for two reasons: His audience is still huge (2 million a night?) and his audience votes. So that makes him dangerous. You can't just dismiss O'Reilly and his audience because they are so fabulously wrong and "out of touch" with reality. As long as there's so many of them, and as long as they vote, they are still quite relevant. If more liberals understood this, there would be less "how did we manage to lose AGAIN" the day after every national election.

simply because there's no reason for them to attack again. In the eyes of al Qaida, 9-11 is the "gift that keeps on giving" so to speak. It's still paying heavy dividends. They have to be thrilled at what Bush is doing to the constitution. Why should they "take way our freedom" when Bush is quite willing to do it for them?

to start looking for a new country to live in? I'm not so sure I like this one very much anymore.

"A local elections board has split on the petition in a 2-2 party-line vote, and it now goes to the Office of the Secretary of State -- the one that just happens to be run by Strickland's opponent, Kenneth Blackwell. "

"With habeas corpus gone now, space isn't the only place where no one can hear you scream."

Why are we wasting time and money renditioning detainees to other countries? We can take care of everything in the basement of the White House. The added benefit being that Bush and Cheney would be able to hear them scream there. Just tell the doorman to leave the intercom on.

"Don't you have any other gay republicans to out?"

Maybe you could tell us?! I mean, we're hardly "in the loop" here (so to speak).

I don't see what's so silly about the demise of habeas corpus.

And thanks to Karl Rove, I doubt there are any gay Democrats left to out; especially given the unlimited eavesdropping powers at this administration's disposal. They can wire-tap, spy and search anybody they want to now. If there are any gay Democratic politicians still in the closet, it would only be due to Republican incompetence.

Jesus never talked about it in the New Testament, so how important could the distinction be?

What with all that peace and prosperity in the '90s. We've moved well beyond that now though, haven't we?

People can characterize Clinton's remarks however they want, but he's right. And non-answers from the likes of Tracey Schmitt won't change that.

I think nerdnam is misinterpreting what Clinton is saying. Clinton is acknowledging that divisive politics will win elections, but making the more important point that such tactics are ultimatly bad for the country.

"Democrats keep trying to run on being better people than Republicans."

I don't think this is true at all. I think Democrats are trying to run on policy, and Republicans are running on smear tactics and wedge issues. In this dumbed down world, wedge issues and smear tactics will beat policy every time. Democratic candidates say where they stand and illustrate differences with Republicans every chance they get. The problem is that too many people base their opinions on "where Democrats stand," by listening to the right wing's misinterpretation, rather than what Democrats actually say.

"Consider Hillary Clinton, who is a terrific person: a very intelligent and capable lawyer, a former First Lady who amazingly won her own Senate seat, and now one of the leading senators, even as a junior. But we don't know what she stands for: we don't know if she will give us health care or a flag burning admendment."

I'll admit that Hillary is partly to blame for that, but if you listen to Hannity, Rush, or O'Reilly, she's just to the left of Karl Marx. The reality is that Hillary is centrist to a fault. She's trying to please too many people. The last thing she is though, is far-left. But the right is painting her as far left because it suits their political interest to do so. I keep hearing from people about how "divisive" Hillary is. But she's really not. The right is using divisive tactics against her, which has the effect of making her appear divisive. The end result is that people don't know what to think because they are taking in such conflicting information. If you really want to know where Hillary stands, check her voting record in the senate.

"In contrast, no matter how much we call George Bush a moron--and he is a moron--he is still at least perceived as standing for something."

George Bush is "perceived as standing for something" because that's what we are told by his handlers, and then we're told the same thing by the MSM. In truth, he contradicts himself quite often.

They willingly elect Republicans who flaunt their contempt for "big government" and then turn around and get angry when these big-government-hating Republicans have no idea how to run a big government.

What do people expect?!

"What do Democrats have to say about taxes? I have no real idea and neither does anyone else. Democrats don't really talk about taxes or much of anything else. Democrats just seem to go around 'triangulating' or saluting or wishing the other guys would let them win."

Replying to that non-sense is probably a waste of time. Obviously your brain only absorbs "right-speak." Democrats talk about taxation at least as frequently as Republicans. Just not in the same "lowest common denominator" terms. You might do well to read George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" to understand why the Republican message is sinking in with you, and why the Democratic message is going in one ear and out the other.

I'm not sure I do. Certainly not the way the Bush administration practices it. No more habeas corpus. Lies. Secrets. More lies. Torture. Illegal wire-tapping and surveillance. Maybe Bush's "strategy" is to take away all our "freedoms" so that the terrorists won't have our freedoms to hate anymore.