As long as a candidate is more or less truthful about his* religion (or lack thereof), who are we to say that he shouldn't use that fact in his campaign? It seems to me that only his church has a legitimate beef, and that only if he's violating that church's teachings.

Besides, Huckabee's a Baptist preacher, and Obama has spent the last year fielding false reports about his faith. Surely they both have an obvious interest in publicizing and explaining their religious views.

--

* herein, "his" = his/her

-- what makes you so sure that he'll be out in 11 months? He might just decide national security requires him to stay on.

The WaPo seems to concur -- just the other day, it said that Monday's SOTU was "probably" Bush's last one.

We all know that if the tele-spy lawsuits bankrupt the telecoms, Uncle Sam will bail them out. So, the biggest argument against immunity is not to punish the telecoms, but to prevent the details of the operation from being buried forever.

But would it really be "forever?" Surely if Clinton and Obama can find commit to helping Dodd, they each can say, "By one o'clock PM, January 20, 2009, I will have issued an executive order beaming sunshine into the dark corners of the Bush White House, most especially including its illegal wiretapping activities."

It's no fun losing to Bush over and over, but hey -- you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. Harry Reid is all we've got.

Just askin'.

I'm with Asher -- I wonder if it's legal. Especially as it's a state law matter, unless you're using the U.S. mail. And, as a general rule, state laws are hardly models of clarity.

Dictatorial!!? Keep talking, fella. I love your way with words. Get the McBush message out there loud and clear.

Never heard of him? He's the Mayor (D) of Salt Lake City. Now that's a gifted politician.

-- Senator Dodd's vow to filibuster the telcom immunity clause?

It's either that he "chickened out" or -- as Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin asserts and Digby wonders -- Obama believes he will be President and wants these extreme powers for himself, no doubt, he believes, because he'll exercise them magnanimously, for our Own Good.

I'm reminded of when Frodo offered the Ring to Galadriel. She had better sense than to take it.

'Way back when, Steny Hoyer represented my dad's second wife in their divorce and, according to my dad, took him to the cleaners. Where's that Steny Hoyer when you need him?

Glenn, you're usually a man with excellent taste in words, but how can you call someone who evaluates U.S. policy in terms of what is best for Israel a "dual" loyalist? By that definition, Aldridge Ames and Kim Philby were dual loyalists.

Unlike that of Ames and Philby, the behavior of these dual loyalists doesn't qualify as treason. But there's no duality to their loyalty. They're loyal to Israel. Period.

I won't even have to hold my nose. I can't imagine what he'd have to do to sink to where he and McCain would be a tossup.

But I won't be digging deep into my wallet. I won't blow any vacation days for phonebanking or GOTV.

I didn't care if his principles were were left or center-left or center or even center-right, just so long as he had some.

My real hope was that he would be a decent man with a deep down intent to cleanse the White House of all vestiges of the autocratic Bush Way of Doing Business: the secrecy, the lawlessness, the arrogance. Today, I'm not so sure that he does. He just might like being king.

Glenn -- You forgot to mention that we have not fallen from the generally good worldwide opinion of the 20th century to the fear and contempt we suffer now. We have fallen from the stratospheric good will and sympathy we enjoyed on September 12, 2001.

is that the perps won't be able to take the Fifth.

IMHO, the best fate for these guys isn't prison, but a kind of O.J. Simpson limbo -- unable to command the salaries they're used to, erstwhile "friends" not returning their calls, turning up in news reports now and then as they take one more pathetic step downward. Prison would be too anonymous.

-- they proclaim their sponsorship right out in the open? Maybe instead of flag pins candidates ought to wear corporate-logo pins, sort of like a NASCAR or Indy car.

Glenn -- you're right that some bloggers (no names, I'm afraid I'd leave someone off) actually do some original reporting. Many more scour the Internet for useful details that working journalists miss. Still others actually contribute information simply by reading what's already out there -- Supreme Court opinions, proposed bills, indictments, document dumps.

But by and large, bloggers are commentators, not journalists.

When you reply to Alter and his ilk by saying, "Hey, we do some reporting, too," you're playing their game. They're blurring the distinction between reporting and punditry, hoping that idiots like Broder, Cohen, Friedman, etc., etc. will benefit from the association.

The truth is that the MSM is far better at gathering facts than is the blogosphere. (Too bad they suppress so many, and use most of the others poorly, but still.) But any one of our top fifty or so bloggers has more good ideas in the morning before coffee than Broder or Cohen or Friedman have all day. Not to mention the wealth of advanced degrees and real-world experience they bring into the mix.

I'd say that the correct reply to Alter is, "Yes, but we are a thousand times better than you are at processing the facts you gather. Oh, and thanks for all your hard work."

I must have gotten some bad Cheetos.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/24/journalism/permalink/78638262f11d3d1e02b79aeaf2a126d2.html