Isn't it John Edwards'...and New Orleans...bad luck...the fact that due to President Ford's passing, the majority of the mainstream media will probably be focused on that tomorrow instead of Edwards' throwing his hat in the ring? And his decision to do so in New Orleans which was intended to call attention not only to America's inequalities, but to that beleaguered city? Unfortunately the timing turned out to be bad. I hope Obama announces soon and that he also does so from New Orleans, but has better luck with the timing.

Ok, I may be a bit over sensitive here, but I don't appreciate the derisive tone in which Elizabeth discusses John Edwards'candidacy or position on global warming. Please don't go all ABC on us, Ms Wilner. Please don't ape "The Note." May we look forward to equally scornful comments about Guiliani, McCain and Rommney when they threaten to announce?

Does anybody else wish we could just hold off on the 2008 stuff for a while?

2008 stuff is going start whether we all want it to or not...If Edwards can win it all, pick him, If Hilary can win it all, pick her, If Obama can win it all, pick him, if Bozo can win it all, pick him, if the Tooth Fairy can win it all, pick her....anybody but a Bushie Groupie or a neocon....

Olivia, Democrats are presently in a strong strategic position for many reasons including evidence of several intelligent alternatives to the transient excreta even now staining our furniture at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, District of Columbia. Edwards has proved himself worthy of the first tier of this Democratic talent pool, but there are more "big decisions" to come. These decisions will determine not only the fate of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, but the nation itself. One commentator used the term "sundering" to describe the nation Gerald Ford inherited as Nixon flew off into the long sunset. Indeed, the legacy of the Bush/Cheney debacle will be defined for the ages with that very term. They leave us sundered, sinking into an ignominious muck. Until they fly away into an appropriately undisclosed location, erased from word and memory, the world itself will be New Orleans. A dream turned dark. It will take a complete fumigation of the White House, a thorough renovation. Who is up to these "big decisions?" Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, McCain? May America be blessed again with a mere mortal worthy of the title, Commander-in-Chief. And may perpetual light shine on Gerald Ford and the nation he served with honor and decency.

Mark...I'm jealous - "transient excreta"...why can't I think of terms like that?? That is BRILLIANT!!!

Thanks Edge, but the inspiration comes from a fright film we have all been watching for damn near 6 years. "Transient" is a hopeful modifier and "excreta"... well, it is what it is.

Amy B, maybe the journalist was annoyed that she would have to come back to work and manage a blog she helps maintain because she is on vacation and does want to make any decisions like that, just like the President. In her case, the noted annoyance will not have any global implications. In the President's case, it definetly does.and I believe he has made his decision. The warships are moving to the Persian gulf, supposedly because of the Iranian threat, troops are getting new duty status and the Veterins Administration has announced they are looking into the conscription system to make sure it is still functioning. We will be told about all this after the fact. Today, all of us who were there were reminded of what a President, Vice President and Attorney General can do when they are not held accountable. And we are reminded of the next President who choce to pardon those miscreants, and thus united the country against said President (Ford), and make sure he did not become an elected President.We voted. He got to go home and play golf.

It seems that I have somehow stumbled into the "who cares if America is safe as long as we balance the budget and develop undeserved social entitlement programs" liberal amateurs happy hour. Mark, you do get two points for Transient Excreta. But I am disappointed to see once again this idea that the United States would be better off, or that the Democrats are in a "Strong Strategic Position" merely because they are not Republicans. For the last year and a half the Democratic platform has been exactly that. "We don't need a national agenda, just know that we hate Bush." I will concede one thing however. Barack Obama is a Democrat that I could "CONSIDER" voting for. Not because I agree with him on his stance on most issue's because I most certainly do not. But because I feel America would be getting something pure, something inherently saturated in what our country is founded on. Honesty. I believe the Junior Senator from Illinois when he speaks, and I find something unfamiliarly calming about that. Right now I am still hoping for a Rudy G. bid for the White House in 2008, but if the Democrats think that their best hopes lie in one Hillary Clinton, I think the Liberal left is in for a bad November come '08.

