Not Rudi, it will be the actor who get the nod.

It's good to have Kucinich and others out there, pushing the bounds of the conversation. I bet David Broder and Fred Hiatt at the Post are furious.

It will mean something when Articles of Impeachment come from the center and includes Bush, who, of course, ought to be just as includes as Cheney. By not including Bush, what is Kucinich trying to prove? That everything he touches is half-assed?

Dear Colleague Kuchinich:

Please also invite President George W. Bush to your impeachment party.

Sincerely,

Tom

I understand the half-assed logic, but both should be on if either is on. What else is the point. Nixon's impeachment would have certainly slowed down were Agnew present.

It's a conundrum: Kucinich is kind of a clown, no matter how good his politics. Recall his deserved rank of third in all-time worst American mayors; he gives Don Quixote a bad name; the ideal Democratic nominee - if your're a Republican.

The Impeachment Article in the Constitution was designed especially for such unfit-for-office as Bush and Cheney. That they deserve impeachment is beyond dispute to anyone sane at this point. You're singing to the choir here on that one. But why beat up on a Dem who has a shot at winning in '08 if it harms our chances? It won't happen unless half the elected Repubs go along. That is not likely, but who knows what awful stuff will emerge this year? I'm against anything that jeapardizes our shot in '08. If impeachment is the way, then so be it; if not, then so be it.

You are, lj629, in your previous post.

Love your lust for moral superiority, lj269. Won't wash here. I, too, would love to see Cheney (oh, and Bush, too) get their commupance. Who among the party wouldn't? Who? Who? You sound like an old Nader holdover. Look at what that moral superiority got us. As if the Dems are anything nearly as bad as the Republicans. I just love the wing of the party that thinks losing is so virtuous. Quite a record. Really just a form of narcissism.