Maybe the big O is thinking he can't risk alienating Blue Dog Democrats and "Moderate" Republicans while the economic stimulus legislation is on the table?

I just left him messages via the phone and internet explaining that he ought not alienate Democratic base voters like me because he will need us in the tough times ahead. I for one am sick of being taken for granted while the Democratic "Leadership" caves in to unprincipled "centrist" collaboraters.

Torture is wrong. Unaccountable government is wrong. If Obama does wrong he'll be on my shit list right along with George Bush.

At some point during the Reagan Administration, reporters actually were required to submit their questions in advance -- so there was no doubt that the White House knew exactly what to expect.

I have a faint memory of reading that Bush did soemthing similar. Does anyone know about that?

Reagan routinely pre-screened the questions themselves. What are the oddds that the WSJ called St. Ronnie on that ever?

I'd say I was disappointed but that would mean I expected better of her in the first place. There are many things wrong with Joan's thoughtless "think" piece:

1) Number 1 is: Uh, Joan? You may think the war is bitchin' but the, uh, Iraqis -- you know those people whose country it is? -- well they already kicked us out. Apparently the wonderful news about the surge hasn't gotten to them. The Status of Forces Agreement decided that we have to leave by the end of 2011, no matter you think.

2) Even you admit that the "surge" - actually an "escalation" -- failed to meet its strategic objectives. Well, Joan you can burn down all the villages you want in order to save them but if you fail to win the hearts and minds then no short-term tactical victory means jack shit. if the strategic objectives were not achieved then the "surge" was a failure. Its as simple as that.

3) There is no war to win -- its an occupation not a war. We either decide to continue occupying or not. Since its costing us big time in terms of lives and money with no obvious benefit, I say we stop occupying the place.

Joan reminds me of many people, including myself, after reading Ken Pollack's The Threatening Storm. If you read that one book in a vacuum, you may have found it persuasive. I found Pollack's book temporarily persuasive because I wasn't reading it in a vaccuum -- I was reading it in the context of a massive propaganda operation. At first it seemed impossible to me that even Bush could execute a hoax of this magnitude. But I kept my eyes and ears open, and by Jan/Feb of 2003 I had figured out that it was indeed a hoax. At that time I also vowed to be more skeptical of the mendacious war supporters claims.

But Joan is ready to be suckered all over again.

We were told to leave by the end of 2011. Petraeus may want to stay and may have Ricks and Joan Walsh convinced, but we can't say we're staying for their own good -- especially not when you consider the illegal and immoral and indefensible way we got in there in the first place.

True, you played it coy and qualified just about everything you said to the point that it is difficult to say what your position was.

But you chose to 1) tease it with the deliberately provocative statement that Democrats fought the surge and lost (even if you added weasel words) and 2)end it with an ambiguous statement, "But reading this well-reported book may have changed even my notion of what that means" that could be read to mean that you think we shouldn't leave yet.

You tone was breathless and you went on and on about overcoming prejudices to come to surprise conclusions. You make a big deal out of the surge succeeding tactically while quickly acknowldging that it failed strategically. This is particularly objectionable. If the tactics fail the strategy, the fact that the tactics were opertationalized the way they were intended to be means nothing. So what? We're looking for strategic victory, not winning battles while losing the war.

Since you decided to flirt with Slate-like contrarian rhetoric, don't cry when you reap the whirlwind. You only have yourself to blame if you were misinterpreted.

You didn't know you were crying?

You complained, "Wow, a lot of people really didn't read the piece."

You told jlampkin, "snap out of it and read the piece."

You told blunderdog, "I give up."

You were clearly upset because people had a negative reaction to your piece.

Do I say that "all the girls"? I would have said the same thing if you were a man. The point was to underscore that you are whining. Why is it whining/crying? Because you deliberately tried to provoke people and then got upset when they were provoked.

Its funny, I had one other confrontation with you awhile back, I think over Petraeus, and you played the gender card then too.