Obama "was elected to be the president of all the people - not just those on the left."

I'd buy this if Obama's appointments reflected a leftward tilt that he felt needed to be balanced. But there is no significant representation from the left in this cabinet. This is chiefly a center-right cabinet. So if Obama "was elected to be the president of all the people", where are the representatives from the Left?

The left has not been truly represented in our government since LBJ, a period during which the Right has been dominant. They have, in this period of time, so utterly ruined this country that it is time for them to sit down and shut up for a while. Instead, it's more of the same crap. Obama: the kinder, gentler, more competent imperialist.

Oh, and W.E.S., the deep irony is that neither Obama or H. Clinton would have had a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president where it not for those damn, cancerous leftists who made such a fuss in the 60's.

True. And I would add that many of the ideas we take for granted today were originally championed by the "far" Left: 40 hour work weeks, child labor laws, civil rights for all, etc. Real radical stuff, eh?

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.

--Mark Twain

As for rawfish's strawman comment on purity:

I'm not after purity. What I want (and what other critics on this page want, from what I can see) is inclusion, which the Left is not getting from Obama, at least as far as one can see from his appointments. But as others have pointed out, let's wait and see what he actually does.

So far these "rumors" have been remarkably accurate. The one about Robert Gates was around long before it became reality. Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State was another one. And then there was the rumor about John Brennan, which didn't pan out, but not because it wasn't true!

Seems to me these "rumors" are really leaks by the transition team to see what they can get away with. If that's true, we will get Gen. Hayden unless people make a Brennan-style stink. And given Gen. Hayden's record, it is needed.

Malkatraz, on England's Labour Party:

And how disappointed we've been over the last 11 years by everything that has been perpetrated by this sham of a government - the corruption, the sleaze, the broken promises, the lies, not to mention the damn incompetence. So disappointed in fact, that the country has almost gone full circle, volte-face and the Tories are now significantly ahead in the polls.

Comparing the Labour Party to our own Democratic Party is apt. History is our laboratory. Want to know how something will turn out? We've probably tried it before!

The Labour Party of England chose a very similar route to the one the Democrats are now taking: centrist, with emphasis on "non-ideological" pragmatism and a rejection of their core base and values. Now look were they stand. They stand for nothing except their own perpetuation. They have no vision. They have no guiding ideology. They have accomplished nothing positive worthy of note. Their legacy is an unpopular war and a massive surveillance state. The remnants of the party that still cling to it's founding principles (guys like Tony Benn) are relegated to the fringe. The unfortunate English voters have some choice, don't they? Dumb and Dumber. They are now poised to choose Dumber once again because Dumb didn't work out.

I've watched a few Obama press conference where he announces one appointment or another and says that he is looking for fresh ideas, only to introduce a Clinton-era retread.

Not this time. This is pleasant news indeed!

1) Euro 2008. This tournament delivered. Just about every game was exciting, with interesting subplots. How about the Russians! And the Spanish team not only played the most entertaining style, they won the tournament. When was the last time you watched a tournament where the most fun team was also the best team? This is also my candidate of most under-appreciated story and also the one least likely to make the final list.

2)Roger Federer vs. Rafa Nadal at the Wimbledon Finals. Wow.

3)Brett Favre in the "wrong" uniform.

Admiral Hutson, I thought, made a great case that torture is wrong, simply does not work, and damages US interests. (And his words on Atty. Gen. nominee Holder were a balm.)

Even more eloquent was "Matthew Alexander" (pseudonym), author of How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. Click my sig to watch/hear/read his excellent interview with the incomparable Amy Goodman.

I think Alexander's title says it all. Brains. Those who have none turn to the only solution they know: violence. It's quick. It's easy. It has a visceral appeal when used against those we hate. But it is wrong, and it doesn't work.

On a related note: Did anyone catch the AP story on US homicide clearance rates? (http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/12/08/D94UOR7G0_getting_away_with_murder_glance/index.html) In 1963, 91% of murder cases were solved. In 2007, only 61% were solved. With the militarization of our police, I wonder if this is not also a case of brains losing out to brutality?