I've been getting the question a lot lately in the comments.  And I've answered it…a lot…although apparently not well enough, because it keeps getting asked.  But yesterday, a little conversation ensued between two of our regulars that pinned down the essence of both the question and the answer.  So, here it is, from reader Bargain Countertenor, responding to reader rwcole:

rwcole at 168:

Impeachin the bad news bears?

Well there are two issues..

One- should some dems attempt a doomed and token effort to raise the issue of impeachment knowing full well that it’s goin no where?

Two-should dems begin investigations into areas that could very well lead to the discovery of improprieties that even goopers would have to regard as impeachable.

No. And Yes. In that order.

Impeachment is first and foremost a political act, and the available evidence (Nixon and Clinton) shows that the electorate views it so. Starting in office saying they’re going to impeach the Two Stooges is repeating the Gingrich mistake.

If, on the other hand, carefully conducted oversight hearing bring forward compelling evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of BushCo, then impeachment grows organically from the findings. The analogy then becomes Nixon rather than Clinton. And BushCo will be gone.

And there you have it. A distillation of the most asked question and the answer to it, in a few short sentences, by two of our FDL readers. This is why our comments section makes my day pretty much every day.  It's a gold star kind of morning.