CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 07, 2013 06:45 AM UTC
60 Comments
recent discussion with group of coworkers…
– love the R's, loved Bush, Obama is a disgrace guy : I will support Senator McCain; if the intel is good enough for him,it's good engough for me, Syria is toast.
– love the D's, liberal as liberal can be – we should leave Syria alone until/unless they attack the US
– others: how can we even be thinking about another war, Iraq took forever, Afghanistan isn't even ended yet
– me: Other than the misinfomed opposition to all things violent, no one serious is talking about a US invasion or occupation of Syria. President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Senator McCain and others are talking about a military strike. Depending on what the targets are- I could support it. Not because we can re-take the Levant and finally avenge my ancestoral sacrifice at Acre, but because some combinations of weaponary and ruling regimes are a threat even before a direct attack on the USA. If the weapons plants happen to be outside the current Syrian border, so be it.
Can you name a case where a single military response has effected any change? If we have a credible chance to save lives there, I'm in favor of it. But if we accomplish nothing while getting more involved in that civil war, not a good idea.
Isreali strike on the Osirak nuclear reactor.
I could name thousands – and refernce thousands more with less clear (public) result. But to even hint it would hard to find one – let alone tens of thousands, is a little like a cow running toward a future without color or music; Nut meg, at a circus, or even education with tread.
I am sooooo confuuuused.
Not the only one. Don't feel bad.
Here are my problems.
The overwhelming majority of dead civilians were not and are not being killed with sarin but by perfectly ordinary means. If we can destroy all capacity for using chemical weapons that will be a good thing worth doing but I doubt our intel is good enough to allow us to do that in surgical strikes alone. The killing of civilians by the usual means will continue and there will also still be chemical capability.
We really don't have anyone we can rely on there to arm, much less ally with.
MADCO – really good counter point. I ran through a number in my head and they were all ineffectual (occasional cruise missiles Clinton launched al Al Queada, Reagan attack on Libya, etc.)
Firing cruise missiles may work. My concern is that I haven't heard a compelling argument that they will. And a lot of the one-shot responses have been ineffective.
I'm also concerned that there has not been much discussion about what happens next. I worry that the Obama Administration thinks we can then just walk away from the whole thing.
"…just walk away…"
Well that's th eoppsition to intervention, yes?
Anyway- repeat after me: Iran. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Turkey is part of NATO. Israel. President Jalal Talabani. Oh- and Putin can suck it.
You might say World War II effected real change, David.
Yeah, but it was a "bit" more than a single military action.
Nagasaki . . .?
There's actually a lot of contention among historians as to the impact of the bomb. A significant number think it was Russia declaring war that was the key item that drove the Japanese to surrender.
But even if it was the bomb, it was not by itself. The bombing of Japan at the end was horrorific and it was the combined total. The first massive firebombing of Tokya killed more people than the atom bomb.
The incendiary bomb raids may have killed more people,but they did not legitimize the use of a weapon that kills immediately and for years into the future it was our use of atomic weapons that made such use thinkable.
The Alamo?
We all know why Ralphie came back to Pols. The amazing Saturday videos!!!
This one has more romantic emotional anguish than most chic-flicks manage over 2 hours. (Both singers are Eurovision winners.)
Screw your off-the-wall videos, David, If Ralphie didn't come back to kick butts and shame names, it's not Ralphie.
It's probably some Palisade peach eating, Olathe sweet corn knawing, Uncompaghre Plateau sunset loving Republican sock puppet. Especially if he's here for your videos.
Anyone got plans for lunch?
My guess as to how our Congressional delegation will vote:
Bennet – will speak of anguishing over the decision and studying it in depth, but is a gauranteed vote for the administration.
Lamborn, Tipton & Gardner – will vote no and blame it on not trusting Obama. And it's 100% political as all three would lead the charge if it was President McCain asking for authorization.
