To know what made the 60's special you need to understand what makes a culture. Basically its a shared vision amongst a population of who they are as a people, (country, nation, ethnicity, whatever) and where they are headed. Usually this vision is able to be verbalized by the people of a given culture since it is so ubiquitous, as it must be by definition, it goes unnoticed. The really important part of a functioning culture is that this vision must be transmitted from generation to generation for it to be a viable culture.

What happened in the 60's is for various reasons the children of the newest generation rejected this cultural handoff from their parents. They looked at what their parents were handing down and basically said, "You're nuts!" and went off to start their own new culture based (loosely) on love. As you know they failed. So that is why the 60's are so special. Whether people know it or not, culturally it was the beginning of the end of our people.

The next chapter of the story deals with a new generation growing up, having rejected their parents culture and having failed to come up with a working culture of their own, they proceeded to fill in the gaps with what was at hand. Money.

On all the talk shows, repub defenders keep interrupting people who are saying McCain said "100 years", saying McCain never said that, or thats not what he meant, or saying he meant it in the context of Korea or Germany which is totally intellectually dishonest.

Funny, it seemed pretty straight up to me. He said it.

Hey WES, if we adopted a policy of constructive diplomacy instead of, oh say... bombing and killing the residents of the middle east, I would personally have no problem with however Iraq and Iran want to ally or organize themselves.

I'm pretty sure that 9/11/01, Islamo-Fascism Awareness Day, pretty much succeeded in making people aware of Islamo-Fascism, making these 'weeks' pretty much pointless.

How many senior moments can you have before they are not moments anymore, but a lifestyle?

I hate these kinds of pieces postulating that men and women might be different. Obviously they are. Most people learn this quite early.

Then I'm also annoyed when these 'differences' are slanted as to be negative to one side or the other. How silly. Why not ask: Are women more prudent than men?

Since, as ABC reported the president was 'insulated' from all these enhanced interrogation conversations, it'd be hard to see how they could use executive privilege to cover th... Nevermind, they WILL claim executive privilege, wrongfully, and the congress will be too spineless to call em on it.

I don't think executive privilege is hard law but even if it was, my point is that since the principals involved EXCLUDED the president from their discussions why should they be covered by executive privilege which is supposed to protect the president's ability to get candid advice from his advisers?

On the right the personality attacks are the POINT of the article or story. Where as on the left, pointing out that a right-wing leader who vociferously promotes and supports family values, support for military or hardline stances against drug offenders is also a multiple divorced, draft-dodger with an illegal pill habit is called journalism.

Anyone who can't see that shouldn't be called a journalist.

IF HRC can only win (as per the majority of poli analysts) if Obama self-destructs, then why go negative in a way that could damage whoever the eventual Dem nominee is?

Unless her goal IS to damage the eventual Dem nominee because she thinks it won't be her.

FYI: Gary Larson did a 'Far Side' cartoon that was almost exactly the same. In his it was a UFO instead of a cruise ship, but otherwise like I said, almost exactly the same.

Hey Mr. Benen, stop posting the same stuff here and on C&L! BUSTED! HAHAHAHA!

j/k.

Doesn't it make you sick though to have to acknowledge that the moderators of the presidential debate had 'entertainment' as a higher priority than informing the public?

But if daddy goes out to buy himself some bigger breasts and a tighter ass to play with, everyone gets all upset. Not fair!

Look at poor Eliot Spitzer.

"How can I vote for a president who won't wear a flag pin?"

Really? So a criminal dishonest moron with a flag pin gets your vote over an honest competent politician? Lets go, onto a raft, get out of America, we don't need you, you're hurting the country. Bye.

Look, I think HRC sucks donkey balls. And I don't mean that in a good way but if the Dem party wanted all this time to have to campaign for the GE why didn't they just make the Convention in April? I do think HRC is running in a way that is potentially damaging for whoever is the nominee in the GE but as an American I find all these attempts to END or subvert the primary voting process to be offensive. If HRC decided to drop out thats fine but the establishment should NOT be exhorting her to drop out.

Since the MSM is going to make shit up to attack Dems, does it really matter that HRC is 'tested' and Obama is an unknown?

If the MSM is going to run with flights of fantasy against the Dems what can it matter who is the nominee or what their strengths or weaknesses are?

"Apparently, by ignoring the issues and focusing on style."

The American people would never elect a president on that basis! Its preposterous!

Damn, we're screwed.

You think an ad that references the greatest national tragedies in the past 60 years is only a 'touch of the fear card'?

I agree that its not offensive but its is definitely the fear card played large.