When you're used to getting prime and immediate attention for what you write-- no matter how Heather-like-- it must be pretty frustrating to try and keep the attention to your work at a satisfying level... now that your online readers must actually subscribe to your work, and so many refuse.

So she creates/triangulates a fight from nothing, and then just steps back to watch the fur fly. At least in this case, Geffen has said that he was actually quoted correctly, unlike her from-thin-air quote about Nascar, which Kerry never said. (I could go on... )

I really don't know if I can bear another election with Dowd sniping at the Democratic field from the sidelines. I know to expect it from the RightWing and the Republicans, but she's supposed to be writing for the "liberal" media. Not from where I sit.

I guess her telling of history is not quite "military" enough, without all of the requisite blood and gore?

Still, "March of Folly" is soooooo timely.

...that the original vote authorizing force was allowed to go to a straight up or down vote...

but a new vote (as mandated by the American people in the 2006 midterm election) to reconsider that one, must now be voted to cloture.

How very Publican-party-minded.

Wouldn't an ambassador to Belgium have to administer some kind of budget, or at least exercise some oversight over disbursements?

After all, given Mr. Fox's urge to give, what is there to stop one of our "enemies" (e.g., a member of a terrorist cell) from going to the embassy and just asking Mr. Fox, should he be confirmed, for some money for some supposedly charitable cause? Say... $50,000. Would he even check it out?

Has Mr. Fox really not paid any attention at all to the depressing news stories about the US dollars that have been "disappeared" in Iraq because no one bothered even to write down the amounts and to whom they were given, much less why?

Still, Mr. Fox does fit the typical profile of a Bush crony who has so little of real substance to offer in this situation, but merely glides along being rewarded with plum assignments simply because he is a Loyalist. One with enough money of his own to buy his way into the club.

More importantly, though, doesn't Mr. Fox really just believe that (his) ends justify (his) means? Even if it means being obsequious today with Senator Kerry-- a war hero whom he yesterday helped the $SBVT to smear-- in order to secure a cushy position in the EU? Apparently.

Thus, he is, after all, a perfect fit for this administration.

The majority of the press corps wants desperately to be the smartest kids on the block, as well as the coolest kids, and on the A-lists of party invitees, in order to feel that they are receiving their due. Thank god there are a few that know what's more important.

Gore may have appeared stiff, but much of that was due to the press's reporting on him (if you haven't read about the incident at Dartmouth, search The Daily Howler) to fit their own narrative.

I have very little sympathy for whatever trials the majority of the press is experiencing right now. Are they worried about a loss of status because they've been wrong about so much, or, perhaps losing their jobs, because serious consumers of news often look to the internet instead of to print or to broadcast infotainment? I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, it will be quite awhile longer before enough of them experience anything like the recent travails of the middle and working classes. Not enough of the social contract has been compromised yet.

Bush may have seemed amiable enough during the 2000 campaign, but any reporter worth his or her salt (i.e., those who do research) had to know that he was incompetent, except at failing upwards, through the graces of his Daddy's friends. No problem feeling smarter than, and superior to, someone like that. However... they did not want to risk being denied access, and so had to avoid offending. Result? Free pass.

A completely different story wrt Gore. Clearly, he was often the smartest person in the room. The press could not feel superior to him. Access wasn't really an issue. They could really only attack him on his "coolness" factor. So much for substantive reporting. Instead, they convinced or enabled the public into thinking they should vote for GWB, the candidate they'd rather have a beer with... the candidate who has been a dry-drunk ever since he saw the light and quit once he turned 40. Now that's irony.

Why is there a bit more of a pushback against Coulter by conservatives this time? (The petition circultating on some blogs, public statements by other candidates, etc.)

Because John Edwards' campaign immediately posted a video clip of her comments on his website, as an opportunity to raise more money. That he could raise so much money so quickly, with that little clip says that her remarks really do mean something in the broader scheme of things. And it must really grate on Publicans and conservatives everywhere that Edwards' campaign could perform that bit of Ju-Jitsu.

Still, it will probably have little effect on Coulter's income from her books. Her base will buy them anyway.