3. Fred Hiatt

4. Thomas Friedman

11. Fareed Zakaria

14. Christopher Hitchens

15. Marueen Dowd

18. Glenn Greenwald

19. Andrew Sullivan

Among the names I recognize.

Hiatt has bent over backwards repeatedly over the past eight years to kiss up to the Bush/Cheney regime and their neo-con policies. What the Post has done has been to support basically everything Republicans and rich Democrats want to do. I cannot recall a single "liberal" position that Hiatt has endorsed. Yes, the Post did endorse Obama, after it became apparent that Obama would win, but so what?

Friedman loves good wars. Juxtaposing the words "liberal" and "hawk" doesn't mean that the phrase isn't inherently oxymoronic.

Zakaria is liberal? I've never noticed. Seems like just another self-serving reporter to me. He loves conventional wisdom.

Hitches is an atheist, but that doesn't mean he's a liberal.

Dowd is not a liberal, she's a juvenile writer who takes pleasure in personal attacks. The next column she writes that shows any insight into policy matters will be her first.

Greenwald is a great writer but his main concern is the consistent application of the rule of law, and a consistent resistance to the abuses of power by people who ignore law. I don't think it's fair to conservatives to cede the issue "adherence to the rule of law" to "liberals", but I can see why Forbes would feel that way, based on the fact that so-called conservatism in the US has essentially degenerated into patriarchal power-worship. I never see him endorse "liberal" positions in the manner that Duncan Black does.

As for Sullivan, yes the guy is gay, and no he doesn't like Bush, or Sarah Palin for that matter. That doesn't make him "liberal".

The list is idiotic.

Wow. How do you argue with something like that?

It's like calling Manny Ramirez a base stealer.

That cannot be treated as a serious position, and certainly not if the grounds for the position is that Patterson didn't pick Caroline Kennedy, a woman whose constituency appears to consist mostly of pundits and Kennedys.

Whether Gillibrand is the optimal choice or not, she has the benefit of being neither a Cuomo nor a Kennedy.

It's surprising to see people leap to Obama's defense on this issue. Sirota is not merely correct, he's also saying something that's fairly obvious.

There are a lot of things that Obama is going to do differently than Bush. Trying to please extremely wealthy banking interests is not one of them of them. Obama, like Bush, and like the Clintons, is quite interested in keeping Wall Street as happy as possible.

Why? Because that's where they all get a lot of their campaign cash.

Politically, helping Wall Street can be seen as a shrewd move, esp. since the media has played along with the nonsense for the most part, and also because the entire package can be blamed on Bush.

From a substantive viewpoint, the entire bill is just a stick-up. Banks and investment companies were going to suffer massive losses as a result of their recklessness, so they decided, with incredible chutzpah, that they shouldn't be held accountable. We get to pay the bill!

If Obama, or indeed any political leader, was interested in solving the problems that led to the collapse, the last thing they would want to do would be to give, without any meaningful preconditions or oversight, an enormous pile of money to the very people responsible for it. And yet that's what is happening.

Bush has been an idiot for a long time. He's not a very clever man. His ideas are naive and have never been fully tested by, say, interaction with the real world in any meaningful way. He was sheltered by his family power for a long time, in spite of a string of abject failures - as an airman, a student, a businessman.

Why was this topic never covered?

And yes, it is appalling that Bush calls it a "disappointment" that there were no WMDs in Iraq. And worse, it is appalling that Bush continues to blame "bad intelligence" when at the time there was plenty of intelligence saying that there were no WMDs in Iraq but Bush and Cheney just simply chose to ignore any intel that didn't tell them what they wanted to hear.

Good riddance to an awful man.

If Obama wants to piss away his current high level of public support in favor of Cheney's single-digit approval ratings, then by all means he should think about "What would Dick do?"

it is, however, how the Pledge was originally written. "Under God" was added during the Eisenhower administration. It's clear from reading the language of Ike's speech at the time that the change of the Pledge was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

I'm wondering - do the apologists have any argument other than "it's impolitic to point out that there is currently a lot of mixing religion and politics, and a lot of people like it that way". We know that a lot of people like it that way.

But it's still unconstitutional.

And a bad idea to boot.

After 8 years of watching "faith-based government" in action, wouldn't it be nice to see the government function as a secular entity, as it was originally designed to do? Pandering to the popular religion of the day is not a legitimate purpose of government.

He's inclined to have sex with "every beautiful woman (he) sees"?

And this guy is supposed to be a spiritual leader?

People like Warren have childish understandings of what sexual impulses are. For them, they need to have a doctrinaire control of their sexual boundaries, and without that, they fear chaos.

He really cannot discuss homosexuality without discussing promiscuity, can he? When did they become the same thing?

It's really hard to fathom how, in a city that has turned a blind eye to crimes committed by Presidential administrations (esp. Republicans) since Nixon, how continuing to ignore abuses of power will in any way deter future behavior of the same time.