It's encouraging that the Times has taken notice of President Obama's different positioning on the issues than Candidate Obama had taken. Just yesterday, Thomas Peele, the watchdog on First Amdendment issues for MediaNews in the SF Bay Area, wrote a column decrying Obama's flip-flop on a shield law for reporters. Peele noted how Obama as a candidate for the White House supported a strong shield law but now his administration is backing away from that position. Peele wrote that's "why a lot of people sent Obama to Washington. Change was his word and his promise. But his position on the shield law is a promise badly broken." We need an even brighter media spotlight on Obama's flip-flops to bring greater pressure on his administration to deliver what he promised. It's going to take a lot pressure to overcome whatever countervailing force he's feeling to maintain the status quo established by the Bush administrations.

Nearly 45,000 Americans die annually from lack of health insurance - acceptable to Fred Hiatt. About 3,000 Americans died in the 9/11 attacks 8 years ago - Hiatt is willing to spend whatever is necessary to prevent even one more American dying by terrorist hands. What's the difference? As Glenn pointed out, Hiatt has health insurance so he's not going to be among the first statistic. He however could conceivably be the lone American to die from a terrorist attack, no matter how infinitesimally small the odds of that event are. It shows how morally bankrupt Hiatt is but also how abysmally unintelligent he is.

to me to see our political establishment devolving into an aristocracy which extols a modern-day equivalent of the "divine right of kings." One of the key principles that led our founding fathers to establish this nation was to get away from that idea. But little more than 200 years later, we seem to be devolving back to the Louis XIV notion of "L'Etat, c'est moi."

As Glenn pointed out, the Washington media elite - the very institution that's supposed to bring some accountability to our political leadership, is actively supporting this idea! I'm sure that Glenn is right in that ossified opinion shapers such as Broder feel complicit in supporting the extremist actions of the Bush administration. But it's more than that because I think the media elites feel they're a major part of the Washington aristocracy and therefore MUST support and protect their own. They identify strongly with each other.

The thing is that the political establishment stands apart from the rest of us - the governed (or the subjects) and doesn't face the consequences of its excesses as we do. This is not going to change as long as political leaders don't suffer for breaking our nation's laws or just for poor political leadership. This Washington aristocracy needs to be shaken up somehow although I'm not quite sure how we - the governed - accomplish that. Elections by which we turn the government over to the opposition political party clearly has no effect any longer.

Timothy3: "And it's been smooth sailing ever since."

Same with me, although for whatever reason, I never bought into their worldview completely. When I escaped the culture, I swallowed the red pill and never looked back. Once you're on the outside and can look back into the mindset, it looks like mental illness on a mass scale.

I know we liberals don't want to turn into the leftist version of them; so we can't think and behave the way they do nor adopt their strategies and tactics. We just have to understand we aren't going to be able to turn their minds with well-argued appeals or logic that might appeal to more open-minded people. That's a mistake I see a lot of liberals make.

Glenn Greenwald: "I'm always amazed -- even though I know I shouldn't be -- at people's capacity simply to block out events, literally refuse to acknowledge them, when they are inconsistent with their desire to believe things."

Well, I'm not surprised. I grew up in a very conservative family and in a very conservative culture (Deep South in the 50s and 60s) and this is no great shock to me. These people truly do live in their own world and they are not worried about being consistent or logical. Their worldview overrides everything, including religion. Whoever coined the term "IOKIYAR" certainly understood the mentality. Only, there are Republicans they can't stand either because said Republicans have a hint of open-mindedness. A better acronym would be "IOKIYAC" (It's OK If You're A Conservative" but the best one would be "IOKIYASI" (It's OK If You're A Stupid Idiot).

Fellow liberals would well-served to understand that these people can't be reasoned with. They are simply not going to play by the same rules you follow (the current healthcare reform "debate" is but the latest example). Don't try to use logic, historical precedent, theology real-life examples or anything else to penetrate their ideological shell - it won't work. I have a lifetime of experience to prove it.