then her name never would have made it into print. Joe Wilson wrote that column, not her. If they wanted to attack him on the substance of his column, then they could have done that and left it at that. But they couldn't do that because what Wilson wrote in that column was factually correct. Bush/Rove/Cheney/Libby/Armitage/Novak clearly wanted to do damage, and they did. And they got away with it.

Who cares whether she was involved in suggesting him for the trip? Isn't what he found, and didn't find when he got there what's really important here? That he found that Bush was clearly lying in that State of the Union address? That's what this is all about. Payback for Joe Wilson outing Bush as a liar.

Who always says what he means. And never changes his mind in the face of pressure--despite what conventional wisdom or "the polls" say. And has the courage to stand by is convictions. And is resolute. And never flip flops. Yep, that's our George!

that this is the same man who defiantly declared, "Bring 'em on!"

seems to bloil down to:

We (the Bush Administration) want persmission to torture, and the only way to do that is to change the legal definition of torture so that the "techniques" we like to use won't be illegal anymore. We don't like the current rules, so we're calling them "vague." We're demanding that the law be re-written to our liking in the name of "clarity."

The thing that gets me is, "What sort of sick fuck can't figure out what's torture and what's not?" These guys need a rule book?

Only becuase he's the guy I actually like and agree with the most. I think it's a shame that of the potential candidates, the people with the most charisma--Feingold, Obama and Hillary--are hampered due to being Jewish, black or female. The three people with the greatest ability to excite and motivate the Democratic base "can't win"! God, we live in a really crappy world when that's too much for a potential candidate to overcome. America, home of the free!!

"Feingold? Twice-divorced mid-Western liberal Jew? Not 270 Electoral votes, not even close. Senator Clinton? Forget the South, too, or the borderline states; not to mention the 54% negative ratings by independent voters. Nobody gets elected with those numbers. Obama? Maybe six states?"

I was merely expressing my exasperation that I can't realistically consider the candidate whom I think would actually be the best person for the job. It's a waste of my time. Instead, I have to factor in what a bunch of racist, misogynistic hillbillies are going to think of the guy, too. So the best case scenario is the Democrats will nominate some watered-down, centrist milque-toast with no nads whatsoever, whom the white male crackers in the south will think is the least objectionable Democrat. What a fucked up way to pick a president! This lowest-comon-denominator brand of politics that the Republicans play so well makes me want to scream! I honestly believe that the blue states should secede and let the red states rot. I'm sick of these yahoos dragging the rest of us down.

ps--The only thing I'm gonna say in favor of Hillary--whom I'm less than crazy about--is that Bush showed just how successful a divisive candidate with historically high negative ratings can be.

If we don't start supporting candidates who are female, Jewish, and black today, then how will we do it 50 years from now? The rest of you can do whatever you want, but I'm supporting Russ Feingold now because I think he's the best man for the job.

Besides, since I don't live in any of the handful of primary states that actually have a voice in the nomination process, my "support" is only symbolic anyway. That $25 I send in every six months isn't exactly going to tip the balance of power in the Democratic party anytime soon.

What's the matter with New Jersey?

"Until the Democrats can present hard policies that tackle our problems head-on, they can't beat the GOP. It's more than 'getting on message' or 'unifying on a theme.' Voters aren't idiots"

Not idiots? Okay, how about "depressingly misinformed," or "prone to manipulation via irrelevant wedge issues and jingoistic slogans"? Is that better?

The Republicans are winning national elections simply because Karl Rove knows how to dumb down the message to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Voters prefer "stay the course," "mission accomplished," and "let's roll," over well-written policy papers.

I'm curious where you think Democrats should draw the line in terms of policy points they should concede to the Republicans in the name of electoral victory? You seem to have a "win at all costs" attitude, but you'd have to agree--at least theoretically--that the Democrats could move far enough to the right that the difference between the two parties is merely symbolic. I'm curious if you could give us some examples of policy points that you would and would not be willing to concede in the effort to lock down those 270 electoral votes? Are these concessions actual substantive policy issues, or are they wedge issues? Or is not about issues at all, but just a popularity contest?

The best thing Keane has going for him is his father? Haven't we gone there before? Menendez must really be a zero.