I would kick Joe's butt from here to Jerusalem since he seems to be the senator from Israel rather than Connecticut.

Posted at May 12, 2008 1:23 PM in response to Harry Reid: We're Watching Lieberman's Conduct In Prez Race "Very Closely"

Voyeuristic questions deserve no answer. Does anyone remember 'boxers or briefs, back in the first Clinton era? That's another question that never should have been asked, let alone answered. Chelsea did the right thing. Children are not, and should not be, requested to comment on the sex life of their parents. Most adults are squeamish even thinking about it.

I didn't find her attitude or demeanor arrogant or insulting. Even as she campaigns for her mother, she has the right to define what she considers acceptable questions.

Posted at March 28, 2008 8:21 AM in response to Chelsea Clinton is a brat

The public corruption units are designed to bring charges against Democrats in time to influence major elections. The governor of Puerto Rico is now under indictment. Spitzer commanded more attention than a terrorist, and Siegelman was railroaded and charged with a 'crime' that consists of nothing more than normal political behavior. Republicans get a pass, and Jerry Lewis and Joe Bruno the Republican head of the NY Senate who has been under investigation for more than two years, simply smile and light another cigar.

This is another chapter in a seven year long effort to insure through any means possible, in every nook and cranny of the political system, that Republicans can maintain power.

Posted at March 27, 2008 3:16 PM in response to Feinstein Questions Mukasey on Disbanding of LA Public Corruption Unit

You have an arguable proposition, that Hillary should release her tax returns, but feel the need to add a couple of paragraphs of rants about what you fantasize the campaign will do to distract us when she releases the records. This used to be called 'making stuff up', but Karl Rove has turned it into a political art form.

When she does release her tax returns, I will be gobsmacked if you don't spend hours pouring over each detail, creating new fantasies about what nasty things the Clintons did for their salaries, about how they took outrageous deductions and asking what favors they got when they made charitable contributions. Given the flights of fancy in this post, I'll bet we'll see some really entertaining, hypothetical constructs.

Posted at March 10, 2008 4:40 PM in response to THE CLINTON TAX RETURN SHUCK AND JIVE

I like McSame, also McShame (as already mentioned) and McLame, not to mention McPain for his support of torture. McStupid and McOld are harsh, and don't rhyme with McCain but I am unrestrained in my dislike of all things Republican. McBush could work with a slogan like 'as old as the father, as dumb as the son'.

Posted at March 5, 2008 4:16 PM in response to Here's A First Look At Third-Party Group's Ad Against McCain

This ad is not an attack ad, it is a contrast ad,where the campaign is attempting to imply she has the right characteristics to take action when it's needed. I don't find it offensive, and certainly not worth the scathing criticism to which it has been subjected.There are, in fact, weaknesses in Obama's record which are exploitable, but, somehow, all criticism, no matter how gentle, is greeted with rancor.
Let's face it. The only words the anti-Hillary forces might accept from her campaign without carping criticism are "I give up". Even in that circumstance, someone would be sure to write that she was a quitter.

Posted at February 29, 2008 4:50 PM in response to Hillary Ad: Who Do You Want Answering The White House Phone At 3 a.m.?

We quite often decry the Republicans' use of factually accurate statements to mislead. Perhaps the headline writer here has just come over from the dark side? I could offer an alternative: Hillary's campaign - cheating again? The article explains that the campaign isn't doing anything unethical, but the headline sure is catchy.

Posted at February 29, 2008 8:10 AM in response to Hillary Spanish-Language Ad: You Have To Vote Twice In Texas

My fear is that, if the administration cannot find some compliant judge to block Col. Davis's testimony, that they will resort to extra-legal means to prevent it. By this, do I mean threats, blackmail and whisking him away to an undisclosed location (kind of like a bizarro witness protection program) where he will be like Patrick McGoohan in "The Prisoner"? You betcha!

It will be a small victory for sanity if he is allowed to speak.

Posted at February 23, 2008 10:55 AM in response to Former Gitmo Prosecutor to Testify as Defense Witness