Coffman – desperately trying to figure where the center of his district will be in a year. Best for him is to vote on the losing side so he can say "if only, if only." (And following the desires of his district is a legit vote.)
DeGette – her conscience is telling her vote no while the party pressure is to vote yes. I think her conscience will lead her to a no vote.
Perlmutter, Polis, & Udall – all three are trying to figure out what's the right thing to do. They are torn between not getting involved in another war and the downside of the world finding that chemical weapon use is ok (as it was for Saddam and Assad's father). I think their decision will rest on if they thing firing 20 cruise missiles will have any significant effect.
So out of nine reps you only guess five votes? Wo, that shows stoneys.
Lamborn, Tipton, Gardner, Coffman and Bennet: Yes
DeGette, Polis, Perlmutter and Udall: No
:"Depending on what the targets are- I could support it. Not because we can re-take the Levant and finally avenge my ancestoral sacrifice at Acre, but because some combinations of weaponary and ruling regimes are a threat even before a direct attack on the USA. If the weapons plants happen to be outside the current Syrian border, so be it. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/48932/weekend-open-thread-34#comments"
MADCO,
The fear is not the first strike, it is the retalitory strike, and then our second strike. The idea that a "combination of weaponary and ruling regimes" are an effectual threat to the US is ludicrous and no justification, under anyone's law or logic for an
aggressive attack on another nation. How many riuling regimes with weaponary are you willing to attack? Which ones? Do you advocate limited nuclear war?
As for retalitory attacks, lest we forget: Gulf War I had murky justification. Iraq had been an one time "ally" and evidently Suddan Hussin was under the impression that he could move into Kuwait without objection from the US. BIg Mistake. There was a UN Resolution authorizing member nations to "liberate" Kuwait and the coalition that followed had 34 member nations. Colin Powell wanted to make sure that there was overwheliming force. Saudi Arabia became the staging ground and from August of 1999 to January 16th,1991 there was a build up of some 500,000 troops, most of them American. The effort was successful, Kuwait was liberated.
The US, with Saudi Arabia's persmission and encouragment, continued to keep US troops stationed on the Saudi Arabian soil. Bin Laden vowed to force US troops off the pennisula since he considered it sacred soil and the infidel US troops were descreating it. His first attack on the World Trade Towers came in February of 1993, the second on September 11, 2001. The first did not accomplish his goal, the second did. All US troops were off of Saudia Arabia by the end of 1992.
We were not attacked in 2001 because radical Muslins hated us because of our freedom, we were attacked to accomplish a political goal, to get US troops out of Saudia Arabia. It was both retaliatory, and a "warning shot across the bow." It worked.
"…'combination of weaponary and ruling regimes' are an effectual threat to the US is ludicrous and no justification, under anyone's law or logic for an
aggressive attack on another nation. "
Isreali strike on the Osirak nuclear reactor.
"How many riuling regimes with weaponary are you willing to attack? Which ones? "
All the ones which are a threat.
"Do you advocate limited nuclear war?"
I don't see the connection to your questions – but only if the alternative is worse.
Your dates are…either an ironic typo or just bizzare.
Either way- your conclusion is that a single, violent, strike did accomplish an important political objective. Really?
Thanks for catcing the major typos and giving me a chance to correct:
August 1999 should read 1990
The end of 1992 shoudl read the end of 2002.
I offer no excuse and a apology as it distracts from the main argument.
I encourage all of you, particularly MADCO and Davie, to take the Powell Doctrine quiz. This is from Wikipedia
The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?[1]
Here is the link to Wikipedi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine
As Powell said in an April 1, 2009 interview on The Rachel Maddow Show, the Doctrine denotes the exhausting of all "political, economic, and diplomatic means," which, only if those means prove to be futile, should a nation resort to military force. Powell has expanded upon the Doctrine, asserting that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing US casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate.
I'm more of a Secretary Weinberger kind of guy.
The Weinberger doctrine:
International support is …unreliable, partly for it's fickle nature, part for the inherent conflict of interest.
