Between Mona running around going "Neener, neener... Glenn links approvingly to Cato..." and the other one thinking that just because some of Glenn's articles are posted at Lew Rockwell this makes him an "Austrian" Rockwellian, it's like they don't even wait until they've "passed on" before baptizing them as "Libertarians". As Karen said, it's a bit early, and unfortunately none of the better candidates will get anywhere near the nomination. That's unfortunate. As I said upthread, if it were up to me, it would be Bill Richardson, hands down. He has met with them, all of them, from the NorKs (who he convinced to stop making nukes) to Saddam, and had them eating out of his hands. He is the only "real guy, tough guy" of the bunch and the only one who does foreign policy, personally. This TV ad from his last Governor's race.

http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2005/02/bill_richardson.html

It's a possible emergence of a third political movement or pole. I just found it recently and some academics are writing about it, fleshing it out. It's a work in progress. It's not a bipolar power relationship anymore. That too could change. We could have that back if we aren't careful. For the time being, I just try to move the Democrats back to the center and beyond... what else is left?

You have just described some of the reasons I have not shared a sense of "a genuine political sea change" being discussed in Mr. G's post a few weeks ago. In addition to the problems you just wrote about, current political activity is hobbled by fund-raising complications. The DLC requires its members in Congress to pay a dues assessment, based on what the chairman thinks that individual can raise. If the member refuses, all bets are off. No committee assignments, etc. But even when they do play ball (by soliciting donations, which takes away time from real legislative duties like actually reading bills before voting on them), the way that votes are horse-traded (no slight intended toward merchants of horses!), members can really only effectively have one pet issue, if any, on which they can exert significant influence.
*Presumably, the same type of things happens on the Republican side.
Sadly,
Ginsberg

Wikipedia lists estimates for WWII casualties at 60 million dead. The biggest "thug" on your list for casualties would be Mao, his toll is estimated by some at 41 million. Cambodia is about 2 million, and Stalin about 10 million. So even without adding in other wars, World War II tops the "thugs".

Yes, you can look at it as you did given the exact wording in his question. I think it is a more fair comparison to look at all dead due to thugs (democide) verses all dead due to war for the century.

Democide is estimated at 262,000,000 million souls. The war dead, bad as it is, does not compare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

http://www.answers.com/topic/democide

same type of thing happens
; )
Ginsberg

... it may be that people simply don't want to share such information as you have wished for, or that some of the individuals are private people, or are here to discuss other concerns, or that it's none of your business (voting, in particular, is a protected privacy. It used to be, at any rate). To presume it's fear (or only fear) strikes me as speculative at best.

Speculative at best? Well, yes --- what does the word "if" mean these days? Or a phrase like "seems as if"?

I also was only interested in those fine souls that have spent a week attacking me for taking a position; yet they hide when asked.

As an example, the fastest way to end a conversation on a given topic is to state what you think and then ask William what he thinks. It is fair for him to ask me. It is fair for me to ask him back, no?

... The larger point, though, is that contributors here have been supporting candidates, researching policy, highlighting successes, and cheering positions for a long time - certainly as long as I've been visiting Unclaimed Territory, since before Glenn moved to Salon. ...

I have seen that as well; but I asked about *now* given that the debate season had started. I would think that reasonable people might possibly have their opinion effected by current events.

Would you?

Democide is estimated at 262,000,000 million souls. The war dead, bad as it is, does not compare.

This figure is in dispute, as the article you cited says in multiple places. I can find places in the charts where this guy R.J. Rummel seems to be in dispute with himself.

Of the figures I cited, only that which applies to Mao Dzdong is in any kind of dispute, with my figure being close to the numbers that are gaining credibility very quickly. They are very far off from Rummel, and his own are very weird for Mao, contradicting themselves in many places. So, whether or not there is something to be learned from the concept of democide, it won't be learned on such figures.

Time permitting, I've been trying to follow the sub-thread on metaphor. Unfortunately, a lot of it was over my head.

It reminded me, though, of when I took a lit course on Edith Wharton and Willa Cather, and how I came to differentiate them.

They were both modern, but they seemed to approach their writing so differently, or maybe they just ended up with very different kinds of work because they came from such different backgrounds.

Anyway, I decided that if I had to come up with an easy way to compare them, then Wharton's work was more inexorable (The House of Mirth taught me that), while Cather's was more ineffable. Not that they didn't each use both logic and metaphor, but Wharton's might have had just a bit more logic than metaphor, and Cather's vice-versa.

I'Girl... I'd love to get to talk to your mother...

Soapbox: I keep saying this, but it bears repeating. Our political and cultural leaders (the ones with the power) do not read enough novels. Otherwise, they would not be so continually surprised and caught off-guard by things that no one could have foreseen. Except a novelist, or someone who reads a lot of literature. IntrovertGirl reminded me of it again with her comment about novels playing a part in creating an awareness of human rights. I would add psychology and morality.