Nice piece GG--well said.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/obamas-health-care-mistake/

It's hard to stay out of the healthcare thing, no?

He was completely respectful, but he totally smoked her.

And it ain't easy to smoke astroturf.

"That evening, as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee attended a dinner in support of a Jewish housing project in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem, an Israeli demonstrator unfurled a banner portraying Obama in a checkered Palestinian kaffiyeh. "Barack Hussein Obama -- Anti Semite Jew-Hater," it read."

Does Huckabee condone such statements about the American President?

Does he agree with them?

Why is he participating in events so hostile to a sitting American president?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-settlements19-2009aug19,0,717563.story

however, one can no longer add "robert novak".

I find it very hard to believe that these two stories--one regarding Novak, and the other, below:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/18/meat.eating.plant/index.html?eref=edition

are not in some way related.

Well, as I have been instructed by others on this forum, it is not possible to be non-ideological, except in a strictly mathematical sense.

I agree with you. But go back and look at Obama's stump speech, which he gave thousands upon thousands of times. One of the common themes throughout was Obama's disdain for ideology and partisanship. And after Bush, this was a good line and was well received.

But Obama has made a mistake, imo. One can reject Bush's ideology without totally rejecting ideology itself. Ideology plays a role in politics and in statesmanship. It certainly played a fundamental role in the founding of this country (the Declaration of Independence is an ideological statement, among other things).

Obama's rejection of ideology hampers his work just as Bush's enslavement to ideology ruined his.

There is substantial debate over the role the Obama White House played in the apparent death of the "public option" -- did it happen against their wishes or with their blessing? -- but all one can do is guess at that question because, contrary to his crystal clear and oft-stated campaign pledge, the negotiations that lead to that collapse were completely secret.

Yep. And as a result, he has largely lost the confidence of those who--just a few months ago--were his loudest and most boisterous supporters. Krugman has pointed to this lack of trust:

Partly it’s a matter of style — as many people have noted, he [Obama] has been weirdly reluctant to make the moral case for universal care, weirdly unable to show passion on the issue, weirdly diffident even about the blatant lies from the right. Partly it’s a spillover from his other policies: by appointing an economic team that’s Rubin redux, by taking such a kindly attitude to the banks, he has squandered a lot of progressive enthusiasm.

The left no longer trusts Obama, and it is his own fault. His secrecy is only part of the failure--and perhaps not the biggest aspect of it.

The larger aspect may be his seeming intolerance for anything aproaching ideology. He is the Anti-Bush, in that his only firm ideological belief is that ideology itself is completely worthless, and pragmatism and post-partisanship is King.

Predictably, the Right detests that kind of outlook. But as it turns out, the Left hates it just as intensely. This is why Krugman describes Obama's behavior with such puzzlement--Obama is "weirdly reluctant to make the moral case...".

It appears "weird" to the Conscience of a Liberal because Obama simply doesn't work that way. Obama doesn't do morality, he doesn't do ideology. That is a weakness and a flaw in him, and to some extent of his party.

...except to attack Iran, of course.

The ever-deepening disappointment with Obama notwithstanding, one does have to give him some credit for changing DC's tone regarding Israel, even if the change is fractionally incremental. Had a republican won the WH, there would be absolutely no pressure on Israel--to do anything.

I'm not sure where they (Blackwater) got the term Xe, or what they mean by it, but Xe is a Mayan word (pronounced "shay".

It means "vomit" in Yucatec Maya, but it may have other meanings as well. "Root" may be another meaning of the word.

I like "vomit" for this context though.

If we had only known that Bill Clinton had a special talent for getting journalists (who were wrongfully incarcerated) out of prison camps, we could have asked him to get Sami al-Haj out of Gitmo. al-Haj was the al-jazeerah cameraman who was kept at Gitmo for what--7 years, before being released--by us.

re: KO as the GG "management responsibilities" source--I wondered the same thing. There is a second source also, I believe, who appears as a commentator from time to time. That is the person who was told prior to a segment that Fox was not to be mentioned. I wonder if that is Sirota. Sirota was on msnbc just the other evening, in a bizarre three-way with Tweety and the increasingly-demented Pat Buchannan. Sirota may well know a bunch about what's going on these days at msnbc.

I agree that all this is beside the point, but it is interesting from the perspective of the mechanics of the story and how GG was putting this together.

Judge Olbermann by his actions, which are laid out by bondjamesbond via his handy time line in comments.

The only thing I'd add to it is that Olbermann's embarassment was primarily from the NYT article by Brian Stelter--with all due respect and no disrespect to GG's fine reportage.

Splitting hairs is exactly what Olbermann appears to be doing. He doesn't feel he can just come out say "I was just following orders".

But that is exactly what he did--follow orders. If everybody is telling the truth, that's the conclusion, no?