Hadn't seen it. Very interesting. But as mentioned earlier, I think comparisons to King are simply not germane to what Obama is.

Perhaps I view LBJ differently than many. In terms of his domestic legislation, I view LBJ as a great president. The war destroyed his legacy.

If Obama can match LBJ's achievements domestically plus extract us for this current path in our foreign relations, he will be a great president, without qualifications or asterisks, imo.

I recall the incredible uproar throughout the country that followed the King speech at Riverside. He was vilified for the speech not only by pro-war factions, but by most in the Democratic party establishment.

I remember that the uproar was not just in the general public, or w/in Democrats, but w/in King's own movement as well. The Democrats (Johnson specifically) felt betrayed. Some in King's own movement felt he was experiencing "mission creep"--that he was losing focus on the true prize of civil rights--and perhaps that he was getting a little too much in love with himself.

This is why King's linkage between the war and rights at home was such a transcendant speech, just as the emancipation proclamation was a transcendant act. The two are functionally identical arguments, imo. Echoes of both arguments are heard in GG's essay today.

One other observation--It isn't appropriate to compare Obama with King, imo. Obama is LBJ.. Obama is the lever upon which pressure must be exerted, just as LBJ was.

Thinking back to Ashcroft, there must be a boob-joke in there somewhere...

Some wounds never completely heal. 'The assasinations' is one of those, I think. And, in a way, I don't want them to heal.

It's worth remembering that RFK was shot over the sale of military aircraft to Israel. He voted for that sale, and this was the motivating factor behind Sirhan's actions. I guess the point being that our ME policy has been hurting us for so long, we almost don't see the damage caused.

This is the first time I've read such a strong linking argument from you regarding the relationship between our relationship with Israel and the dangers of an America constantly at war--a danger that has been explicitly realized all the way back to the founding of the country. I believe that with this argument a corner has been turned.

A comment on Obama's approach. The selection of Mitchel as envoy was most significant. But the timing of that selection--one of the first things Obama did in office-- is so important. Obama's first press interview was with el arabiya, and this bolstered Mitchell's apointment and authority. I saw coverage of the reaction to that interview on the LINK program "Mosaic"--which provides raw news feeds from outlets across the ME, including commentary on the interview by the El Arabiya correspondent who talked with Obama. While the coverage as a whole was cautious, it was very positive. Obama has already, in one month, done more to open relations with the ME than many presidents do in an entire 4 year term.

Of course, this is just an opening move, but Obama has done extremely well with it. Credit is due, in full.

fyi:

http://www.forecasts.org/images/leading-indicator/unemploy.gif

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE_Max_630_378.png

Ultimately, the success of this program will be measured by whether it produces successful results, so why shouldn't Democrats use their majority to enact the policy they think is most likely to achieve that? That's true on this issue and in general.

I think it's worth remembering that the Dem Caucus is split--especially on fiscal issues. There are three bodies in the House--GOP, Bluedog, and Dem. The bluedogs are saying that they only voted for this because they're going to get some kind of pay-go agreement from Obama soon.

Also, it seems very likely that--regardless of the steps being taken now--this coming year is going to be a very bad. Even with HB 1, the disaster of TARP, and the yet-unknown "Geithner plan"--we are likely to be in a much worse place one year from now.

This based on a talk by J. Galbraith given in austin last night (http://thirdcoastactivist.org/events.html), I think odds are very good that in the coming year we are going to see some very scary, very serious economic distress. Look at these unemployment numbers coming out now. They are just huge--if I'm not mistaken, number of unemployed growing by some 20% per month--that is simply not sustainable.

The implication of the piece is fairly clear: Holder promised Bond to eschew prosecutions, and Bond promised not to block his nomination. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- which approved Holder today -- strongly denied that such an exchange could have occurred.

"It would be completely wrong if a senator said, 'I'll vote for you if you promise to withhold prosecution of a crime'," Leahy told me. "No senator would make a request like that. It'd be improper."

"Maybe Governor [Rod] Blagojevich [D-IL]" would have sought such an assurance, Leahy quipped. He never specifically referenced Bond, who declined to answer questions about the Times piece while leaving the Senate chamber this afternoon.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/leahy-its-improper-for-a-senator-to-seek-torture-assurances-from-holder-in-exchange-for-vote.php

Good for Leahy. Don't know why, but Bond just pushes my buttons. One of the most detestable people in the senate, and that's a real achievement.

Yes, they are -- completely with a nice, new, stylish line to signify that it's a blockquote.

Good things come to those who wait.

Great! Now how about a "reply to" button. By now, I imagine "the editor" is getting tired or all these "letters".

Bond is a disgrace to his state and the constitution (but perhaps not a disgrace to the Senate).

I strongly doubt Holder gave any such statement, but someone should definately ask him. And Bond, for that matter.

http://www.poica.org/maps/index.php

http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/Eastern_Segregation_zone_map.jpg