I am sure the Washington Post can be depended upon to write some hundred plus articles, op-eds, and editorials on this incident. Oh sorry,Etheridge is democrat. It does not matter.

I live in the 3rd district and his actions shame me, he was elected in 1996 and he needs to be voted out of office.

Demo's are becoming unhinged because they bought into a failed, incompetent president who sold them and this country a "pack of lies" "The chickens are coming home to roooooost."

I love reading the left-leaning apologists I'm seeing on the blogs and comment areas of various news websites -- "the reporters were conservative plants," "they had it coming," "I would have slugged anyone who put a camera in my face," etc.

Law school 101 folks: no one has the right to assault and battery another person, except in self-defense. A camera in one's face, particularly when you are a politician or celebrity in the public eye, is not grounds for self-defense; just ask Sean Penn. Etheridge is an attorney by training. He knows this better than most and should be prosecuted accordingly.

as soon as he hit that kid and then grabbed his wrist and wouldnt let go should have been the moment he took a fist sandwich to the mouth from the kids free hand.

This man is typical of all Demonrats. He must be voted out of office in November. This man is not fit to hold the office the voters honored him with by electing him in the first place.

Well I don't want to say "see one Democrat, you've seen them all". But this drunken putz seems a fair specimen of a Democrat gone native in D.C.

In any jurisdiction in the nation, the police are not constrained by a victim's desires. In other words, if the police have probable cause to make an arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence, they may simply obtain an arrest warrant and make that arrest regardless of whether the victim wants the suspect arrested or not.

That said, the police do have substantial, legitimate discretion and there are certainly reasons why they might not make a given arrest even though they would be justified in so doing. However this video is more than sufficient probable cause for any competent police officer to apply for an arrest warrant and more than sufficient for any competent district attorney to complete the necessary paperwork and prosecute the case. In fact, having such a video would make any competent prosecutor giddy with delight and any defense attorney desperate to plea bargain to keep that video and a jury as far apart as possible.

Of course, in DC, politicians of the proper rank may well be immune to arrest, though since this one is a white male, he may be a bit less immune than some. However, the DC police can surely arrest the man, and the DC prosecutors can prosecute him, should they have the testicular fortitude necessary. There is no doubt that he committed an assault.

He's a dhimmicrap; the words "decency" and "shame" aren't in their dictionary.

He can only pick on old women and young boys. They are all cowards. Would never to that to a man.

The truly amazing thing is the utterly mundane nature of the question. The only slightly tendentious aspect of it is the "fully". How is it inflamatory in the least to ask a politician if he supports the agenda of his President? Obviously the inflammation is in the agenda. Or perhaps the very word "agenda" is a scurrilous slander? Bottom line is that whether they are socialists or straightline communists or enviro loons or racial spoils hustlers the major animating and unifying element here is that all these pukes are idiots. John Kerry and Howard Dean and James Carville no less than Axelrod, Rahm-but or the Big O himself. Oh, and that includes both all Clintons, needless to say.