Borrowing liberally from Glenn's post, here is what I sent to Lee Hamilton:

"Subject: Michael Mukasey / Alleged Pre-9/11 Terrorist Call

Last week, during a question-and-answer session following a speech he delivered in San Francisco, Attorney General Michael Mukasey claimed that, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration was aware of a telephone call being made by an Al Qaeda Terrorist from what he called a "safe house in Afghanistan" into the U.S., but failed to eavesdrop on that call. In that speech, Mukasey blamed FISA's warrant requirement for the failure to eavesdrop on that call -- an assertion which is, for multiple reasons, completely false. As you are aware, the 9/11 Commission Report -- intended to be a comprehensive account of all relevant pre-9/11 activities -- makes no mention whatsoever of the episode Mukasey described.

As Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, it is your duty to confirm the veracity of these claims. The purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to ensure that there was full-scale investigation and disclosure of all facts relevant to the 9/11 attacks, including the Government's actions and inactions in preventing that attack from occurring. As such, preventing high government officials from lying about the 9/11 attacks or exposing concealment of key 9/11 facts is your obligation as Vice Chairman.

I was heartened to read that you endorse Barack Obama for the presidency, and I agree that he will bring the right balance of diplomacy, judgment and toughness to the myriad foreign policy issues that confront us. But his mission will be severely hampered if this discrepancy is left unresolved.

As the person with the authority to get to the truth, I strongly urge you to look into this critically important issue."

"In a 2007 poll conducted jointly by the Washington Post and ABC News, 21 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a given candidate for president solely because that candidate smoked."

"Less likely" . . . "solely because that candidate smoked"?Anyone who even answers that question is a f*cking idiot.

I never liked her smugness and hate it when NPR trots her out as some unbiased source of "insider information." NPR is nothing like it used to be 20 years ago. Another example of right-wing politicization of what is supposed to be a public, unbiased service.

"1 or more years" is extremely misleading. I would bet that most people read that and think, "oh, 2 or 3, maybe 4 years at the most."

I'de like to see a poll that asks readers if 5 - 10 years or 10 or more years (or in the case of McCain, a 100 years)is "OK." I bet the data on that question will be a LOT less ambiguous.

The reality is that a "victory" in republican terms will take 10-20 years, if at all.

These weighted systems may have been necessary in the days when communications were delivered by ship, stagecoach or rail, but today it should be one person, one vote, country-wide. I would suggest a weekend or one-week voting period with mail-in or secure kiosks as options.

But of course, what would Iowa and New Hampshire do? Where would they get all the revenue that is driven by the ridiculous media focus on their states? Not to mention that low population states would be rendered relatively powerless compared to today. But under the current system, millions of voters in high population states are marginalized. Equal representation by states has its place in the Senate, but not in national elections.

McCain just wasn't expecting an articulate question from a 16-year-old that exceeds those given by 99% of journalists in the MSM. His pathetic response must mean that she was a heckler.

The only people who confer credibility to Condi are completely ignorant or already in the tank for W (and by extension, McCain). I don't see anything about Condi Rice that would sway the "undecided" voter (if there is such a thing these days).

Also, race and gender may be a factor in a primary where the candidates offer very similar policy prescriptions, but given the wide policy differences of the general election, there's too much real contrast for these elements to have significant influence.

I would love any current member of the Bush Administration to run on the McCain ticket. I can hear them chanting now: "4 More Years! 4 More Years!!" Music to my ears.

And I suppose a lot of other Dems are too. I've given some so far, and mostly to candidates challenging republican senate seats, but I've got a fair amount reserved for November.

This is what many don't realize. The Democratic base, which has always been much larger than the republican base, is fully charged. And if the Democratic nominee accepts public financing, which they probably won't, I'll channel the money into progressive 527s or any other group I think will make a difference.

Yes, McCain will have a lot of free media publicity, but we can counter that as well through aggressive commentary.

We got to start building some momentum on the airwaves. To achieve MSM coverage requires starting with the reliable sources: Olbermann (who has given some time but needs to take it up a notch), Maher (who I was disappointed didn't mention it last Friday), Stewart and Colbert.

I'm posting on all their blogs, as well as Clinton and Obama. High profile people (no disrespect to Glenn or Rachel Maddow) have to start putting this issue up front and center. I'm going to start challenging all of the above to invite Glenn on their shows as well.