...We on the right notice such things as high level Clinton advisors (Stephanopolous) anchoring the ABC news. How about the proposal that Karl Rove do the same at CBS? Naturally the former is business as usual for Glenn, while the latter would produce apoplexy. -- shooter242

This is pretty weak tea, shooter, and you know it. Talk about false equivalencies; it's rather like suggesting who can race to the bottom the fastest (p.s., Rove wins).

sysprog: "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt."

I remember Obama saying this and was bummed at the time. What I didn't recall was this: I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.

By this standard (or, essentially, the absence of a standard at all), there is nothing under the sun (sorry, Solomon) that would trigger impeachment. How we've matured as a nation since those sorry days of Lewinsky and stained dresses.

Is it all right to call you: Harley Derbig Moo`Chardonay? You drink Sam Adams frothy suds and drip tears in beer.

You, sir, can call me anything you want (unless it's "late for dinner").

"The point isn't whether or not he used power," Wallace said. "First of all you're simply making suppositions based on no facts whatsoever... All I'm saying is I see no personal political gain in what George W. Bush did after 2001. I see a great deal of personal political gain in everything that Richard Nixon did."

The point, Wallace, is the abuse of power, whether by spying on Americans, getting immunity for same for the telecoms, ginning up WMD "evidence" for a war designed to show the oiled, flexed muscles of neoconservatism, reconfiguring the Justice Department so it functions as an appendage of the RNC. That's just off the top of my head. Plenty of facts there.

As for "personal political gain," Wallace, just what do you think lust for power means? He has it and has used and abused it for eight years. Note the eight year figure; "what George W. Bush did after 2001," among other things, was win re-election. But I guess that doesn't fall under the heading of "personal political gain."

Glenn repeated the NYT story with a few twists of the facts to fit his agenda. This is the problem with blogs. Many people do not read newspaper today and only get their supposed "facts' from the blog authors views.

What do you mean, specifically?

I'm sorry not to be the one to restore your faith in humanity. All I can say, re: muntaba it's at least within the realm of possibility that Obama is working his master plan... (and Baldie's response) is:

It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

This was heard repeated at a recent cabinet-elect meeting.

I agree. This is why (wherein I also agree with you) we must let the spice flow.

Anything to stop the Pentagon's proliferation of those weirding modules.

Of course, there are other reasons that political families do well, including some positive ones. The Kennedys and Clintons are a good example--when smart people marry other smart people and then raise a family of other smart people--with a bit of initiative all of those smart people may pursue politics in order to accomplish their goals. That can be a good thing for the country.

For God's sake. Accomplish their goals. Who cares about the goals of the nepotistic elite other than the nepotists? And how is that "a good thing for the country"? I find it remarkable how so many people reflexively use language like "accomplish their goals," as if the interests of the unwashed masses are, at best, secondary.

Very nice. GoodCelery's ankle is as delicate as I'd imagined.

I once had an Egyptian-born Princeton professor who shook the hand of Albert Einstein. Upon hearing this, I asked him to shake hands. He laughed, did, and still I have no star next to my name and rather dim prospects for political office.

It was some time before I washed that hand and, even then, only because it was damaging my dating prospects.

Well done. I nominate thee this generation's Nostradamus. Be prepared to make lots 'o cabbage on the History Channel when they run "scholarly" programming examining your prognosticative skills (in between shows asking that imponderable question "How did Hitler become such a staple for the History Channel?").

You're quite skilled in utterly depressing me whenever you post a comment:

Because GM could do quite nicely by Chapter 11. They'd tear up the UAW's collective bargaining agreement. Tear up all of the restrictive and burdensome dealer agreements. Send the remains of the pension plan to the Pension Guaranty Protection Board... And the net winners in the end? It could well be the foreign-based, non-Detroit Three automakers, with little loyalty to, or connection with, the UAW, as well as the European makers with or without plants in the U.S. The way that Mercedes and BMW deal with CAFE standards is pretty simple, Congressman Waxman; they don't contort themselves to comply, like GM, Ford and Chrysler do. They just pay their fines and keep making the cars and trucks they think they can sell.

Apart from your disregard for contracts (isn't this why banks are loath to review sub-prime mortgages?), you ignore the core problem: the lack of universal health care in place in Europe and Japan, not to mention pension benefits guaranteed by government. Mercedes and BMW (as well as the Japanese) come here to open plants because--wise business people they--they've no problem exploiting our stupidity. CAFE standards are a red-herring (and you know it).