post that makes me think perhaps Harry Reid was a step ahead of us in calling the GOP's bluff: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702550_pf.html

I keep reminding myself that the man is a boxer, and now I'm wondering if perhaps that makes him even better at reading people than a good poker player would be.

Nancy Pelosi is standing firm, but John Boehner is tearing up at the description by another member of anti-war protests from more than 30 years ago...

The new congress should provide ample opportunity to compare the study's "results" with real life examples of high stakes initiatives, in spite of the vast disparity between the numbers of women and men in congress.