Any polls about the primaries are not very relevant... we need to see who is running first. I am done voting for the person the "party" wants. Gore lost (real or imagined) as did Kerry. Hillary is an option, but it is not clear to me how she will help the country. Edwards at least says what he means and is "real." Not sure who the Reps are going to put up. McCain is a flip flopper and Rudy... come on, are people serious? No chance. Obama MAY run, but we need to actually see how he holds up... Also, don't count Unity 08 out... Edwards is the man at this point!

Why can't our politicians, vis a vis their constituents, just do the right thing. Everything has to be so "right or left". I'll vote for whoever helps the poor, the dispossesed, the hungry and the un-insured. If that makes me a liberal, so be it.Our government seems to be too busy in it's disgusting love affair with Communist China to really care about what's going on at home. We aren't protecting our borders or our ports at all. Do they not remember 9/11?!? Sure, the economy is doing good, if you have an above average income! The rest of us? Oh well, we should be glad of the minimum wage jobs we have with our Masters Degrees. Oh, by the way, your jobs just might be out-sourced to India or China as well.

Preach truth to us Bret. We are so tied up w/ garbage issuews- same sex marriage; really who cares! Is my airport safe? Why does the Catholic Church break the law by enabling/codlding illegal immigrants in California neighborhoods, with no law enforcement edicts? Why cant kids get decent college loans interst rates? Why is it that if you file a 1040A form you cannot claim your contibutions to your church? Why are gun dealers allowed to sell at will, to whomever, whenever, w/ no background checks on the buyers? Did Hallburton profit illegally- probably so, but if not them, somone would have snuck in and stole! FIX the system. Get to the basics of HELPING AMERICANS not sucking the wallet of corportate America.

"Transient excreta...staining our furniture at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave..." Let's hope in Nov. 2008 they truly turn out to be transient! I love "transient excreta"--it also could easily apply to news stories about such publicity hounds as Tom Cruise, Madonna, and other over-exposed celebs that, as soon as their PR people wave a finger, so frequently pops up on newscasts such as NBC Nightly and displaces real news--such as post-Katrina stories. Celebrities should only make it onto such newscasts when they're doing something of socially redeeming value. Examples would be Spike Lee for producing the brilliant documentary "When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts" and Sean Penn for appearing in it, or Robin Williams, Whoopi Goldberg, and the other comics who put on "Comic Relief 2006." I still wonder what goes through newscast producers' heads when they decide that these examples aren't sufficiently newsworthy to merit mention on their broadcasts--yet the Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes wedding full of "let them eat cake" extravagance merits a full report. Ah, come the revolution, the transient excreta will be flushed....

Scot, thanks for the two points. Regretfully, you have earned a Technical Foul for inattention. Apparently, for all the righteous bluster, you seem to be in general agreement with my previous post, although you do appear a little more excited about Obama than I am. The "idea" that the Democrats are in a strong strategic position just because they are not Republicans is a sad fact. No compliment intended to Democrats who, in spite of strong talent, have yet to capture the imagination and enthusiasm of voters. Perhaps you were so mesmerized by "transient excreta" that you zoned on the subsequent body of the post. If you had gathered your focus, you would have read that I wrote of "big decisions" to come. Bigger than John Edwards announcement today, for instance. As for hatred of George Bush, hatred is precisely to what I alluded in referencing the term "sundered," divided. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have left us sundered as a nation much as Nixon left America in tatters in 1974. My concluding comment was a heartfelt encomium to a great Republican President, Gerald Ford. Finally, a gentle reminder that even in blog reading, skimming the text can get you in trouble... To continue in the jargon of your sports metaphor, back to the bench until you are ready to play. Pardon me now, but I have some free throws to shoot.

Scott, Huntsville, Tx. You have me confused, You say you like Obama because he is pure but you hope your party runs Rudy G. for president. I consider Rudy G. one heck of a way from being pure. But having said that, I too hope your party runs Rudy. Any Democrat candidate should be a shoo in against Rudy.

