I think the point Bitter Scribe was trying to make is that journalists are PROFESSIONALS who keep America on the straight and narrow, without daudling in the ridiculous!

I really don't think bloggers are journalists, and whether one has a paying gig doesn't define it, imo.

For example, a journalist would not fundraise for something like Accountability Now. Even a crusading journalist simply won't integrate that sort of activism into their daily work. A blogger does, and hopefully will always do so.

Bloggers also maintain a relationship with their readers that journalists simply don't have. Bloggers depend on readers for all sorts of things, including research, opinion, documentation, basic funding, even proof-reading. Journalists have none of this. They produce a relatively one-shot product for an employer, it's published, and that is that.

People need to stop viewing journalism as "a level up" from blogging. It isn't. It's simply a different system with a different product, and a different business model.

I'd add here, fwiw, that "The Press" during revolutionary times was literally "anybody with access to a printing press". Pamphleteers, and the worst sort of scum. And yet the founders unquestionably expressed the absolute need for absolute freedom among these vile types.

In many important ways, bloggers probably have much more in common with the original American press than our current corporate media does.

I don't know if Greenwald has ever referred to himself as a journalist. Maybe he has. Can you cite an example?

for a lawyer who is also a blogger and has no employment experience in the intelligence services.

Cheney's claims encompasses the following key Democrats:

I have to wonder if the word "encompasses" misses the mark. To me, "incriminates" is better. If there is no doubt that felonies were committed by the Bush administration, then there can also be no doubt that the named Congressional leaders are guily of conspiracy to those felonies.

"Incriminate" is thus the better word, no?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/176044?from=rss

GG, so no outside entity can do so? It must be DOJ or DOJ-appointed?

ACLU, for example, or a private citizen, can't do so?

"Don't you get tired of it, shooter242?"

Why should he, when you don't? You have been arguing with him for years, if I'm not mistaken.

Don't you get tired of it?

Is a special prosecutor the only way to bring charges against high govt. officials? Could you briefly address who can bring charges?

The argument here cannot be overturned.

It can only be ignored.

OK, let's use issue-positions as the coinage of definition then. What issue positions define "Left" today, in your view?

That was really good. I'd be interested to know who you think is actually left, on the Left, among congress members, senators, and the like.

"Our current crisis is a direct result of everybody in government taking their eye off the ball because they spend so much time hating and hurting each other. "

Which crisis are you talking about? If you're talking the economic mess, this doesn't track at all. The economic crisis has little or nothing to do with partisan rancor.

Any punk with a keyboard can make marks in here. But if they don't have anything to say, suggest it's best to ignore them.

Two years ago, Obama was leery of ideology to the extent that overly strong adherence to ideology can (and did) blind leadership to facts, and reality--

"I think that George W. Bush is a good and decent man. I think he is a likable person. I think that he wants to do right by this country. I think he has been a far more ideological president than we've seen in many years. ... I think that's lead to significant mistakes.

"I think it's part of the reason we have seen the misjudgments in Iraq. It's part of the reason we have tried to cut taxes, fight two wars, without paying for it. I think reputably [repeatedly?] what you've seen in this president is ideology over fact and evidence. I think that always gets us in problems if you're on the right or on the left."

Although the 45-year-old father of two is not saying whether he is running for president, he's not making a concerted effort to put to rest the idea the he might do so.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214579,00.html

But his earlier view appears to have morphed into a more absolute belief that ideology itself is destructive and useless:

"We are not going to be hampered by ideology in trying to get this country back on track," he told the governors, many of whom he met for the first time at the conference. "We want to figure out what works."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/us/politics/03transition.html?em

or:

"They don't want ideology, they don't want bickering, they don't want sniping," he said of the American people. "We're going to work as closely as we can with the Republican party ...... We want their input. We want their ideas..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4AO76A20081125

Obama's seeming belief that ideology per se should be dismissed outright represents a troubling over-reaction to Bush, and perhaps an over-reaction to the ideological beating the Democrats have taken, even while they've won the past two elections.

It could be argued that the historic low in public support of Congress (far lower than Bush's) is not because Congressional leadership showed too much ideology, but rather that Americans can't identify any ideology driving what Congress (under democratic leadership) does.

Can I marry my sister, then?

I was under the impression that you already had.

Rick Sanchez is a moron.

CNN apparently has an inexhaustible supply of them.

(2) Warren is against homosexuality. That lands him squarely in the lap (so to speak) of the majority of mainstream Christian leaders.

Warren supports the disenfranchisment of a specific minority of american citizens. He supports systemic unequal treatment of american citizens.

Do you not understand this?

No, Obama is reaching in a different direction.