They are tactical electoral death for future Democratic contenders, and midterm vulnerables.

Very similar to Clinton's apres moi le deluge sellout.

I'd like to suggest (again) the tactical benefit of considering racism as one of many competing interests. The sort of fundamental racist, who would put racism above all other perceived interests, including economic interests, is a rare beast. So the trick is to appeal to other interests, rather than lecture about racism. Substance, in other words. Because Obama has routinely sided with the wealthy so far, his ratings with nonblacks are particularly vulnerable because racism plays a role as a catalyst. Obama's numbers would be better if his policies hadn 't been so discriminatory against nonelites. You can throw a "perceived as" in there if you want. Conversely, as Obama pointed out, he enjoys support because of his race--and despite his policy history so far.

That said, the moral posturing we saw this past week from Carter, Walsh, Pelosi, etc had little relationship with the reality at the tea parties. I sincerely doubt a single one of these people even bothered to go to a tea party--they already "knew" the truth about the minds of the people there.

As with medicare and tricare, there is a very real possibility that these folks will see a plan as in their interest and consistent with their values. If they aren't all offended by the broad bush of racism accuasations. Many of these people, particularly military, have had far more working relationships with other ethnic groups than the elite progressives who condemn them as racists. And note the lack of animus toward Medicaid--it hardly gets mentioned at all.

I'd also point out that the President is the PRESIDENT, the most powerful person in the world. Whatever his protection needs from us, our vulnerability to his actions are far greater.

Reading Greenwald's patient responses makes me think that the entire nation needs to retake ninth grade civics. Or do schools even teach government anymore? Maybe everyone should have to take the citizenship test.

While the elites are agreed that we need more civility, I think they really mean more servility. After 8 years of Cheneyism, many people have trouble undrstanding that our system of government was designed to limit the power of elites, and limit the power of the Executive particularly.

It's simply hard for people kissing ass to keep their own jobs in the Clintonian economy that it can be AGs duty to disobey the President if the President interferes with the AGs job to enforce the law on everyone. Of course there are checks and balances, the President can fire the AG and give him general directions. The congress weighs in at hiring and constantly asks for information.

The truth is simply that Obama overstepped his own power by holding the CIA above the law. At least in this tiny subset of cases, Holder is just defending the Constitution (his oath) and serving his ultimate boss: we the people.

To his credit, Obama seems to realize this consitutional necessity. But I wonder what happens when the defendents make the case that they were in fact acting under orders as they understood them. I think this a ball of yarn ready to unravel, or the former heads would not be so upset.

I'd like think that was 0bama's crafty plan all along, but I doubt it.

Not the President.

Obama backs Holder, for now at least. I thought the President's statement was pretty strong, actually (based on one print news clip).

I guess it's ok to say "witch hunt" now, though not "witch doctor."

So, in our Presidential Dictionary of Civility we now have:

witch

jackass

Use them responsibly.

I for one don't believe it. Just look at us white straight guys:

Gun-totin, non-votin, beer-bloatin.

Cripes.

Misogynistic, homophobic, racist.

Good God.

And yet. Here we are, despised, with our backs to the Bill of Rights.

Yes, yes. Even the Second (I hate that one!). But also the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, among others.

A bunch of clueless honky assholes.

Oh, did I hear that the fricking assholes at the ACLU have gotten off their goddam latte sucking asses?

Bout time, eh.

At ease.

Too bad the recantation came after hundreds of thosands of deaths, Iraqi and US, gay and straight, white and not.

1. The statement effectively asked for unity of three groups politically important to Obama: blacks, gays, women. The common thread here are groups who suffer violence. The appeal to gays by analogizing Milk to Obama was particularly astute, given that Obama has been at odds with gay interests.

Remember that the neocons used feminist rationales for the expanded Afghan war, a rationale that appealed to many femimists. Discrimination against gays in Iraq led liberal Dan Savage to support the war there.

2. The statement demanded a broad definition of "incitement": anyone who, intentionally or not, caused anyone else, even "unbalanced" persons, to commit violence must be held responsible for that violence.

By that definition, JD Salinger would be responsible for John Lennon's murder.

Are we seeing the basis laid for another onslaught on civil liberties? Pelosi and Obama were complicit in the illegal surveillance coverup, are we being softened up for the next round of illegal surveillance and detentions? Will civil liberties violations be clothed in liberal garb?

And, will they coincide with a concession from Obama that the CIA--and the US executive--are above the law and Constitution?

A sudden interest in the media in racism.

Carter suddenly using racism to explain all

Republicans providing pretext

Lunch with Bill in Harlem

A letter from the longtime CIA establishment.

Hey, Ms Dowd, who is calling who "Boy" now?