Mark, I think a technical foul is a bit excessive. I do however see where you may perceive that I did not give the body of your preamble on the future of American politics the attention that it deserved. The fact is that I absorbed the entirety of your post and only felt the need to address the beginning. The remainder was merely a diatribe of your distain for the hierarchy of the Bush administration and the damage that you feel it has caused the US. In those cases I do not feel like anything I can say is going to modify your thinking. So I limit my comments to those I feel have even the slightest possibility of provoking a different train of thought. You say that it is a sad fact that the Democrats are benefiting politically partly because they are not Republicans. I would argue however that this is nothing more then a “myth” in which the Democrats are, in true Enron-esque fashion, claiming a greater “value” then reality will show to be the case. The fact is that most Americans are growing increasingly frustrated with the war in Iraq (Primarily because of the unbalanced reporting from the liberal driven media) and associate that frustration with Bush and his administration. That is not going to be enough in 2008 for the American people to vote as the Commander in Chief, some Democrat (or any party) who has no solutions for the problems that this country face and instead tries to finger point as to the may ways that big bad Republicans are ruining the country. I will say that after the first post I had pretty much written you off for a blind, left wing liberal supporter. I now feel instead that much like me, you would like to see someone in office, who regardless of party affiliation will act with honesty and self awareness rather then along party lines. I think the worst thing the Dems could have done is win the House and Senate as they have. I say this because after having Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House for two years even liberal Americans are going to say “There is no way we can allow these nut jobs with to have any responsibility whatsoever.” John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are both democrats. But they are nothing alike. Therefore a bid for the Edwards team in '08 is pointless because the public is not going to differentiate between the more moderate Edwards and the "as far left as you can go" Hillary Clinton. Now I do agree with you that America is in a sundered state. I disagree however, that it is the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld tri-fecta who have taken us to this state. More accurately it is the Clinton (Hillary not Bill)/Kennedy/Hollywood/Media 4-pack who are to blame. In the spirit of friendly debate, I encourage you to develop a game plan to help argue your positions in opposition to mine rather then aimlessly shooting free throws thinking that suggestions of my inability to fully comprehend your post will distract other readers into accepting your points as inherently superior to mine. You will see how flawed that tactic is in 2008. What do you think, “Scott and Mark” on Fox News weekends in place of “The Beltway Boys”?

Seattle Sue- It is me who is confused. I feel that maybe you are interchanging pure and honest actions with an agreement of opinion. There are Republicans who I do not trust and would not like to see in office despite the fact that I agree with most of their platform stances. The name Tom Delay comes to mind. No doubt that Rudy is a conservative and maybe it is his stances on issues that you associate with a lack of “purity”. Like I previously stated, I do not agree with Obama on most issues. It is his character or at least what I perceive as his character and his demeanor that I find appealing. I would rather have someone who votes for every item that I oppose in accordance to his/her own moral and social conscience then someone who votes as I would but for financial/political/personal gain. Obama, Rudy G. and McCain to some extent are that kind of candidate in my opinion. Clinton, Kerry, Delay Are prime examples of Politics as opposed to leadership. Maybe Rudy G. could get Obama to be his running mate.

Scott, I'm still confused when you write of purity and Rudy in the same sentence. On his personal life didn't he have at least three divorces? Didn't he have his mistress comming to his house while his wife was still living there? Did't he have a few questionable business deals with the police officer Kerik? Didn't he become qite wealthy with these shady deals? I just can't see how you can consider him pure.

Rudy G for president...c'mon Scott,he is about as un-appealing as they come for such a position. I also disagree with most commentators that Edwards would be a good choice. He's not dynamic enough to suit me. His boyish good looks do not a president make! He is boring to listen to. Have you really listened to him speak????????? He's boring like Hillary. I'm afraid no matter who gets into office in 08; they will have a rough time undoing all the damage that has been done by those brain-dead losers in office at present.

