Might have mentioned Dean's calling the Iraqi prime minister an anti-Semite for not publicly backing Israel's attack on Lebanon. What does Dean want, the guy to go back to Iraq and get shot on the spot?

Yes, Tim, I agree: people in the public eye, ostensibly contributing to the public debate, should choose their words carefully. And when people in the public eye make outrageous comparisons and contribute only hate and strife to the discussion, they should be held to account. But that holds true for everyone who participates in determining the future of the country -- which is to say, everybody.

Which is why I will say, yet again, that the Republican Party as a whole must be forced to answer for the hate-filled statements made by the likes of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Cheney, Bush, Bolton, etc. Ignoring the ignorant and mean-spirited attacks is not making the attacks stop. The few adults who are left in the Republican frat-house have got to be held accountable for the actions of those less mature who "lead" the party on their behalf.

Certainly, setting a good example for public debate is admirable. However, the reports of Bolton's hearings indicate that few in the Republican Party are accustomed to answering for their actions and attitudes; certainly nobody in the executive branch now seems to feel any responsibility. Democrats should not be held to a higher standard.

Referring to soon-to-be lame duck Katie Harris as "Stalin" is like beating up a kitten. She should be enjoyed as the loon she is who has had no problems shoveling her own trench of despair.

Besides, to quote from a play by Mark Medoff, she's "not at all unattractive for a woman who's creeping death-quick into middle age."

Given the following from Uncle Joe:

"It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes." -- Joseph Stalin

I'd say that Dean's comparing Harris with Stalin re: the 2004 election was completely appropriate.

But, I guess he probably should have realized that the average American, including a large number of the chatteratti, wouldn't get it. Understanding requires some sense of history, something that's pretty rare here in the good ol' USA. It's so much easier to be outraged.

Jeebus Christmas. Can't anybody here play this game?

There is enough to pin on Lieberman, his votes, his advocacy, his public statements about everything from the War to Social Security to the bankruptcy bill to Terri Schiavo to the Supreme Court to Abu Grahib to Rumsfeld without fishing and scraping the bottom of the barrell.

One of Lamont's most effective weapons in this campaign has been humor, making Lieberman look out of touch and entitled. How the hell does the neo-Nazi charges help?

I've read this piece 4 times, looking for and not finding anything that approaches a quote from Dean. And this is an article which condemns him for what he said. Truly unacceptable as a form of argument.

Dean's comparison is to a "one-party state," and the mention of Stalin unfortunate. But the Lieberman ad is a serious blunder. ImpeachPAC should be ashamed.

While I agree there is a time and a place for extreme language, and that it should be used to make a serious point -- not as a ploy for a smattering of applause -- I think there is a case for comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin. I'm not thinking of Stalin the dictator or Stalin the mass murderer, but rather Stalin the political machinist.

Before Stalin became the Premier of the Soviet Union, he was an opportunistic underling who knew the value of counting the votes. Who knew the value of disenfranchising embarassing minorities. Who knew the power of aligning oneself iconically with dear leader.

Katherine Harris does embody these traits. She isn't charismatic or socially competent enough to rise as high as Stalin did, and that's comforting. She also isn't the only one, and that's disturbing. For that reason, it is useful to remember what the mighty totalitarian oaks looked like as acorns.

- Anne

Regarding Dean's "comparison" of Kathleen Harris to Joe Stalin, I think it was a fair comment. Hopefully he mentioned Stalin's statement about who counts the votes, which directly applies to Harris. If he made that connection, following it up with "Harris isn't Stalin, and she's going away" is perfectly fair.

Similarily, mentioning the extremist trend in the military with Lieberman is also fair. The point of Lamont's campaign is to tap the unpopular policies (and results of those policies) pursued by Bush and which Lieberman has been instrumental in enabling. The neo-nazi thing is just the latest indicator that America is going down a bad path. To continue tying Lieberman to this bad path is entirely appropriate.

On the other hand, calling al Maliki an anti-semite because he refuses to jump on board the "rally around Israel" bandwagon puts Dean firmly in the neo-con category, at least in this moment. He seems to share their beliefs that criticizing the actions of the Israeli government while it annhiliates Lebanon makes one an anti-semite. Maybe al Maliki is an anti-semite, I'm not sure, but for Dean to castigate him as such for being critical of this horrible military action is very disheartening to me, since I was hoping Dean and the democrats could make an actual difference rather than continuing to be an AIPAC rubber stamp.

As an earlier poster notes, the least you could do when castigating somebody for what they said is quote what they say.

For the record, here's Dean's remarks:

Thank God for Bill Nelson, because we’d have another crook in the United States Senate if it weren’t for him. He’s going to beat the pants off Katherine Harris, who didn’t understand that it is ethically improper to be the chairman of the campaign and count the votes at the same time.

“This is not Russia. And she is not Stalin. And she will go back to wherever she came from and Bill Nelson will be reelected,” Dean said.

It is, of course, the "count the votes" part that led to the Stalin remark, given Stalin's famous statement about the importance of counting the votes.

Gosh, it seems a little less heinous when you actually look at what Dean said, doesn't it?

But don't let that stop you. I understand that it's crucial to some people to beat Dean up. After all, along with Gore, he's the only credible opposition to Ms. Clinton at this point.