Sorry for the delay in answering these, been working on a new feature for the site. Stay tuned!

Nobody has anything to say about "Harry S Truman"?? I have to say, I'm disappointed... just where the heck are the Grammar Police when you expect them?!?

In general, I have to say that here at CW.com "we don't need no steenking word limits!!"

I, too, have been frustrated by HuffPost's word limits on comments. But I have to be careful here, as I don't want to turn this site into griping about HuffPost, as they graciously allow me to post three times a week there, which I'd like to continue doing. [Ahem.]

Many comment deletions are inadvertent, as HuffPost has been doing a major overhaul on their commenting code (and filtering code) for months now. So just because your comment doesn't appear, don't necessarily take it personally, it may be an innocent glitch in their code.

Elizabeth -

As I noted, "due to popular demand" I did subsequently comment on the VP selection, although it was probably not exactly what you wanted to hear. It took me a while to come up with an original take on the situation, that's all. But just to show you some love, you were the "popular demand" noted in that column!

:-)

And hey, be happy -- Biden has (if rumors are true) made it into the top three! Think of all the seriously annoyed Hillary fans out there who didn't get this accolade.

But I bet all the speculation is wrong -- I bet Obama's going to wait to announce his VP until just before the convention. And I further bet that Tim Kaine is a red herring, dragged in front of the media to throw them off.

But I do wish he'd name one earlier, since the VP candidate's traditional role is "attack dog" and -- seeing that McCain has taken the gloves off -- this could be a handy thing to have in the next few weeks.

Michale -

"Liberal beatnick," huh? I'm still trying to figure out whether I'm pleased or insulted by that. Maybe "Liberal-leaning crypto-Libertarian post-hippie" would be better? I dunno... we report, you decide (as they say, heh heh). But I did like the "even-keeled" part, I must admit.

:-)

Anyway, more comments to answer, gotta go...

Thanks to everyone, as always, for commenting. All are indeed welcome here.

-CW

Well, considering the problems over there, I guess it's not too surprising..

Anyways, here's my 2cents..

As a veteran of two branches of the US Armed forces and a combat veteran, I also really don't give a rat's patootie if the "guy" who's got my back is straight, gay, female, black, white, green, purple or even human.. All I care is if the "guy" is competent to cover my back..

To me, "sexual preference" means if a guy (or girl) likes blonde guys (or girls) or skinny guys (or girls) or what have you...

It was never really an issue in the military until Clinton MADE it an issue in the military... Good call. :^(

Michale.....

The word limit used to be 350 but then HP is no bastion of great conversation or debate - that's why we come here, after all, right?

But, unless I am experiencing a brief moment of weakness when I just forget about it, I post in two or more parts, if necessary and basically obliterate the 250 limit.

Hopefully, our friend Senator Obama will put his good experience and sound judgement to work and make the big decision this week and, mercifully, put me out my misery...one way or the other 'cause waiting for his VP selection is what's killing ME! :-)

Tht 250 word limit really KILLS me sometimes..

:D

Michale.....

As CW said, he doesn't have much control over what HuffPo mods will and will not approve..

I can speak from personal experience that CW is the most even-keeled liberal beatnik you could ever hope to come across...

He is definitely NOT afraid of opposing viewpoints and actually embraces them with a gusto not really seen in the left-wing liberal circles..

Anyone that can put up with me on a (literally) 2 year ongoing basis has to have SOMETHING going for him. :D

Michale.....

You should consider posting about the VP selection - this is the critical week, after all...I hope That'll catch more than a few comments, deletions notwithstanding!

And then, if all goes well, we can concentrate on other subjects.

Don't give up when it comes to commenting over at HP - sometimes you just have to try and try again. I've had a few posts deleted lately, too. In fact, it seems I've had a lot of posts deleted there over the last few years. Sometimes there is just no accounting for taste! :-)

Anyway, you should post more here - Chris is right...as long as the privilege is not abused, all comments get posted here and good conversation and debate abounds. And, the best part is that there is no silly word limit like the 250 word maximum nonsense we have to suffer over at HP.

You raise some good points. I left out of the article (for length) some of the quotes from military brass back in 1948 on their reasons for keeping the military segregated. I also left out an interesting fact -- black civil organizations were getting ready to boycott the military (including refusing to be drafted) unless it was desegregated. And after Truman's order, the brass wanted a quota for blacks, although it's the exact opposite of what "quota" normally means in these situations -- they wanted an upper limit (around 10% if I remember right) of how many blacks could join. I doubt that would be an issue today. None of this addresses Powell's point, which I tend to disagree with.

What would happen if Jewish people were allowed to serve in the military, as long as they didn't "practice" their Judiasm? You think a few Jews might get upset by this second-class treatment? I'm not drawing a parallel between Judaism and being gay, I'm just tossing it out there for the sake of discussion.

And I apologize for HuffPost. I don't have full control over what they do (as I do here, where your comments are welcome as long as they don't get abusive or threatening... ask Michale... I almost NEVER disallow comments here). Their comment server was down for service last night, I do know that, and I usually get a lot more tha 3 comments, so I suspect there may have been technical problems. But if they did outright delete you, then I apologize.

-CW

The underlying assumption is that the military should accomodate ALL Americans no matter what. That is not only wrong, but absurd. The ideal candidate is somebody who looks like Gov. Arnold in build, and Einstein's intelligence. Then the military starts down looking at what is available, and needed, and filling the slots accordingly. The only criterion that should be demanded is what is best for making the service better meet military needs? It is NOT that gays should have a right to cross dress and advertise their sexual preference on post.

I am also upset that my posts were not allowed on Hufpost because I disagreed with your stand. It is not liberal to silence opposing points of view. Leave that to the Republicans.