Although he was a Republican, I don't think President Ford died just to steal John Edwards' thunder.

TO SCOTT IN HUNTSVILLE, TX.; Oh please! Your excessively long dietribe, filled with run-on sentances and conservative "status-quo/party line" rhetoric only establishes and confirms your hatred for Democrats and Liberals. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever, other than to; a)attempt to blame the media for Bush's failed war in Iraq; and, b) to blame Democrats and Liberals in general for the national divide that neo-conservative politics (more specifically The Bush Administration) has brought upon us. Can any Republican Presidential Candidate look into the camera and (honestly) say they would give us anything different than what Bush and his "old boy" Republican cronies have these last 6 years? You and I both know they can't and they won't. If they did, it would signify disapproval of, and a distancing from one of thier own partys' icons. Additionally, they would be admitting that these idiots in The White House have been wrong all along. That would, in and of itself, provide an avenue of attack for Democrats and would probably give Dems the '08' election in a walk. The fact is that Republicans (and conservatives) have had 12 years in congress (six years with a same party president) to fix the ills of this country, and they have failed MISERABLY. Instead of coming up with a viable fix for social security, and recognizing the fact that nearly 50 million Americans and their families have no access to healthcare; we got an investigation into a President's personal indiscretion and a partisan-Republican-politically driven impeachment proceeding that proved absolutely nothing, and only served to further promote geo-political division within this country Instead of implementing additional airport security procedures based upon intelligence the Bush White House had prior to the events of 911, 2900 Americans died in an attack that should naver have been allowed to happen. Instead of coming up with an energy policy that would have prevented or alleviated the ridiculous financial burden consumers bear at the gas pump; this Republican congress, and this Republican President have placated to the oil companies by allowing them to GOUGE the living hell out of the American Public. Through it all, there are two common behaviors that Republicans and conservatives engage in. One being the obligatory denial of any responsibility for anything and everything. The other being the blaming of Democrats for everything that Republicans either did, or failed to do. You think that the GOP or conservatives are, or would-be seen as offering sense and sensibility, while Democrats and Liberals are or will be percieved as "nut jobs"? How about we've already experienced 12 years worth of "nut jobs" being in charge of congress and 6 years worth of them in The White House, and THAT is why they LOST the mid-term elections! Did you ever for one minute consider that possibility? Did the notion that Democrats offered the American Public an option they hadn't had in more than a decade ever come to your mind? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe America wants a better healthcare system, a minimum wage increase, a federal government that is able to respond to emergencies efficiently, more opportunity for ALL Americans and a system of taxation that is proportionately fair to everyone (not just the wealthiest among us)? Did it ever occur to you that this nation now recognizes the all out lies the Bush admin perpetrated in order to gain approval for its' invasion of Iraq? Or, that we have become weary of the fear mongering and name calling the right wing has engaged in? Did it ever occur to you that our government was designed with a system of checks and balances in place, so that no one man, no one party and no single political philosophy would/could govern without discussion, debate, and ultimately the consent of the electorate? Apparently not. Apparently, you buy into the notion that whatever harm Republicans do is good, and whatever good the Democrats do is bad. Apparently you believe that we should blindly follow conservative leadership straight into whatever hell they decide we should travel. Apparently you think that whoever deviates from that thought process is "partisan", or a "nut job," and they shouldn't have any authority unless they follow the party line. YOUR party line. All I can say to you Scott, is that I am glad the majority of Americans differ with your opinions, as proven by the mid-term elections. Partisan or not, Republican-partisan politics FAILED in this country for 12 years in congress and (so far) 6 years in The White House. I hate to break it to you Scott.....but, there just isn't any way the American public is going to put another right wing-nut back in power after Bush leaves. 2008 belongs to Liberals and to Democrats Scott, whether you like it or not. So, you might as well get used to it now.