By the way- you seem to scoff at Desert Storm (Giulf War 1) but it apparently met all of the Powell criteria. Yes? (I would remind you that te US turned a small profit on that one- since there were countries that supported the action, but were unable to send other than a check – Germany and japan, for example.)
5+ months of build up, 6 weeks of intense activity and an exit strategy. AN exit ultimately rejected by Jr, but an exit all the same.
Are you seriously suggesting that the USA (nor any other nation) should ever engage in a limited action? That it's either all in committment to opposition capitulation – or nothing?
Gulf War I may have been prevented, if the US had sent a strong, non-ambigious message to Iraq. That is a statement; not a scoff.
Interesting analysis of the Osirak incident:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2012_05/Osirak_and_Its_Lessons_for_Iran_Policy
I do indeed think that Gulf War I met the Powell Doctrine. The current possibility of US military action does not meet the criteria laid out in Point 1 of both the Powell
and the Weinberger Doctrine.
"Are you seriously suggesting that the USA (nor any other nation) should ever engage in a limited action? That it's either all in committment to opposition capitulation – or nothing? – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/48932/weekend-open-thread-34#comments"
In today's world, with rapidly changing political dynamics, no nation can be assured that they can control a "limited action."
dwyer — I support a limited, directed strike against Assad to degrade his ability to wage chemical war on his own citizens. That is not war in the sense of boots on the ground and months/years of physical combat (which is what Powell was addressing).
I think of the attack Reagan carried out against Khaddafi in 1986 that set in motion Khaddafi's decision to not be the go-to guy for terrorists by the '90's, even paying billions in compensation to his victims.
I also think of the strike Clinton didn't pursue against Bin Laden in 1999: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html
If there are non-violent alternatives, then yes, by all means pursue them. But turning our backs on this particular class of atrocities in a highly visible conflict has its own set of dire consequences.
I do not support a limited, directed strike against Assad to degrade his ability to wage chemical wor on his own citizens, for the following reasons:
1) There is no vital national security stake.
2) Attack on Khaddafi is not relevant as Khaddafi had attacked US soldiers in Germany and was a desert war lord with no capacity, and no allies, that could retaliate against the US.
3) Russia has already said it would retaliate against an attack on Syria.
4) The attack you call "limited" could be considered an Act of War by others, and the outcome for this nation can not be predicted.
5) There is absolutely no assurance that such an attack would have the desired effect.
1) Yes there is.
2) agree- but for different reasons.
3) Hmm… Russia says, has said, will say a lot of things I don't believe.
4) Always true. Not always relevant, but always true.
5) There almost never is and so by this standard no military action would ever be worthwhile.
Isn't that how WW-I started? Everyone making bad assumptions about what the others would do?
Let's be bluntly honest here . . . despite what the church would have had the crusaders believe, and despite what we would like to believe from our own indoctrination and propaganda . . . wars are about one thing, and one thing only — economic interest.
It's not in Russia's economic interest to go to war with the US — period — end of story! (Also vice-versa, what behind closed-doors and back channel conversations do you think have been going on this week between US and Russian officials?)
(It's also why we get so conflicted in these situations, we want to believe that we're accomplishing some moral good, because that's what we've be taught to believe — but really, there's minimal, if any, economic interest here in Syria for us, small geopolitical gains — maybe, but notich else. So, it's very, very hard to develop the necessary consensus to cover any hostile actions. The end game is Iran, what we do will depend wholly on whether we advance any distance towards that, or not.)
Usually, I consider Coloradopols the equivalent of Sports Talk. Which is just fine with me. Everyone assumes the position of quarterback or coach and analyzes losses, predicts wins, and fantanizes about next time….and nobody gets hurt.
In that context, Diogenesdemar, your comments are intriquing..if confusing…ie he end game is Iran, what we do will depend wholly on whether we advance any distance towards that, or not.) – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/48932/weekend-open-thread-34#comments
I really don't know what that means.
