As is Virginia's. I believe MS and KY also have odd-year elections, but their gubernatorial races are 2007, 2011, etc.

...our European friends all learn multiple languages. I've believed for sometime that anyone who graduates from a US high school should be fluent in English and one other language.

Twenty years after Tiannamen and China never suffered in its standing in the world. We continue to make nice to them and have never called them to account.

As for Obama, Mr. Greenwald, has he made ANY improvements in your mind compared to Bush? The consistent theme of your posts seems to be that nothing has changed. He's stopped torture and has taken steps toward closing Gitmo. I wish you would at least try to get the White House's side to the story.

Divadab - We're hearing POTUS' views in the MSM, but not the why. What I'm looking for is a WH reporter to stand up at a press conference and say, "Why is the WH taking x position? How does this square with your campaign when POTUS said (insert contradictory statement here)? Why are WH actions not backing up its words?" I watch plenty of press conferences and have yet to hear questions that direct.

Bystander - I too prefer more information than less. I made no connection positive or negative in my own comment. It just seems like Mr. Greenwald and some commenters here can recognize that there have been changes for the better. It seems like if things are really as bad as Mr. Greenwald says, he wouldn't be the only one reporting it.

@vadem165

"Twenty years after Tiannamen and China never suffered in its standing in the world. We continue to make nice to them and have never called them to account."

Who is this "we" and where do they get any authority or responsibility to "call China to account" ?

This is exactly the sort of self-righteous sanctimonious (...) that reads to murderous US interventions all over the globe.

What a piece of crap.

We is the world community or at least the United States, which I wish would more aggressively respond to such actions. I don't mean declare war in all cases, but sanctions might be nice. Instead, not only did we not punish China in any way, but we even renewed Most Favored Nation status soon afterward. I'm also not saying sever all diplomatic relations; not talking never did any good. We should have made it abundantly clear, especially in the same year that Communism was falling in Europe and even losening in the USSR, that such behavior was completely unacceptable. By your logic it sounds like we shouldn't intervene even to stop the Holocaust. I don't accept "internal affairs" arguments. Human rights knows no man-made political boundaries. Your last line above was completely uncalled for.

Memo to Editors: It would be nice if Salon comments were structured such that you could reply directly to a comment rather than add to the end. In this case I'm responding to a comment on page 5, but this will appear on page 18, which is why I copied and pasted what I was responding to.

Let's parse the first amendment. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Therefore the relevant question is does such an office do either of those things. I submit that it does not. It does not establish an official religion, so as long as it does not play favorites its fine. I much more trust Obama than Bush in this regard. It certainly does not prohibit anyone from freely exercising whichever religion they may adhere to or force athiests to adhere to anything. The faith community is just as legitimate a target of outreach as those in various professions or having different interests such as the environment. It's one thing to be athiest; I can respect that. Being hostile to all religion as some commenters seem to be is the antithesis of liberal tolerance, offensive to those of us both progressive and Christian, and a horrible formula for winning elections.

It would be unconstitutional in my mind to ONLY give money to religious groups for community purposes, but it's just as unconstitutional to discriminate AGAINST religious groups. I just think the playing field should be level. If a group is doing great work in a community we should not be blinded by hostility to religion. Establishment does not mean money; it means making one or more religions official. I would also include passing laws solely to satisfy religious sensibilities without compelling state interest within the meaning of unconstitutional establishment. These funds must be constantly monitored. If it is determined that a religious group is using its public funds to proselytize rather than provide assistance I'd be the first to call for a withdrawal of public support. We need to take into account the totality of a group's contribution and not get hung up on any particular policy with which we may disagree. Then again, I doubt any SCOTUS Justices are posting on Salon, so let's get this in front of them for the final word.

By that I mean, is the Solicitor General required to always defend the law as it is, regardless of his or the President's personal views? Is he allowed to oppose a duly enacted law in open court or even take a pass and not participate?

I'm prochoice on abortion rights, but at least can understand why that's controversial, but this? Why should the rest of us care if someone makes a conscious pre-pregnancy decision to not have children? I'm a man who might marry if I find the right woman, but I'm not enthusiastic about kids of my own. By what logic are we obligated to society to reproduce? If anything it could be argued that NOT having kids might be better overall.