Early on, the conservative media changed the wording of Obama's message from his "post-partisan" approach to "bi-partisan". Even Obama has been using their phrasing. I'm disgusted: We don't need to kowtow to radicals who have been so wrong so consistently just because they sit on one side of the aisle.

On the other hand, "post-partisan" means that Obama doesn't have to be "liberal", "progressive" or even "Capital-D-Democratic". Much like Clinton's "New Democrat", Obama has, all too often, embraced the compromise, allowing extremists to use a sensible middle as the starting point for negotiation rather than the final outcome.

For all Republican/MSM talk of Obama as a "liberal", it was clear during the election that he was not. Those of us with big hopes, including you, Glenn, saw such a stark contrast with the corrupt mendacity of the Bush reign we assumed Obama would always do the exact opposite of whatever Bush might do. Alas, no.

While I have been pleased with much that the Obama administration has accomplished in the first few months, there have always been chinks in his armor. From serious issues (such as continuing Bush-era holding of prisoners without trial) to foolish ones (such as his preference for *shudder* Bud Lite), Obama has disappointed me.

I've been grading him at about a B+ since inauguration. At the moment, health care is running about a B-: Almost any reform is better than no reform, but the A legislation would include a public option and the A+ reform would be to create a single payer plan.

Am I disappointed? At the moment, yes. Still, waiting on a huge sweeping bill like this is sort of like waiting for Brett Favre to retire, and we're still in training camp. (Yes, I'm from Minneapolis, so the analogies will be heavy-handed.)

I didn't expect to agree with everything Obama does, so my disappointment doesn't come with a loss of trust. But after the miserable failure of George W. Bush, I don't want a B president. I hope he rises above the fray, listens to people who have been right in the past, ignore people who have been wrong, and return to post-partisan leadership. I hope the first few months have been a learning curve, not the substance, of his presidency.

The modern independent, non-partisan, newspaper is a fairly recent invention, going back to the rise of the big department stores circa 1890s. Macy's didn't care who you voted for as long as you bought their clothes, and advertised in the papers with the widest circulation. The BBC, that socialist, government run radio and tv network, is objective because it speaks for the nation. Television news in the US was, for a long time, was part of the network competing for ad dollars.

Before then, the Rural Republican spoke to the Republicans in the area, the Big City Democrat was slanted to its readership, and similarly with the Tories and the Liberals in England and most of the world.

Only recently, with the rise of cable, has news been targeted at a specific audience. Entertainment, Wall Street, Black, Home and Garden, etc. And, of course, the extreme right.

It's to our credit, as a nation, that we don't need a "liberal" news network. As Stephen Colbert observed, "Reality has a notorious liberal bias." That is, the facts can be used by liberals to bolster their position. By the same token, facts do not support conservative views. Indeed, as Glenn so often observes, conservative views are often the exact opposite of reality.

Unfortunately, we have gone beyond spinning the story to fit a political viewpoint. Now, in order to bolster untenable positions, the right spins the facts to fit their political viewpoint.

And that's where Joe Klein and company fit in: In order to justify their own wayward behavior, they have to cut down anyone who tells the truth. Keep up the good work, Glenn, and don't let the bastards get you down. I don't always agree with you, but I always respect where you're coming from.

The Family is already rather inbred. That's what happens when cousins marry.

I have no problem with Jenna Bush as a "reporter", since most American journalism is a right wing echo chamber to begin with. At least Jenna has insider knowledge, and can dig up those unnamed sources with more than a wink and a drink.

To be fair, I'd rather have a Bush on tv than desperately trying to run the country into the ground. On the other hand, she's no Maria Shriver.

Two points, Glenn: The president is not the king and we are not disloyal to question or even insult the person, but the office deserves respect. Pottymouth Joe Wilson violated House rules with his outburst. He is not Scooter Libby, convicted of a felony, but he is lowering himself to Mark Foley levels within the code of conduct of his office.

Second, the right has an amazing double standard. As you point out, anytime a Republican or conservative does something wrong -- which seems to be happening at a frenzy pace these days -- they don't have the personal responsibility to simply admit they were wrong. The first and sometimes only thing the right can do is point fingers.

And don't be fooled: The reason they point the finger is to absolve themselves of blame and transfer their shame to someone else. If you then take them up on the "Everybody Does It Defense" and say, "okay, it's bad all the time. That means that it's bad when Joe Wilson does it" the right will get all grumpy and deny it. It's worse when you point out that everybody does not do it and the apologists owe a further apology.

The shame of being a conservative has never been greater. And they are in complete denial.