Zack - on a scale of 1 - 100, with 1 being "absolutely impossible" and 100 being "certain," what do you think the liklihood is that this will happen?

Really, I totally understand the feeling of relief that AT LAST Democrats seem to be fighting back. But does it have to be this? There are a kazillion other strategies they could and should be adopting that do not tend to affirm and ratify this dangerous misuse of Congress.

GG very seldom writes about gay rights per se, and there is no reason he should. His sexual orientation is but one facet of who he is, just as my gender and Irish background are but a part of me.

This is not the first time I've seen those who disagree with him condescendingly advise that he stick to "gay and lesbian" issues. What ignorant and bigoted chutzpah.

I guess Alan Turing should have just become a gay activist instead of joining British intelligence and possibly winning WWII by his brilliance as a mathematician who cracked German and Japanese code. Glenn: you homos need to learn to stay in your place.

I ordered it last week and want to read it, and THEN go back and see the FDL interview.

You're Irish?

We're done.

As I suspected, it wasn't my gender. ;)

By parity of much right-wing reasoning, lesbian Tammy Bruce should stick to "gay and lesbian" issues.

Wow. If they remake that depraved Nazi exploitation film, Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS, Ms. Cagan gets the part: http://www.nokilli.com/hogan/pictures/shewolf2.gif

Usually I chastise folks who purport to speak for anyone but themselves, but when you write to Mr. Sugarman:

Fut the shuck up, willya? Back a thread or two, every other comment towards the end was from you. And if you want to know the disappointing and ego-deflating truth, no one here cares what you say, and they certainly aren't coming here for the SugarManBlog™... 'mkay?

I say amen, and amen. Really Sugarman, enough is enough. Your prolific eccentricities detract from the comments section.

Jeff Goldstein purports to be a "neo-libertarian" who disfavors anti-gay crusading and who claims to favors civil unions for same-sex couples. Yet, he has given a platform to the far-right, Catholic social conservative Dan Collins, who calls Glenn a "faggot."

I write at Jim Henley's blog. Jim would not have me if I were to use the word "faggot" other that ironically, or launched the "I heart John Yoo fan club." Owners of sites become responsible, after a time of observation, for the accumulation of positions posted by those they invite to write for them, especially when said owners take no pains to distance themselves from what is ostensibly so repugnant to them.

Edwards was on Olbermann tonight. His whole strategy, should he get the nod, is to leverage his no vote against a pro-war Republican. If Paul gets the nod then Edwards is screwed.

I'm a libertarian -- oh believe me I am; have had bloody brawls with the anti-libertarians among Glenn's readership. But Ron Paul is not going to be the GOP nominee. I am delighted at his fundraising success, as it sends the loudest message the GOP needs to hear: MONEY. And enough support to be a spoiler and elect a Dem.

Paul's great service is to force the GOP to reconsider which base it wants to woo. They cannot have the neocons/theocrats, and most of us 'tarians, too. (And I do not feel Paul's position on abortion is theocratic. I'm states rights on that, as he is.)

Yes, and "humor" about shooting a former President of the United States is fine, if you are a Bush Republican. (But it also really is the sort of thing that can cause the Secret Service to show up at your door, with some reason.)

Oddly, I only see this clamoring for the execution of American politicians from the right these days. The right-wingers like Anonymoose do not realize they have adopted the tactics and attitudes they supposedly hate. Or they do, and do not care.

Why is "deranged" think that a federal govt that controls "the number of gallons a toilet is allowed to flush to the proper amount of toxins in flea collars" is the hyperbolic concern of silly libertarians, and not evidence of a central govt big enough to perform mischief? Can you point me to the constitutional authorization for Congress being involved in such matters?

The latter writes: If you actively identified with being Jewish, I do think that would enter into your discussion of anti-Semitism. I don't see how it couldn't. Therefore if you choose not to mention then, I'm inclined to conclude that your religious life does not play a role.

Glenn, will you please ask Salon to go back to the artist who created your caricature and have said artist put a fucking yarmulke on you? Then maybe this incoherent idiot with shut up and/or go away.

Better put a pink triangle on your shirt as well, or your gayitude will be questioned. And oh, sign each post Glenn Greenwald, Esq. Otherwise, you are denying your professional training.