I guess that's two different questions. Should the US be speaking with Hamas? Yes. And I think we are. Remember the Hamas letter that made it into Kerry's hands? It was addressed to Obama. Also, there is a US delegation going to Syria soon, if not there already. Hamas has representation in Syria. While speculative, I'll bet we are speaking with Hamas through some form of channel.

Whether Israel should be speaking with Hamas is a different question--seems like that would be a good idea, but that is their business, imo.

Freeman's career will likely top out at Director of the NIC. That's not a bad summit by any means. But for ambitious foreign policy thinkers who might one day aspire to serve in a confirmed capacity, the lesson is clear: Israel is off-limits.

I think this statement by Klein is shortsighted. Yes, the "lesson is clear" regarding the power of the "Israel First" lobby in the US. But "clear lessons" are not immutable.

Fifty years ago, "the clear lesson" was that a black man could not be president in the US. The fact that we now have one doesn't mean that the upward mobility of African Americans (economic, social, political) is now "plateaued". The exact opposite is true--the restraining door has been forced open a bit further. The same could well be said of what Freeman is going through now. His successful appointment may not be a red or yellow light, as Klein seems to think. It may be green for go instead.

The idea that Obama should not have advisers who challenge some of the core assumptions of the Bush years, especially with respect to Israel-Palestine, ...

There is another thread to this as well. And that is--should the President surround himself with thinkers and advisors who, first and foremost, work for the benefit of our own country, or for those who have their primary allegiance elsewhere.

Nobody that I know of has suggested that Freeman does not put "America First." In fact, those who are criticizing Freeman are attacking him on exactly the opposite grounds--that Freeman refuses to place the concerns of another country over those of his own.

When you really boil down the criticism against Freeman, this is what is at its core--Freeman puts American interests above those of any other country.

Those who attack Freeman should themselves be assailed on these same grounds. Do they in fact put "America First?" Do they owe their primary alliegance to this, their own country, or to some other nation?

Make them answer this question. Back them up.

...the doctrine of separate branches of government providing internecine "checks and balances" has become atrophied and obsolete-- phased out in favor of more efficient operation by means of secret consensus.

Yeah, that is really crazy. Much better to simply shrug.

Couldn't the court have taken up this issue anyway, even with the "mootness" issue? I'm out of my depth here, but if the court can wade into a presidential election (2000) that it had no business in, why couldn't it wade in here, where it absolutely has a vital constitutional role to play?

Congratulations GG. Regardless of where your gig takes you, there is no doubt in my mind that you will always be true to the spirit of independent journalism/blogging. Richly deserved and I hope you all have a great time.

("journalism/blogging"--horrible term, but I don't know what else to call it.)

I appreciate that link to the open letter sent to Leahy by some of the 9/11 families. When the "Truth Commission" concept first emerged, one objection that came immediately to mind was that there would be no 9/11 families to push the process. Had it not been for them, the 9/11 findings, flawed though they were, would not have been achieved. I think it is highly significant that those who went through the 9/11 process from beginning to end think this Commission is a bad idea.

If one of the items of common agreement here was that bluedogs should not be generically targeted with primary opponents simply because they're bluedogs, I'm not yet convinced. Yes, the political geography of the district must be considered. Yes, the individual voting record of a member is fundamental. But not all actions by House members are individual actions. Some actions are conducted in concert, within a caucus.

I believe a good argument can be made that membership in the bluedog caucus, ceteris paribus, is indeed a valid criterion for targeting. I think this will become more apparent as this congress goes forward, and the bluedogs do some real damage. I also disagree with Davis' seeming definition of bluedogs as solely fiscal conservatives. That is an incomplete and inadequate definition. IMO, they are also generally socially conservative, and they are weak defenders, as a group, of civil liberties.

Finally, there is something to be said for ideological purity. Davis, faithful to the credo of the professional political sophist, may sneer at ideology. He's in good company--it's currently very fashionable to be all pragmatic on the Left. But liberals must demand a certain degree of ideology among their representatives. Pragmatism by itself, without being anchored in principle/ideology--is useless.

RMP, I had forgotten about that, and fwiw think it's worth considering.

On related note, I caught a mike malloy show over the weekend and he is one of those desparately trying to cling to his image of Obama as things get gloomier. It is sad to see.

While this DOJ behavior is the worst thing I've seen from Obama yet, he is also doing very poorly on the banking front. In both these areas, he has exactly copied the Bush strategy. And in both he is just getting hammered.

where are the fresh ideas? Perhaps 2007 Obama should give 2009 Obama a call on his legendary Blackberry--straighten him out.

Hell Yeah.

GG, have you looked at the brief yet? Any chance this is the long awaited crack in the dam? (damn?).