Wow. Between the blatant racism of "MAV in Florida" and the careless ignorance of "anti-war" "liberals," we have a few astute respondents who want to debate what McCain actually said, as opposed to the half-dozen or so words clipped from his statement and promulgated by the opposition in a manner which displays complete contempt for accuracy and truth.

Those who deny that occupying Iraq is comparable to occupying South Korea are again seeking to avoid debate of McCain's actual statement. This may be cowardly, but it is wise: few could explain why we should leave Iraq and stay in South Korea. Perhaps there are some who think we should leave South Korea (not the South Koreans, by the way). But even they are likely smart enough to keep it to themselves, lest they have to go on TV and explain why they want to surrender territory to a former military foe, and current political foe, of the United States.

I'm often astounded by the propensity of the Democratic Party to shoot itself in the foot. The 2004 race was an almost absurd casebooks study of this. The party seems committed, and suicidally so, to focusing on short-term gains without regard to long-term losses. Its constituents seem driven to self-destruct, obsessed with pointing to flaws in even their own candidates. The mantra I hear these days is, "If X wins, I'm not voting." With tis kind of party unity, Democrats don't need enemies.

Democrats really should try to use this against McCain. It will be amusing watching it backfire on them. I can just hear Rush Limbaugh, et al, now: "Not only do Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq and start a civil war - they want to withdraw from South Kore and let communist China take over. Next they'll want to withdraw military support for Taiwan. We shouldn't call these people Democrats, ladies and gentlemen: we should call them Surrend-o-crats."

Go for it, Big D: you'll learn what people mean by "penny-wise and pound foolish."

This sounds great but haven't we heard both candidates make statements of civility towards each other and then a day or two later one of their proxy send out a negative attack.

It's already happened/happening: Lanny Davis, committed Clinton supporter, is over at the WSJ editorial pages opining that Obama still has questions to answer about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. "Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue," Davis writes. "The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?" Go read the piece - I'd link it, but Salon doesn't allow that. With Barber expressing his "unease" about the matter, it sounds a lot like Joan Walsh. You can bet the surrogates will hammer the Wright issue more, and will hand it off to the GOP if Obama wins the nomination.

(This URL is broken in twain, so cut-n-paste in your browser.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB120770107738700007.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

There will be no change of tone in the campaign. There will simply be more nastiness from surrogates, followed by the campaign stating these surrogates have no "official" role, and then reminding us that the campaign has "changed its tone." You can't stop those Clintonites from spreading shit. It's their nature.

Of course, what people miss in this "change" is the tacit admission that the Clinton campaign has been playing dirty and negative all along. Clinton supporters wearing blinders and in denial? That's not news. To anyone.

"The past is not dead. It isn't even past."

The Sixties are not done with us yet.

Well, we've heard from the two hysterical wings on this issue: the paranoid "liberal" and the dissembling "conservatives."

The fact is that Operation Rescue and other groups have, by their own admission, taken this tactic in order to get the very information "Elephantman" (and other America-hating anti-liberty advocates on the far right) claim will be redacted. There is of course nothing in KS law that requires the information be redacted, only that it may be if requested or necessary to protect a person from harm. Second, under certain other provisions of KS law, public citizens could bring action to open these files, if they in fact become part of a court proceeding. Such requests could likely only be refused if the release of the information might cause harm to those being identified.

Ultimately, if the case did proceed and the grand jury began questioning individuals, any individual who had received a "questionable" late term abortion could be subpoenaed to appear before the jury. No law would protect their identity in this case. And it would be the prosecutors and/or the grand jury who made the decision as to what would be "questionable."

Even if the (clearly biased) prosecutors were inclined and able to keep those identities redacted at this early stage of discovery, they would be unable to do so.

It is clear that the tactic here is to force the revelation of the identities of these unknown women in an effort to shame them, as well as provide a somewhat threatening context for any woman who seeks a late-term abortion in the future. Any obfuscation of this fact is questionable, especially when it comes from someone whose ideological commitment influences their legal reasoning.

There is no attempt at justice in these types of actions. The true sentiments of this crowd can be seen in the comments of "brightstar65." They do not want justice: they want vengeance. These anti-freedom zealots will stop at nothing - not limits of propriety or limits of law - to malign and terrorize women seeking a legal medical procedure.

The true commitment of the so-called anti-abortion crowd is neither to justice nor liberty, but to terrorism and oppression.