For taking the time to put this in perspective, the knee jerk reactions from all sides to Obama's honor is really a sad indictment of what passes for discourse today.

Deserved or not, whether you like the man or not, this is, like you said, a sign of the world warming in its view towards the United States. The problems before us are too great for one country to face alone, it is increasingly important to have friends, and it is nice to see we are making some.

Cash for clunkers only applies to cars 25 years old or newer. The market for the oldest, cheapest, cars will be largely unaffected. (Of course these cars are also the highest polluting, and the only reason I can think for them to not be included in the program is economic justice.)

This is form the FAQ on Cash for clunkers ..

"Q: What will happen to the car I trade in?

A: The car will be sent to the salvage yard. Some parts may be kept but the engine and drive-train must be destroyed. Specifically the engine will be injected with a liquid glass solution to permanently disable the engine and it will be the responsibility of the dealer to make sure this is done to the engine."

Cars that get 18mpg (14mpg & 11 mpg for small and large trucks) and are taken out of the driving pool by this program .. forever, and not just in the US. As I stated in my post above, it is the low mileage cars that are, by far, the biggest problem. Even if you game the system, by participating you ensure that your old van will never be driven, by anyone, again, this is a plus, to say nothing of the fact of the point made above that this is a out and out middle class economic shot in the arm.

So, to state clearly, the benefit of this program is not in improving the mileage of anyone's car, it is in removing low mileage cars.

Some quick math, and to keep it simple, I'll assume I drive 20,000 miles a year (over the national average but certainly not an extreme case.)

If I have a car that gets 10 mpg, I buy 2,000 gallons of gas a year, thats 19.6 tons of CO2 (19.6 pounds CO2/gallon.)

If I trade that car in for a car that gets a paltry 14 mpg (well below CAFE Standard) I will use 1,428 gallons of gas, saving 572 gallons per year, and 5.6 tons of CO2

Now, assume I trade in a car that gets 20 mpg (1,000 gallons per year) for a car that gets 40 miles per gallon (500 gallons per year.) I have saved LESS CO2 with a 20 MPG increase than a 4 mpg increase.

Just an example of how, in some cases, 4 is more than 20.

"Democrats say" "Administration Officials"

How is this different from the unnamed sources you so often, and correctly, criticize other journalists for citing?

If you work in the administration, and your president wants a piece of legislation passed, of course you are going to try and twist arms, and of course you are going to be upset if you don't get the votes you want or need. How on earth is it creepy that an administration official, who is most likely a BIG fan of the president, vents after not getting what their boss wants?

Hamsher's article was just as focused, if not more, on the actions of Pelosi and other members of Democratic leadership.

Answers for Ersatz:

First he was telling the truth, then he was lying. The troops will be out of Iraq in March of 2011 and Afghanistan in February 2012. We will have a false recovery Q4 2009, but the real recovery won’t start until Q3 2010. The economic re-regulation will be Obama’s biggest failure and we will have another market crash in 2025. He will, sadly, not be able to bring peace to the Middle East.

You’re welcome.

And, at the end of the day, Kovie is absolutely right. If you don't like what your government is doing, vote for somebody else. Of course, the only problem with that is you have to convince 50% of everyone else to vote with you.

So .. if it is something Obama says to the public or the press, it's probably a lie, but if its something he told congress, there's no way he's going back on it?

Can't have it both ways.

Stop being obtuse.

Grahm-Lieberman was stripped from the house bill. This is a good thing, and instead Glenn chose to save his precious boldface to highlight the fact gasp representatives can be bullied/cajoled/influenced/bought.

You are all still pressing this didactic either-or pitting transparency against health care, simultaneously telling me that congress is so deadlocked health care reform won't happen but that the government is somehow competent enough to have us wake up one day without civil liberties.

Like it or not, politics is a game, and our current president plays it well. This is Andrew Leonard in How The World Works, on this site, today, it is about economic regulation, but I feel it encapsulates the transparency issue just as well.

Obama has placed himself at the fulcrum where that tension is most acute. One gets the sense that he doesn't mind that the left is urging him to push harder while the right screams warnings of fascism and socialism. It seems to be exactly where he wants to be.

So keep screaming, please, and the more congress shifts to the left, the more Obama will shift with them, and his urging of the stripping of the provision is a good example of that.