Hey, I'm just glad that someone at Salon, in addition to Farhad, has weighed in on this issue. At this point I'm not sure what is going to be accomplished. But the more doubt that is placed on the actions of the Republican party, the better, regardless of what actually gets "proven." I'm not saying we are--or should--"swift boat" them.... but it's more like "Hey, you guys (Republicans) have to answer for a lot of things before this can blow over."

And, let me say this again, for those who need iron-clad proof--you aren't going to find it. Why do you think that the main charge against Scooter Libby is "obstruction"? The real proof in this case has been destroyed and or buried. If this group of Republicans knows anything, they know obstruction. Somewhere, Machiavelli is looking down over Kenneth Blackwell's shoulder saying, "Bravo!"

ps--No, I'm not even thinking of cancelling my subscription... I love this place! I'd freak out if I agreed with every word that was written here.

Folks on one side of this issue keep asking, like Joan has, "what evidence do you see that the election in Ohio was stolen, rather than the result of routine and familiar GOP efforts to suppress the votes of low-income and African American people[?]" My first question is, "What's the difference? Why can't anyone explain that to me in a successful way? I guess in my mind, "stolen" involves methods that are, pardon my French, "legal."

But my bigger point has to do with the "evidence" in general. I'm a reader, not a jouranlist. The main difference there is, I must rely on journalists to tell me what's what. I read many differing takes on an issue, and have to make a judgment, based on what often boils down to a hunch, many times. A reporter actually has what I refer to as a "ring side seat." Heck, they are often inside the ring, as we have unfortunately seen in Iraq. But us readers aren't that close. We have a much different, and skewed view of things.

Given that, as a reader, my standards of proof are different and are more, "hunch" oriented. They have to be. I'm proud to say that I'm a flaming liberal. But I'm one who was raised by Republicans, around Republicans, and have worked in D.C. for and with Republicans. I know the "enemy" way more intimately than I care to (but that's another story.) Bottom line: I think they stole it. And I see no downside to going with my hunch on this. I've seen "The Prince" on way too many bookshelves in my day.

Is classically Republican. I've seen and heard this viewpoint countless times. Both with 9-11 and Katrina, it's the same thing. Anyone who experiences or feels any emotion, grief or pain beyond what said Republican is feeling, then said victim is automatically "milking it" and therefore a 100% inauthentic fraud/opportunist. It's disgusting, and it's why I have a hard time breathing the same air as Republicans much of the time. Because the irony is, how on earth can a Republican, who by definition is nearly incapable of feeling empathy in any way, shape, or form, supposed to be the arbiter of what's appropriate when it come to dealing with pain, grief and tragedy. It boggles the mind.

Because, face it, her views are very mainstream Republican. Trust me--I live in Texas, and you don't have to search very hard to find folks who think like her. Just look at her book sales! There's millions of people in this country who think just like her. She's just their mouthpiece.

I know how unrealistic this sounds, but why can't we judge bloggers and journalists individually, on their ability to get to the truth, rather than generalizing and lumping them toegther unfairly? Why do the actions of a Jason Leopold have to reflect on ALL bloggers?

That man is clearly not playing with a full deck. Thanks, Tim, for outing Leopold as a kook a few weeks ago.

That it was necessary for Tim Grieve to explain why Salon has written so much abou the truthout story. And I find it amazing how many readers write in just to say "who cares?" Well, if YOU don't care, then why bother writing to say so? Especially when others have already written the same thing? One writer reasoned that the whole Plame case is a big nothing because joe-blow-on-the-street doesn't care, and that Salon should only write stories that cater to the lowest common denominator. If that's your attitude, why don't you just read People or something published by Rupert Murdoch?

Plamegate is interesting to me, and I'll read all that Tim Grieve cares to write about it. So there....

that Jefferson is an elected official, and Rove is not? Don't get me wrong, I want Jefferson out as fast as possible. But it seems more relevant to compare Jefferson with DeLay, who we all remember left kicking and screaming. And no Republicans ever uttered a peep about how it would be a good idea for him to leave. In fact, we can throw Ney and Cunningham in with that comparison, too.