the fact that Obama had to ask where the reporter was a time or two, after having called on them, clearly suggests he had a pre-arranged list of names, rather than a seating chart. or a seating chart which somehow indicated who should be asked. Regardless, it seems clear that the Obama administration is by and large using the same tools as previous administrations to shape the press pool to its purposes--exactly as Bush did.

-- casual_observer

I guess it's beyond the realm of possibility that Obama had a conversation with Todd before the news conference, and had promised to let him ask a question.

To say that Obama is exactly the same as Bush was, isn't it necessary to say not only that Obama had a plan about who to let ask questions, but also had foreknowledge of what those questions were???

I cannot believe that Ronald Reagan and Helen Thomas had that conspiracy going on all those years. He took a question from her every press conference!!! Clearly his motives were nefarious.

/idiot

I watched part of the film last night and I was struck at how the people interviewed seemed terrified at the notion that Obama would be president.

Isn't it just a wee bit possible that this reflects racism?

Alexandra Pelosi seems to think that making a film qualifies her to have deeper insights about political culture, like her negative comments about blogs. Blogs are stirring up hate? Did she spend months on the road without turning on the radio? Did she not hear Rush Limbaugh singing "Barack the Magical Negro?"?

The comment about "the coasts" seemed particularly weird, given that President Obama comes from Illinois.

I think the documentary is illuminating in that it gives an insight into how the McCain base thinks. But it is a mistake to think that any conclusions about anything need be an average of what they think and what Obama supporters think. These are people who toss around the word "socialist" as code for "Communist" and have no understanding of what Obama wants to do. Yes, to a great extent they are ignorant.

I'm fine with letting them go on TV and say that Obama is the Antichrist. But let's not get all warm and fuzzy about how that is a reasonable position for them to take.

For people like Cheney, government has very little to do with law and is entirely determined by personal relationships. Libby was his right-hand man and took the fall for him on the Plame matter (which, had justice prevailed, should have resulted in Cheney's indictment). So of course Cheney wants to get a get-out-of-jail card for Libby. It's more than jail time - he wants Bush to proclaim that Libby did the right thing.

Just like Cap Weinberger and Ollie North and Halderman, Ehrlichman, and G. Gordon Liddy, who all put party loyalty over the rule of law.

Bush doesn't care because he sees the entire episode as being Cheney's fault. Cheney's need to have petty revenge on Joe Wilson led to the embarrassing Plame affair. There is no doubt in my mind that the whole thing was a Cheney-directed job. (I mean, really. His Chief of Staff was behind it - do you think Libby broke the law in the execution of his duty not at Cheney's behest?)

In the big picture, the Plame affair is a small thing compared to the many things Cheney appears to be getting away with.

We have a generation of political leaders who all believe that power is all that matters, and that the notion of "rule of law" is "quaint", as Abu Gonzales famously said about the Geneva Convention.

It's all about the need for the ruling elite to stick up for each other, regardless of any other considerations. As a corollary of this observation, we can realize that these people do not believe in democracy whatsoever. The notion that the wisdom of the populace could be greater than whatever opinion the elite have that week is roundly mocked in these circles.

It's all about breeding, you see. America has essentially become an aristocracy, with just enough occasional concessions to democracy to keep the masses at bay. And when a new family rises to power, as the Clintons did in the 80s and 90s, they too are brought into the circles of power and assured that pursuing as much power as possible is far more interesting than any quaint notions of law.

The argument that these two lawyers make (I cannot be bothered to look up their names again since they are so despicable) comes down to this: don't f*ck with us. Obama should not investigate Bush and Cheney, regardless of what the law says, because doing so is viewed simply as f*cking with them. The notion that there is no legal principle to stand on here at all is immaterial. It's all about asserting power.

The villagers of DC are in dire fear of the unwashed mobs. I think it would be fair to say that they are far more afraid of the masses of their own country than they are of Communists in China or terrorists in Afganistan. (This may even be a rational position to hold, given how overblown both of these threats are.)

Yes, it's aristocracy. What do we do about it?

According to Wikipedia, the ICC has (only?) investigated crimes in Uganda, the Congo, the CAR, and Sudan. It is true that it has not investigated crimes in Burma or North Korea. Neither country is a signatory to the treaty.

The ICC is not currently trying any cases in any English-speaking countries.

It's hard to imagine a bigger lie than what sleepingdogs has said.

that I should have just "let sleeping dogs lie".