Glenn, Juan Cole and Peter Galbraith have provided vital information that 70% of Americans who oppose the Iraq war need to read and heed. We did not do enough the last time that America threatened war and if we don’t do enough again, we could look back at Iraq as a cakewalk.

If we had a major Democratic presidential candidate who cared enough about our and the world’s future who had the guts to take on the loss of Jewish money and who said the hell with what my advisers say, we have to stop another war, that candidate would be our next president.

Since that is probably wishful thinking, we desperately need a well known “liberal” to speak out for all of us and start vociferously attacking these warmongers. Who could such a person be? Jimmy Carter. Any suggestions?

He went to New York to visit/speak at the United Nations. Refusing his entry to do that would set a terrible president and set the stage to move the UN to another country.

Saw the same show. Shuster is a good journalist much of the time and although Blackburn tried to remain very cool, you could see how lost she was when asked a tough question. Repug reps are not used to penetrating questions.

Mathews also asked some tough questions on his show and as I have said before, he is an anti attack Iran advocate and I don't see why he wouldn't entertain having Glenn on his show.

That's why they have planes and satellites.

You are never, ever off topic. Can't say the same for those stompin in the cow poop.

Since I started reading Glenn and his commentariat, I see a lot of TV "news" shows in a far different light.

You can’t stay sad with Pumpkin soup, especially if it has some real cream in it. I share your sadness for all the lives these thoughtless thugs ruin and kill. Keep hope alive. The more chances we give them to expose their sorry souls, the more they hang themselves. What shallow, dark, useless lives they live without the joys of nature and the beauty of life you help us see every day.

"To stop what David Brooks advocates, it won't be necessary to stop David Brooks. Once a majority, or even a large minority of Americans understands what he has to say as we understand it, he can blather all he likes. The Zeitgeist always wins, and it can be the cruelest victor of all."

William Timbermann

WT this is the first time that I have found something you have written that I couldn’t agree with. It will be necessary to stop Brooks.

All of us “liberals” often lament, what can we do with the juggernaut and momentum we face. Maybe we want too much too soon. Sometimes taking what seems like a small step for man can be a large step for mankind. No I am not entering a loony moony phase. I believe that Brooks does far more damage with his Beltway tactics on the News Hour than he does through the NYT.

His far too frequent appearances with the haggard old leftie Mark Shields gives the impression that both pundits represent their parties well. Brooks does; Shields doesn’t. PBS strives to provide both sides of an argument, but often does a poor job of selecting the “left” representative. Brooks is very wily while doing his slimy RWA/world dominance bit because he has an uncanny skill in knowing when to say I agree with Mark or the moderator and then slipping into his normal game that Glenn has so excellently exposed. A lot of so called educated Americans fall for his game and believe that Shields is doing an admirable job of countering Brooks. Shields is a perfect sucker for Brooks game and swallows his line almost every time.

Here’s my small step. We mount a campaign to have Shields replaced with Glenn.

Glenn needs a soap box beyond Salon and c-span so that he can expose all this hypocrisy and conning to a wider audience. I think PBS would give him that launch.

Does this idea have merit? If it does, let’s strategize and take that small step together.

I want to go after the studios too. I just think using the starlets is a more feasible tactic. Starlets become stars. Glenn is a future star. Let’s shine the spotlight on him and see what happens.

The moguls behind the light, hiding in the darkness, are not easy targets and shoot out the lights with the ease of money and power. When you take out those they have powered to stardom, you take another step toward exposure.

WT: I don’t think we have any disagreement. I just want Glenn to have a larger voice. The M$M is obviously very afraid of him, and other significant bloggers, and are reluctant to give him that voice. Joan Walsh is getting on some now. Maybe she could help if she isn’t afraid of sharing the limelight. Replacing Shields would be far more helpful than getting on Hardball. On yesterdays thread someone suggested Countdown. That would help but those who are falling for the Brooks/neocon con are probably not watching either Mathews or Olbermann.

Karen M: I wasn’t offended and really like being challenged. I can’t imagine there is anyone who would replace Brooks who would not keep using the same con game. And the NYT would fight tooth and nail to keep Brooks. I personally like Shields but he has outlived his usefulness and needs to be replaced. He has been part of the Beltway pundit dream world too long to see when crafty Brooks has him hooked. Just imagine what News Hour could become if Glenn made Brooks look like the creep and fool he is. Imagine what would happen to Brooks fake smile when the hook was in his mouth.