my support of Feingold is only symbolic since my state's primary comes so late in the season. As long as I have no say whatsoever in the process, I'll speak with my heart. That being said, I'd be quite proud to vote for Edwards if he were the nominee. I still wince when I think about how he didn't kick Cheney's ass in their debate like he should have, (i.e., by calling him out as a liar when he should have. I'd much rather Edwards and Kerry had called their opponents liars to their faces in those debates than their clumsy "Oh by the way, did you know Cheney's daughter is a lesbian? routine), but hey, hopefully you learn from your mistakes, right?

I'm sorry if my remarks offended you, but trust me, nobody wishes I was wrong about "Bush's base" more than me. This isn't the first time I've been called out for being intolerant of other people's intolerance. If there's a large segment of the country who refuses to vote for a candidate because he's, black, Jewish or female, I feel I have a right to be angry and frustrated about it. I'm finding it more difficult with each passing day to control my contempt for the people I feel are responsible for the authoritarian nightmare that is the Bush era. But I'll work on it.

--During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Mr. (Adlai) Stevenson "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

That man is shockingly thick.

Allen should do the honorable thing and drop out of the race. The GOP can then ask new Virginia resident Tom DeLay to run in Allen's place. Who wouldn't love that?

between radical Muslims and Christians--Scarborough and Bozell did. That's a very significant point to consider. It's more than a typical example of conservatives putting words into a liberal's mouth. They are the ones who equated the two in a knee-jerk moment, not Joan.

This is a perfect example of how conservatives argue against strawmen: They have this oversimplified, stereotypical view of what a "liberal" is, and when a liberal offers a view that doesn't jibe with the conservative frame of what a liberal is, they lose their shit, and turn to the bully pulpit. They accuse the liberal of "spin," or "dishonesty," or "flip-flopping." When the root issue is that conservatives simply don't understand the concept of liberalism in the first place. How could they? How can someone who's narrow-minded understand a concept that's outside of his point of view?

is that Iraq with Saddam as its leader did not pose a real threat to the U.S., the U.S.'s allies, nor Iraq's neighbors. There were no WMD's, and Saddam's Iraq was adequately weakened thanks to years of sanctions. The big lie sold to us by the Bush Administration was that Saddam's Iraq was a HUGE and imminent threat to the U.S., it's allies, and Iraq's neighbors. How many times did Bush, Rice, et al., mention "mushroom clouds"? Once they had successfully sold that threat, all the other accompanying lies became easier to swallow. You take away that threat, and you take away any credible reason to invade Iraq. Simply deposing a genocidal dictator isn't enough reason. Unless there was a real threat, Bush's actions can't be justified. It's also no coincidence that Joseph Wilson's op-ed column debunked that original lie, and showed why Bush et al., saw him as such a threat.

That's way more than an understatement. Submitting a prisoner to 50 degree temperatures for a length of time sufficient to induce hypothermia is without question "torture."

look who just drew a connection between 9-11 and the War in Iraq. Such a good Republican....

"And to other poster who thinks I should be waterboarded, you should have to stand on the 80th floor of a burning building and decide whether to burn to death or leap to your death. "

I imagine joe's response would be "I was speaking about the 'War on Terror' in general." However, when you believe that the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror, then you are connecting 9-11 and Iraq.

You're either an idiot, or a liar. Nowhere in my post did I accuse you of arguing "cause." I said you drew a "connection." See the difference? Iraq and 9-11 are two different matters. There is NO connection. You, just like the president, are drawing a connection that does not exist.

I guess one of the things you are "capable of" is putting words in other people's mouths. Or you're an idiot. Take your pick.

about all this is how little this bothers so many people. I had a "discussion" the other evening with two other "Democrats." These are smart, articulate, politically involved Democrats. They go to fundraisers and give money. They block-walk. They vote. They do all the things "good Democrats" are supposed to do. Here are some of the things I heard:

"What's the big deal? Everybody tortures. We always have, the enemy always has."

"Every Vietnam vet I know says he has witnessed torture."

"If one of our soldiers is captured he's going to be tortured anyway, regardless of what we do."

"Torture is one of the ugly realities of warfare. People need to be realistic about that."

Yes indeed, the terrorists have already won....

"If gold rusts, what then will iron do?"

It was the keyboard, I swear!

to have a President--who in Snow's words is "the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend [the constitution]--who wasn't smart enough be accepted into the University of Texas Law School. His father couldn't pull strings to get him in, so he didn't get in. And now it's his job, to interpret the constitution? Heaven help us all...