Mr. Stanley, Quickly: What is a run-on SENTANCE? We jot these things down to express our views, sorry if my grammar/spelling/ content is not fine tuned to your liking. I don’t classify any of my opinions as “status-quo” rhetoric although undoubtedly MOST of my beliefs are in line with the Republican platform. As far as hating Democrats and Liberals, did you read my post? I am a strong supporter of Barrack Osama, I fully support Al Gore in his fight to preserve our resources, and I think that John Edwards would be a good candidate for YOUR party because he is more moderate and representative of the average American Democrat. It is the Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, Clinton types that I have little tolerance for. I am not attempting to blame the media for “Bush’s failed war in Iraq”. I am blaming the media for only reporting the parts of the war in Iraq that give the American public a false picture of the reality of what is going on over there. Everyone is entitled to develop their own opinions. But what do you say we give them all the information so that they can make one that is reflective of the big picture. I feel that the republicans did come up with a viable solution to the Social Security crisis. Develop the privatization of forced retirement savings for all working adults that will provide self (as opposed to Government) sufficient savings for when they choose to leave the workforce. It was the Democrats who blocked any legislation to that effect. They would rather raise taxes and fund welfare and Social Security programs so that people remain dependent on Government. I agree with you that our country needs to do a better job of providing healthcare to its citizens. But until we are all ready to pony up on a 16%+ sales tax, we are not going to be able to fund it. I agree that from a personal standpoint the Clinton Lewinsky affair was the personal business of those involved, however the impeachment was not for the affair, but rather LYING to a grand jury and attempting to obstruct justice. A bit more then an indiscretion don’t you think?? I may point out that the waste of time proceedings that you say further divided the nation are the very same thing that we are all about to see from the Pelosi led House of Representatives. Do I agree that gas (all energy actually) prices are high? Yes I do. However few people know that only about ½ of 1% of the oil company’s revenue is from the sale of gasoline. I think accountability is lacking on both sides of the isle and not exclusive to the GOP. For example, Bush did not know that the levies in New Orleans were going to break. Do you know who did know? That’s right the city of New Orleans. They have known for 20 years that the levies were not stable enough to endure a category 5 hurricane. Why doesn’t anyone want to hold Mayor Nagin and the rest of New Orleans responsible for Katrina instead of saying that Bush is the one to blame? Now if your complaint is that the response to Katrina was garbage, you will not get any argument from me. The reason however was not apathy or incompetence by the President, but rather an insufficient system in place to respond to such an unprecedented event. We blew it all the way around. And nothing you said has anything to do with why the Republicans lost the mid-term elections. It was not a vote of affirmation for the Democrats but rather the American people decided to evict the current seat holders in order to stop the war, which as previously stated is only because they do not hear the full story including all of the success that we have had in Iraq. If you disagree with the Republican platform, that is your opinion and what makes America great. But at least the Republicans stay true to that platform and develop strategies and legislation to push that national agenda forward. Can you even tell me what the national platform for the Democrats is other than to convince the public that the Republicans are to blame or all that is wrong in their lives? I don’t know what information I provided in any previous posts that enabled you to speak for me, but harm is harm and good is good weather it is caused by the Democrats or Republicans. I just tend to agree with the GOP a majority of the time (I am pro-choice you know). And I never suggested in any fashion that people should blindly follow anything. I would rather that those who are making their votes “blindly” not even vote in the first place. If you can’t name the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense to name a few, then you have no business voting at all. Not to mention the ONE POINT POLITICIANS. Just because you are against abortion, that does not automatically make you a Republican. I think “partisan” politics is when any decision is made only because it is part of the party platform and not because you disagree fundamentally with whatever the issue may be. I support the war in Iraq. That is not partisan politics. As far as a majority of Americans not agreeing with me and the results of the mid-term elections, it is the same every decade or so for as far back as I can remember. And in another x # of years, the American people will do the same to the Democrats. Although, I should not speak so quickly as I believe strongly that the Republicans will have a strong showing in ‘08. So until then I hope America can survive the Nancy Pelosi term as Speaker of the House.

Disregard the Barack OSAMA part. It was a spell check typo.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):