Mr. Budowsky takes issue with my term "granola caucus" (not granola chompers, although I like that one too) and "lefty bloggers" as "derisive and insulting disrespect." Um, OK. Such sensitivity strikes me as overblown, but I suppose the granola caucus (or chompers, either way) needs its shining knights like the rest of us.

And he seems particularly bothered that I would draw any comparison between Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinDOJ, Trump reach deal on expanded Russia review Congress — when considering women’s health, don’t forget about lung cancer Overnight Energy: Pruitt taps man behind 'lock her up' chant for EPA office | Watchdog to review EPA email policies | Three Republicans join climate caucus MORE's (D-Calif.) position on the death penalty (which put her at odds with the base of her party when she was running for office in 1994) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) position on the Iraq war (which has her at odds with some in her party today). 

So, I suppose the Republican talking-point spin machine (of which I am clearly a card-carrying member) is pointing out that Feinstein won election by standing her ground in 1994 with a tough-on-crime position and that Clinton may very well benefit in the general election by standing her ground on her Iraq war vote and refusing to apologize?

You got me there.

I stand by my assertion that if Hillary makes it out of the primary, she benefits from any jeers she takes from the left regarding Iraq. Brent, no matter how much voters dislike the current war in Iraq, this country doesn't want a peacenik for president. It wants a leader who will retaliate if attacked by a foreign nation, network, organization or tribe.

Oh, sorry — is "peacenik" too derisive?