However, for me, more importantly, this is not game time. This is real life and we are real players. I think that we all have a responsibility to make a decision, now, about how we want our Representatives, Bennet, and Udall to vote and then to let them know.
You may well be correct on why it is difficult to reach a consensus on "hostile action." But that doesn't mean that one can sit on the sideline and "pontificate."
It means that geopolitically Syria is a lot less important than Iran. Iran has been the main relationship Syria has had for years. And years.
The USA-Syrian relationship could have been a gateway to a relationship to the leadership in Iran. Except that the leaders in both countries hate us.
So is there a way to leverage events – present or future – in Syria to improve our situation with Iran?
But we could ignore the events in Syria. Perhaps the Syrians will sort it out in a way that is not worse for us. In fact, I am pretty sure that would be the most likely outcome if we remain uninvolved.
@MADCO,
1) President Obama said that there is no national security issue at stake. Perhaps you should call the White House and explain to the Commander-in-Chief that he is mistaken.
5) I should not have used the words absolutely and assured….I should have just quoted the Powell Doctrine:
"Do we have a clear, attainable objective?"
That's why I have Senators and a Representative. I called them.
Too bad Powell didn't stick with the Powell doctrine when the chips were down. Had he resigned rather than lend himself to a charade he was smart enough to know was bull, that would have given political cover to others to oppose.
Kerry's people pretty much admitted that he voted with the administration only because they convinced him that if he voted no and the invasion was a quick success he could kiss the presidency goodbye for sure. Plenty of Dems had similar political cowardice reasons for failing to stand against what they knew to be bull. The fear of looking like the unpatriotic liberal wimps the right had painted them as since the Vietnam era. HRC couldn't look weak in prep for running to be the first serious female presidential candidate, though she is pretty hawkish in any case. Powell could have given them the chance to stand with him, nobody's idea of an unpatriotic wimp. Instead he chose to put being a team player ahead of everything.
With the great popularity and respect he commanded at the time, he might have changed history by resigning in protest. Other cabinet members throughout history have done just that in protest of policies they could not, in good conscience support. It's beyond a shame.
So the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels has an update on "Political Stuntman" Jon Caldara this morning: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24031652/boulders-jon-caldara-plans-vote-el-paso-county?source=rss
He's still planning to commit felony perjury and atttempted vote fraud today, believing that simply announcing your intent to commit a felony based on his faulty interpretation of the law will innoculate him from prosecution.
Might I suggest for his next stunt, Caldara should publicly announce he is going to commit bank robbery. Any reasonable interpretation of the banking laws makes it very clear that anyone can withdraw money from commercial banks at any time for any reason.
Therefore, rather than his current Quixotic campaign in defense of the handful of fraudulent voters nationwide, I think his making a point about the injustice perpetrated against the thousands of bank robbers currently serving time in prison for simply exercising their rights under the law to withdraw money from banks would bear much greater fruit.
And of course, I fully expect that as a lawfully authorized citizen with a concealed carry permit, he would be fully armed when making his bank withdrawal.
Reality bites: Huffpo reports that the voters are suffering buyer's remorse after realizing how screwed up the GOP's legislative priorities are:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/north-carolina-poll_n_3882517.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
"We know from repeated polling over the last few months that North Carolinians are very unhappy with what's happened to their state this year," PPP wrote in its poll release. "The national polling makes it clear that the rest of the country feels the same way."
Original PPP data – http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/state-favorability-poll.html
PPP press release about NC – http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/north-carolinas-national-image-declines.html#more
–Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Argentina/Vatican)
My sig line! My sig line! My anonymous ColoPols kingdom for a sig line!
