It is pretty common for children of athletes to become athletes. Lawyers kids often study law. Doctor's kids have an advantage in getting into medical school. Look at the alumnus network attached to any university (particularly Ivy League) -- much of it is how to get the past-student's kids enrolled. Families of actors are common, from today's Oscars to vaudeville two centuries back. Most of us know families of cops. And, of course, military brats often end up in the military both commissioned and non-commissioned. (re: McCain)

How did Will Robinson get into space, after all, when the rest of us were stuck here on earth doing algebra homework?

I'll agree that the career of a politician is different in many ways, but it is the same with all occupations that require (or merely benefit from) a mentor to move along. It is more likely a family member will be a mentor than a stranger. Politics is all about connections at a high level, and if your Dad or Mom was successful at that then that is what your inheritance will include. It would be stupid not to take advantage of it. (Test example: who has a better chance of personally know four heads of state in Europe, me or Chelsea Clinton? How about me versus one of the Bush twins? Each case, no contest.)

What we really should be focused on is whether the politician in question will keep the deal he or she made when you voted for them. I'll take a scion that keeps his campaign promises over a maverick that is either corrupt or doesn't know what he is doing.

I wonder if anyone here or there happens to know who is David Gregory's most senior journalism professor and if anyone has (or can) ask him what he thinks of this. Either he or she is part of the problem, or would probably be willing to go on record saying Mr Gregory you twit that's not what I taught you!

nd Obama, who obviously knows that, chose them despite (or, more likely, because of) that fact,

It might be worth pointing out to the dittoheads what real courage looks like. It is much different than ordering a carrier group into the Gulf, or pumping up an audience of officer cadets who have no choice but to applaud, or tell the GAO to go Cheney itself.

I am not familiar with these individuals but I am willing to take the recommendation of Glenn and other comments here as a sign that either a) Obama does not expect the DoJ to do his dirty work for him, or b) his agenda is fully compatible with the fulfillment of the true mission of the DoJ.

Think about it. If we do get investigations of Bush administration crimes (not just war crimes) it will be very valuable to Obama to be able to say that it is the law that is acting, not himself. The DoJ is independent and is not "the president's lawyer." That's what I would want.

If anyone in the Obama administration is reading this, you can take at least this voter's word for it that fixing this is what we voted for. Hannity, Limbaugh, Drudge, and the rest of the idiot right wing is never going to love you anyway.

Don't you always wish you could ask follow up questions to the stupid questions pollsters use?

I really have to wonder just how much this poll understates the case. Given the sharp political difference, it is almost certain that many "pro torture" respondents aren't necessarily in favor of the actual policy, what they are in favor of is the political class that happened to implement that policy.

Also, nobody wants to see a loyal officer cashiered for "following orders."

Speaking as a past and present Hillary supporter, I have a hard time imagining a Hillary Clinton presidency taking steps this dramatic. Whatever the current media response is with all its flaws, they clearly pay Obama far more respect than anything they would show her. In her case it would devolve to a total clown show. At this point I'm glad that Obama won over Clinton.

I get the point, but I have a really hard time with a list that includes Jose Padilla's "conviction" as an example of anything good. We should be viewing that episode about as about 2 steps lower than the Rodney King fiasco.

Regarding the lawsuit against Jeppesen, if the bill goes through and the illegal acts of the DOJ become illegal, would they have a chance to move forward with the suit? Or is it a done deal?

I wonder what old Capt. Jeppesen would have though about a company named after him being complicit with such a purpose. Maybe Patrick Smith can tell us.

Back last century it was Lyons and Conason's book that was the spark that completely changed my political point of view from disinterested quasi-liberal into someone who will read every Glenn Greenwald column and promulgate it wherever I can. I simply had no idea how completely dishonest my sources of information were.

It's a shame to see him take on a position like this. I read that column when it hit the screen and thought oh boy what is Greenwald going to say about this.

When he has made errors in the past (not many) he would always correct them at first opportunity. Let's see what he has to say.

If you delete the high-dudgeon moralists from among us, this problem ceases to be one.

I think we have seen this cycle before, haven't we? It will take some time, but if these clowns keep it up they will generate an extreme left milita movement to balance them like we had in the 60s-early 70s. That's why the right wing hates anything that even remotely tastes like the 60s (remember Jane Fonda! Angela Davis!).

This time around we have the Internet. I would rather deal with these troglodytes with ridicule rather than throwing bottles.