But isn't the real problem the fact that Schumer, as a leader in his party, did not 'read' his party correctly (i.e. the fact that his colleagues obviously did not favor Mukasey) and tried to force a de facto compromise upon them?

Even if we look at this through the lens of real politic, Schumer and Feinstein are leaders; Schumer has tremendous clout. I think he tried to force his own agenda and his colleagues decided not to take the power play, and simply pressed back.

Perhaps what we are seeing is a division in the Democratic Party: some Democrats may be wishing to take stronger stands on essential issues and are trying to force the compromising leadership to get the message.

So the Democrats who asked about waterboarding were being quite sharp: they made Schumer look impotent and arrogant. So, in the future, this group of Democrats may have more leverage.

If we take this out of the rhelm of real politic, I'd add that there are real issues here that matter. As Glenn Greenwald noted the other day, Mukasey as a judge upheld the president's right to hold suspects without charges.

That ruling in itself is an abrogation of the Constitution that should make any candidate for Attorney General unsuitable. The fact that Mukasey might be considered a compromise candidate at all today is troubling.

Why is it when you think Democrats would have the backbone to stand up, they fold like a house of cards. My theory about why these idiots want the Congress to pass a law, is that all the bullshit Gonzales had pontificated about the effectiveness, not the legality of this inhumane treatment, is justified. And when investigatory sleuths find out the US used waterboarding, the President it wasn't made a law until now.

Well, the Geneva Convention says it's torture. The US prosecuted a Japanese for doing this, after World War II,and we prosecuted one of our own for doin' the same thing. What did these prosecutors use for proof?

To say that keepin' this classified?, Bush doesn't want the enemy to know.

TO KNOW WHAT?

You're right--there's a big difference between the parties. And the way things have gone for the past six years, it would be criminal for Democrats to sit out the next election because they're pissed that Congress didn't do more or this or that candidate isn't exactly what they want.

But here's the rub: This is about torture. Torture is one of those things a politician shouldn't have to apologize having strong feelings about. It might even be one of those issues that could make you drop your support for the very nominee you put forward.

Torture, habeas corpus, vanity warmongering... How many letters do we have to write to these bozos in Washington to let them know that there will be no negative repercussions for having a backbone for once in their lives? How low does Bush's approval rating have to sink before they realize that it's safe to treat him with the disdain he's shown to all the people who've disagreed with him since taking office?

It's the wavering on bedrock issues that make people feel so disgusted. Everybody had hopes that the Democratic congress would make a difference. It has a little, but not much. And so people are naturally beginning to wonder whether the next Democratic nominee will let them down, too--especially since the frontrunner has been one of the most hesitant to take strong stands about these issues.

Yes, Schumer was in a box, and Feinstien has got to go......

But isn't this situation made possible by "nice guy" republicans like Lindsey Graham,

who sops up all this great press for raising objections to the White House...then votes

with them every time?

If you want to call the Dems wimps, O.K., fair enough. But the Republican policy of

pure stonewall, going along with the White House no matter how distructive, draws

little comment. The obvious plan is to make it impossible to get anything through

(short of shutting down the goverment) and then running against the "do nothing"

congress.

I expect a fool like, say, the Huffington Post's Marc Cooper to fall for this; but

I expect better from Salon.

... the multinational control of the media has served to render these people invisible.

The mainstream corporate press is beside the point. I'm talking about Salon's own editorial stance — one broadly shared by other traditional liberal news organs like The Nation, and by liberals in general and particularly, in my personal experience, intellectuals and those in the professional civil service — which guardedly opposed the Bush regime's policies at the same time that it shied away from radical notions like impeachment or even simple a priori rejection of the Bush agenda over the years. Salon's Michelle Goldberg mocked the foolishness of war protesters during the runup to the invasion of Iraq, and then had the temerity years later to state that nobody could have predicted the debacle that the American occupation had become. Liberal thinkers and writers here and elsewhere continue to articulate this view even now: "Look what's coming to light! If only there were some way we could have known!"

Don't get me wrong — this is hardly a sin of which I regard Salon as particularly guilty. As you may have noticed we both support the magazine with money as well as time. In fact I bother to write letters to the editor here because I think they have a chance of making some difference, however small, and because I have a well-founded faith in Salon's ability to undertake courageous, independent reporting and analysis.

And though I like to hurl insults at Salon's editors in my letters, I'd certainly count them on the side of 'doing good for our nation.'

This would make me laugh if it weren't a personal attack on me. I doubt that any criticism I have to offer, however bold, pales by comparison to the actual insults that Salon's editors surely receive with the regularity and predictability of the tide.

But in the spirit of constructive engagement, to regard my original comment as the mere hurling of invective it stands to reason that you must see no merit to my assertions. Can you elaborate? Where am I substantively wrong?

As for doing good for the nation, that again is beside the point. I'm talking about doing good for liberal thought, upon which (I believe) the good of the nation ultimately depends.