@Fuck you, Guvs: Just spent an hour and a half discussing the morality of a Syrian intervention, highlighted four words to delete, and your precious new idiotor deleted my whole investment, divided my screen into a bunch of <!DOCTYPE htmel> horseshit on the bottom, a bunch of element( inline) htme. bodiy div, span, etc. etc, etc on the right hand,
Fuck you and the superhero webmasters you hired to ride you–spanking your ignorant asses all the way– in on. Good luck making a living on the one-sentence sniping of your self generated trolls like ArapaGOOP, Liber–whatever, and what's his name.
You are too tired, too naive and too backwad for my additional attention.
"backwad"? Hey, That just about describes you guys.
Larry, Larry, Larry – I feel your pain! They don't know how to fix the problems or simply don't care. That is why I work around this horrible editor by writing anything longer than this comment in a separate word processing program or an app like Evernote and copy it into the editor. Save yourself the heartache.
You know, I have actually never had a problem at all with the new editor. I misspell things sometimes, but that's my problem.
I think Larry may have been too sauced at 1:50AM last night to comment. It's even harder than drunk dialing.
From what I've seen here, if being sauced at 1:50 am is any kind of bar to lenghty and detailed
rantingpolitical analysis on this site, we are in fact doomed. (Case in point: What would your life be with Algernon Moncreif diaries, huh?) Larry's right — this site has been unnecessarily dumbed down for the likes of Moderatus, n3b, et al.It's not only the guvs fault — they were sold this bill of crap goods by DavidT and his idiotic, quixotic, mushy headed do-gooder quest to spur thoughtful discussion by — wait for it — making it easier for the GOP illeterati to feel more welcome here . . .
And, now, here we stand at the end of paths taken . . .
. . . and, yes — it should be illiterati — I know that. But since we don't have shit for a spell-checker anymore, or even a preview pane, then screw it. Besides, the GOPer illiterati doesn't know or care that it's not suppose to be illeterati . . .
On this site it's not WYSIWYG — its WTFYSIWYG-WTF!!??!!
Before the migration and the WYSIWYG editor, we all had to do HTML basically by hand. There were a couple of buttons for italics, bold, etc. but that was it.
I greatly prefer the HTML editor, even though I know HTML and don't need it. But if you don't trust it, type out your stuff in a word processor and copy/paste it. That way you'll never lose it.
"Self-generated trolls?" That's a new one. We might consider that someday to improve their quality.
We're curious what happened to your comment, and would like to see the resulting HTML if you still have it.
The CKeditor plugin we use as the WYSIWYG editor is optional to WordPress, and it's true that on the old site it did not exist at all. If it's the judgment of the community that it's more trouble than it's worth, it can be disabled, and standard HTML tags may then be used. There are alternative WYSIWYG editor plugins for WordPress that may be available, which may include desired features. To the extent that these are off the shelf plugins, we welcome suggestions from anybody who wants to investigate.
Most users have noticed considerably better performance recently after our latest migration to a more competently managed server. Be assured that we do care about the user experience using the site, and now that we're not struggling on a day to day basis to keep it online under our traffic loads, we are committed to making improvements. There is a great deal of nostalgia for our old website, and we share some of it, but the choice to migrate away from Soapblox was not ours. The new owners of the software have ended development and are migrating customers off that platform.
So, we're a WordPress site now. We hope this puts us in a position to better serve everyone's needs in the long run, and we're happy for suggestions in doing that better.
CKeditor is an incredibly well written piece of software. And I'll bet if you go back to writing your own html, you'll have a lot more people complaining (including some of the same ones).
The new blog setup is good. It's not perfect, but software never is. And keep in mind a number of people here tend to complain a lot, about everything.
;~)
Heyyyyy!! . . . I resemble that remark!!!
WTF?, Dave, — bootlick — It's a hobby! Maybe even an addiction (. . . not unlike like those apparent slavic soft-porn video adictions that, er, . . . wouldn't want to name any names, now . . . ahem, . . . some folks here tend to exhibit — a lot…)! Verstehe???
