As always, these things are a matter of opinion. I liked the style as well as the message, and it hit me at that moment in time as very well done. Perhaps it was not the very best in the last couple of months, but a little "atta-boy" here once in a while beats the hell out of the continual bickering. Your mileage will vary.

I also like Glenn's writing style. He brings good opinions to the table as well as information that I had not seen elsewhere, and he does it often. However, I like the style. I can only guess, but I bet he is a real stylish kind of guy in his private life.

I guess I am saying that style counts for a lot in human interactions. At least with me. (I wish I had some)

If nothing else, we have three people on record here telling the truth: Which is that "The troops" includes many who are not only not admirable human beings, but some of them are the most dangerous and most horrid of human beings that the planet is currently populated with. -- Kitt

Agreed.

I am reminded of a slogan from the 60s that went something like, "what if they gave a war and nobody came?" The message I always got from that was that the leaders do not do the fighting, it is the soldiers. If no one signed up to "protect" their land then there would be no war. But oddly, the soldier/warrior/killer has always been lionized in all lands. (as far as I know)

As much as I hate the actions of one George Bush (either one), I must hate the actions of all those that followed the illegal orders. You know, Gitmo did not just happen on its own.

Well, I bid all a good day. I hope the damn administration does not blow up the world overnight.

Imagine that! I am a far left purist. I guess I need to change all my stationary to reflect this new-found fact. Dang, and another bill just now if very inconvenient. I should have known when antiwar.com and counterpunch.org came to be my first stops of the day on the Internet. (right after Glenn I mean!)

Well, I might as well plead guilty to being "the kind who ruined the Democratic Party in 1968 and wants to do so again" since I have believed "in the Fourth Amendment, an end to the Iraq War, the rule of law for government and corporate criminals, a ban on torture, Congressional approval before the President can attack Iran, and the preservation of habeas corpus rights" for a long time now.

I am too old to protest in Chicago as in the old days, but I did sign the letter ondelette wrote to the Hague. So little I have done this time, and it is so much worse than in 68. :-(

As a small quibble, we do not need a ban on torture. We only need men and women who will follow-the-God-Damn-Laws-we-have-now.

Great question. I also would like to know what the term means, along with "far left" and a few others that Americans throw around all the time. But starting with just the one, "progressive", would be fine.

"The American Left may not be much, but it won't be anything at all until it ditches the Democrats." This is the motto of a blogger that I read.

From the preface to a book he wrote:

American elections always remind me of an old college friend of mine -- let's call her Louise -- a pretty, gentle, soft-spoken girl, who majored in art history, married her college boyfriend after graduation, and ten years or so later, left him. That's when we all found out that he had been beating her during the entire time they were together, before and after the marriage. He never gave her a black eye or a visible bruise, but he hit her, often, sometimes with his hand and sometimes with a belt. I asked her, much later, why she stayed with him for so long, and she told me, "I was afraid to leave."

A lot of my friends belong to what I would call the Left, as I do -- and yes, there is a Left in America, though the fact is often denied. Like Louise, we are kind, decent, conscientious, well-meaning people; and like Louise, many of us are trapped in a bad, abusive relationship, with a domineering partner who takes us for granted and slaps us around. Our bad spouse is the Democratic Party; and like Louise, we are afraid to leave it.

I think the key is that we are not to be "Democrats" but rather to be compassionate humans who are enlightened to looking at what a politician does and not just at his/her talking points. We need, as Americans, to elect liberal Republicans before we elect mad-dog-bomb-them-to-hell Democrats. It is that simple, party labels are not the only indicator of who deserves your vote.

Oh, and sometimes having voted for a Senator Eugene McCarthy rather than a Humphrey will bring you much satisfaction as you look back years from now. Voting for evil because you are told it is "pragmatic" is the first step towards being a mad-dog extremist.

What if every liberal/progressive/moderate had voted Green Party (or whatever) in 2006? Would we be better off now or not? I do know, but I know my vote for a Democrat to stop the lawlessness of this administration was a waste of time. (and it was a pretty day, could have gone to the botanical gardens where I am a member)