Glenn,

I think most readers salute your passion and leadership on this issue. You must know that many of your readers and ideological fellow-travellers are struggling to reconcile our perhaps less-informed but perhaps equally earnest concern for civil liberties with a belief in the promise of change that we thought Barack Obama offered, and hope he still does. With that knowledge, and considering your own (sporadically reiterated) support for his candidacy, I find it hard to understand the extent of your vitriol for the few semi-defnders of his position. That's especially true considering his relative responsibility for the state of the bill as it stands. He is not responsible for the specific provisions there. He is responsible for his position about the bill, and I support your efforts to hold his eet to the fire on that, as long as it is balanced by equivalent efforts to go after the bills' sponsors and authors (not to mention the driving forces behind it: George W. Bush and his party.)

But your characterization as potential four-year-old-like Leader-worshippers of those seeking to reconcile our hopes for Obama with his unfortunate position on this bill is really mistifyingly insulting, and I just fail to see how it moves the discussion forward in any way at all. There are serious issues at stake here on both sides of this question. We understand your view of those matters as being clearly one-sided. However, not everyone necessarily agrees on how clear it really, even if we agree about how the balance ulimately falls. I do not see where it is necessary to be so insulting to those who do not hold precisely your view.

I hope that your posts will retun to the excellent substantive work on which you have earned your deserved esteem, and leave your personal opinion of those with different views for more equitable settings. The owner of a well-read and highly respected online daily column, after all, holds a great deal of power in the emerging media environment. Each of us can only be one of hunders of commenters.

Again, however, I thank you for your forceful committment to this important issue.

Michael Drew

Thanks Glenn for your lightning quick response.

I take your clarification of the Leader-worshipper tag as

"applicable only to those who seek to justify everything Obama does - even when they don't understand it -- by assuming that he's so wise and Good that he must have hidden, unknown justifications for doing it."

But how large is that group really? And are you sure Olbermann belongs in it? I don't think he ever endorses Obama's position in the clip you link to. And the out-of-left-field theory of what Obama (or others!) could do with criminal liability rally did come straight from John Dean. KO's not smart enough to come up with that on his own! KO is obviously all-in with Obama, so he seized on that, but that still does not amount to defending, excusing or justifying. Just a lack of ability to accept what is real: Obama took a position KO and the rest of us think is horrendous.

Out of curiosity, of Obama supporters who also pay attention to these matters, what percentage do you think match your descrption? Or in other words, in just how low regard do you hold Obama supporters as a group? Do 50% of us "seek to justify everything Obama does - even when they don't understand it -- by assuming that he's so wise and Good that he must have hidden, unknown justifications for doing it"? Is it 80%? 20%? 2%?

Do you give any credence to the idea that a leaders' supporters can (even publicly) seek to understand a position they think is wrong, without that amounting to either justification, defense, or excusing the position? How about explaining? Can we seek to explain the position while also disagreeing with it and continuing to support the guy? Is there a threshhold of understanding we have to reach in order to do this without being four-year-olds?

Ignore those questions, though, for this one: why are we down this road? Why not focus more on the bill itself and who really initiated and pushed it (and wrote it, for god's sake)? Why not leave aside what their various media types or other supporters may or may not be saying about what candidates have said about it? It really seems to me you've made an enemy out of an ally on this in Keith Olbermann (remember, he was with you on this big-time) by being too focused on Senator Obama and not sensitive enough to the bad spot Obama has put his 4th Amendment-loving supporters in? Obama deserves criticism for this; I don't know what further action you require from his supporters than that admission.

Why not get tougher on Pelosi and Reid, for letting it come this far in this form, especially Reid, who is all over the map on this, first allowing the horrendous Senate bill to go through, and now jumping to Obama's flank and hanging him out?

There's lameness all around on this. It's not all about Obama and Keith Olbermann. I'd just like to get back to the real matter at hand.