Answer: that this artless dolt was apparently able to fool much of our press and our political establishment into going along with so many fraudulent or just plain stupid ideas. How many times did I see people seriously comparing Mr. Bush to Abraham-fricking-Lincoln on Meet the Press and not being laughed out of the studio? This president was not just elected once, but re-elected. And based on what? That you'd supposedly like to have a beer with him? High and low, this country is crawling with people who apparently thought the trajectory we've been on for the past eight years was just dandy. Lawlessness, brainless ideology, dishonesty and incompetency--hey, let's have some more of that! Oh, but gee, look where we are now! Golly, what happened?!

This presidency has been one enormous fraud, and millions of you fell for it. The Daily Mirror said it best after the 2004 election: "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?"

Well, you are wright, maybe americans got to go to school to learn how not to fall for such characters two times, and to understand that the american dream is or should be in a different place. It is pitiful to see the president of the first democracy talking about Israel as the greatest democracy in the area, knowing what Israel is doing to the palestinians, regardless of the tense situation created by extremist palestinians, well maybe is not so, we got to remember that he allows water-boarding. Next time that americans vote for a president, they should think about it more carefully and just go back and review the last seven years of american history.

I don't know what the author of this article or the commentors here seem to expect.

So Bush has laid out a vison for the Isreal Palistinian conflict but hasn't made any real progress. No real progress has ever really been achieved previously, by any president. He is the first president to publicly call for the creation of a palistinian state. What did Clinton have to offer middle east politics besides air-raids on Bahgdad and cruise missle attacks in Sudan and Afgahistan.

And my god. Why are the democrats so ready to identify with the label of "appeaser"? I never thought Obama or Biden identified with that policy, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

Being one of those "independent" types,my allegance goes to the candidate that I believe is best for the country under the current circumstances. Given the current economic circumstances, why are we entertaining the election of an extremely liberal candidate who has already told us about the billions he plans to spend? I'd love to vote for a "left-middler, or right middler", as I voted for Clinton. However, not being a lemming, I have voted twice for Bush mostly because I just couldn't bite down on the hook of the Democratic candidates in the last several elections. Gore scared me the most, and, has proven to be the opportunist carpetbagger I feared he was. He employed "used car" salesmanship to sell us on global warming, and when presented with corrected Nasa average temperature data that dispelled his thesis, did he demur to the new data, no. He then tries to sell us on this carbon credit "slight of hand", and, then we find that those carbon credits that he took for the palatial mountain top estate he owns are carbon off-sets that were actually purchases of stock in a "green" company of which he is on the board. And rumors still abound about a free convention and Democrats picking Gore as their savior. I'm one of those pragmatists that could easily vote for Joe Leiberman for President. He's my kind of guy whose loyalty is first to his country, not his party. He openly admitted that his own party to which he has devoted his whole life to, has moved way too far to the left for him to remain loyal solely due to party affiliation. The Democrats have to move more to the middle or they will forever lose the trust of U.S. voters. There aren't enough Bush haters to get Democrats over the top. I would really like to vote for Obama, however, his ideas for "change" are just going to be too expensive for a recessionary economy. I'm sure he will argue that he'll save billions after he pulls the troops out of Iraq, but, wasn't he also telling us we wouldn't be running the huge deficit if it wasn't for the war in Iraq. The money is OK to spend on social programs now? Which is it? I just got to keep believing that there are good candidiates in that party, somewhere.

in the form of the Neocon Infestation of the Executive Branch. That's the overriding issue in this election. It is "to all other factors as five is to one."

So it doen't matter if the Democrats nominate Joe Shit the Ragman. He gets my vote.

We can sort out all the other usual Lib/Con squabbles after we get the Stench of Empire out the White House and the Pentagon.

I just now noticed your call name, fingerpuppet. Now all you have to do is put Bush's face on it and you're home! How'd you ever come upwith that name? Genius, I think.