My basic response to your questions and comments on my post has to do with the idea of reality.

First, reality is that which universally applies to all with exception: it involves necessity. Reason involves coming to terms with necessity. Someone in an ivory tower can reason as correctly as someone in the trenches. I brought up my experiences only to say: hey, the ivory tower dudes and the in the trenches dude have come to the same conclusion through their reasoning. Thus charge that only ivory tower dudes would argue this way does not seem to be a cogent response to the argument.

Second, I hope I have raised my children such that they would be horrified at the thought of my doing something evil to protect them, if per impossible such a hypothetical should arise; that they would hate me for saving their lives through doing something unjust. The idea of reality applies here as well: a universal condition. If justice is real, then it cannot be ignored by anyone. So I was not just thinking of myself. When we act, our actions implicate all.

Finally, I hope you are right and America has not yet been destroyed. And if the folks in charge abandoned the rule of law out of fear or misguided compassion, and are continuing to do it out of some wild misapprehension of reality, we need to return them to reality as quickly as we can; and the very best thing we could do for them, if we really respect them, it to call them to account and punish them for it. I would hope that if I ever did something unjust that somehow people would find it in their hearts to respect me enough to punish me and to try to return me to my senses.

Torture is simply wrong.

I'm too late. It's clear you heart is already on your sleeve. I hope Obama doesn't disappoint you.

I really hope you are right about Obama. It all seems such a desperate gamble right now, this voting thing.

As I see it, I only have two choices, Barack and Hillary. So I can't create my perfect candidate. Actually the most qualified are Dodd and Biden. I don't see them making it. I much prefer Obama over Clinton.

Since we have very active political activists that have worked recently in political campaigns (too many to count, but these two have had extremely interesting discourses today) I would really love to ask what seems like a dumb question:

I understand marketing a candidate and branding a candidate and playing ads in markets and all that, but why do these handlers decide what a candidate should say and how they should say it when the candidate is a U.S. Senator? I mean, these are people who live in the greatest oratory body in the U.S. and speak their opinions on matters of policy for their daily bread, why on earth wouldn't you want them to decide for themselves what to talk about and how to say it?

When the NPR debate went down, the low budget senators that were writing their own, Messrs. Biden and Dodd, absolutely outshone any of the handled senators, Messrs. Obama and Edwards and Ms. Clinton. We've been disappointed with the Gore campaign, and then the Kerry campaign, and speaking solely for myself, I kept thinking the whole time "Speak for yourself, John" (as they say in Massachusetts).

Why have a handler for a job you can do better yourself?

We might all be Republicans in 20 years. Are we Lincoln Republicans or FDR Democrats. What about Republicans? Are they Lincoln Republicans or George Wallace Democrats?

simply a false dichotomy, or if you simply equate seeking solutions outside of the structure of the democratic party as equivalent to “burn the mother down!”

-- talesofunrest

Outside of the Democratic party structure is... what?

The Republican party that put Lincoln in office was a third party. It worked for TR as well. That was almost 100 years ago. If and when one emerges that I can support and it can take political power away from Republicans and Democrats (I'll admit that it looks more and more like that time is coming), I'm there. I'm not there to split the party and put a Republican in the WH. Especially not with at least 2 SCOTUS appointments coming up. Maybe even 3.

I could not agree more with you on your 'speak for yourself' comments. It's infuriating to watch them ramble all around the periphery of every question, subject, answer.

I have thought about that myself. Why in heaven's name would a president or a senator have someone write their speeches for them? Or tell them what is the range of appropriate responses? I tie that in with my earlier post about thinking those folks are not for real, but simply putting on a show. You have media handlers? How nuts is that? You want to be leader and you cannot think for yourself? I don't want to be entertained, I want you to tell me what you think.

I feel like I am about to hit bizarro overload. The world is too strange, my friends; too freaking strange sometimes. I wish bebop would come back and say something to cheer me up :)

[Obama] said that we would have troops in Iraq into 2113. I think in an effort to show he is as qualified as Hillary and to primary voters that he can be a strong president...

That's probably not the reason he said that. What it may mean is they let the possibility of quick withdrawal out there for us as a carrot during the 2006 election.

There is no safe way to extricate the troops in under two years, probably not even 3. He won't get a chance to implement any of his policies, no Dem will, until Jan. 2009. 2113 is about right.

Anonymous has made a great suggestion with his proposal for a contract signed by Democrats to put our vile leadership (Pelosi, Rockefeller, Harmon and the others) on notice that a critical mass is building where we will withhold our money, votes and support of the party—a general strike!—if they don't immediately stop enabling Bush's crimes and work to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. Please read Anonymous' important posts at December 9, 12:24 PM ; December 9, 11:22 AM; and December 9, 2007, 11:19 AM. We should get this going quickly so it is perceived as what it is—a determined response to the last outrage we learned this weekend about these disreputable Democratic leaders: they knew about Bush's torture plans in 2002 and said nothing.

I hope Glenn will add a link to the contract or petition on his blog (as though he doesn't have enough to do already—he writes faster than I can read!) Anonymous, thank you for proposing something creative and maybe effective. It's worth a try. What have we got to lose? It's a helluva lot better than resigning in despair with a bottle. Or voting for the next Naderman. Meanwhile, I'm cutting and pasting your proposal and sending it to my Demo family and friends.

I'll sign and kick in money to support the effort.