And, anyway, Obama's not perfect either — President's never are, but that doesn't keep some folks here from complaining incessently . . . (I guess those folks' excuse is that if they don't give voice to their simpering complaints, then he'll never improve?)
I suppose we should all just pretend to be totally satisfied with this admittedly much-less-than-perfect platform (. . . great euphemism for frequently-POS, btw . . . ), huh? No improvements needed — no, no, no! The all-knowing Alva is fully aware of all the problems here, and he'd have tweeked this "incredibly well-written piece of software" (. . . so that's what POS really stands for? . . . do we have to spell out the adjectives, or could we us IWW-POS? . . . ) by now if only we whiners really needed it . . .
Now, you wanna talk real software problems?? — let's return for a moment to those halcyon days of Roxy Huber commentators . . . er, complainers . . .
:~)
It's OK, guys. It's way better since your latest migration and it's not as if things were perfect when you were Soapbox or that you had a choice besides finding other options.
Those of us who are relatively clueless are no worse off than we were then and those with a clue will find ways to cope. The speed and ease of navigating are back to normal and that makes the site way, way less of a pain.
Also when we make really boneheaded mistakes we can always blame the site as in I'm not an illiterate moron. It's the damn site. Works for me.
I have no idea what happened with the spacing at the end there but I no longer care. I'm all about don't worry, be happy from now on.
@Colorado Pols
1) It sometimes hard to follow a thread that has both comments and replies…
2) I think a preview would really be helpful.
3) I never know if I am signed in or not…I get a welcome Dwyer and then a sign in please……
Speed has really picked up.
I started off leaning toward doing something to Syria. But the more I hear from the Obama Administration, the more it seems like Iraq deja-vu. Below all from CNN:
and
And from Fareed Zakaria:
Doing nothing is definitely bad. Doing something is also definitely bad. Which is least bad, that's fundamentally a guess.
Exactly. Only bad choices do we posess. Presidents Assad (past and present) in collaboration with others (Iran, Russia, and others) have seen to it. Zugzwang.
The inherent asymetry of present day miltary conflicts involving the US is a major and unavoidable compounding factor. Would I feel differently about striking the relevant weapons plants if I found out they were in Kentucky or Alabama or even Pueblo? No.
"which is least bad" is not a guess. It is, of course, a prediction.
When President Carter axed the B1 he did so for good reason- we did not need it.
When President Reagan resuscitated it, he did so for a better reason- it motivated the Soviets to over extend and collapse their
military industrialeconomy.You do know,MADCO, that the US still has mustard gas stored outside of Pueblo?
Very difficult to decomission…..
and Richmond, Kentucky.
Probably Aberdeen. And likely some "forgotton" locations.
Difficulf: yes – and not impossible.
Syria did not get theirs from Pueblo.
You know of the Richmond ordinance facility, eh? I grew up around there. We used to drive by it on the way to my grandmothers' house near Berea…Big Hill to be exact.
Especially since sequestration hit. There is effectively no science going on at the Pueblo Chemical depot, since they have been furloughed 1-2 days a week. And yes, that mustard gas is still leaking through the drums and into the groundwater.
As one the whiny ones around here, I would like to thank the guvs for the new server. My problem before was waiting half an hour for the site to load. Now I can't follow all the comments because they come so fast and furious. (See? Whiny.)
I love preview, but I won't whine about not having it more than once or twice a week. My knowlege of HTML is nil, so I like the point and click versions on the new site. If it means even N3B can use them too, so be it.
You guys are (hmm saints seems the wrong word somehow) special to put up with all of us. Thanks, Alva.
I'm relatively new here, but it sure seems to load much faster now. I can edit my diaries, and do, obsessively, but yes, it would be nice to have a comment editor. I can spell and do grammar fine, just say some plain wrong things once in awhile, and would like to be able to correct them. I'm way down on the HTML learning curve.
So I have no idea if the options you're proposing in wordpress would make it easier to edit comments or not. Seems like not, so makes no nevermind to me.