"Someone is going to be angered and feel alienated by what decision he makes, by the outcome, and symbolic paeans to inclusion are unlikely to soothe that. Those who are eager to escape confrontation, divisions, and angry disputes can probably do so only by renouncing any actual political principles, and are probably best advised to avoid politics altogether. Because of the very nature of politics -- to say nothing of the nature of the contemporary American Right -- politics is highly unlikely to exist without angry, often ugly, conflicts of that sort."

Of course someone's going to be alienated or upset by decisions made by the Obama administration. Check out his pick of Warren, for example! I don't understand the point of even writing this paragraph. Obviously, everyone who has been part of the discussion of Warren's pick has been involved in a confrontation, division and angry dispute either in rabid defense or opposition.

But just because you feel heated about this doesn't mean everyone else does or should. And the one's who don't, aren't necessarily jettisoning political principles or apologist bigots or blind Obama supporters...you seem to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY. Just because Clinton set a poor example of attempting to appease opponents, doesn't mean that Obama's attempts will be done in the same way or have the same outcome. Symbolic paeans to inclusion might just work. Consider that? And Glenn, yes, I do want to avoid confrontation, division and angry dispute if it's not necessary. But I realize that this atmosphere created by the insatiably bigoted right and a passive left, we have to stay true to our principles. But just because you think that it must be done in a certain growling and ferocious manner doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Also,

your whole "painfully stupid" diatribe to a reader yesterday was evidence of your adopting with vigor this meanness, this ferocity. Don't confuse it with strength of argument or of principle. It's not.

Since you bring it up, maybe you could write about the widespread practice of journalists accepting all-expense paid trips to Israel? I can name names of publications that don't object to its reporters and editors doing this, but I think the practice is so widespread, it wouldn't be hard for you to find people -- even in your own backyard -- who have unapologetically accepted such offers.

Technically, will the Bush era legal memos and opinions issued out of the current OLC carry over to an Obama administration? Meaning, will President Obama be bound (or unbound) by John Yoo's opinions or other Bush-era OLC opinions? Or will Johnsen have the chance --or obligation based on her job description--to dismantle those opinions? And if so will it be chance or obligation? (I'm not talking moral obligation)

Andrew Sullivan recently said he thinks you have "...less fear than any journalist I know in Washington." He said this right after your post yesterday about Israel and Gaza (which he appears to agree with.)

Which makes me curious. Have there been any personal or professional repercussions for what you've written, aside from bigoted rants?

And do you have any thoughts on being lauded for your bravery? Or thoughts on the woman who accuses you of blood libel (also mentioned by Sullivan)

I think you do a really good job at getting at the heart of issues and persisting there. As ugly as your comments section gets, there is also a really vibrant discussion which adds a great dimension to the discussion and lends you more credibility. It's one of my biggest problems with other bloggers, like Sullivan, who refuse a public comments section.

How many synaptic leaps does it take to believe this constant hyperbole flung around by Bush and Harman that: "There will be blood on your hands" if the Times runs with the story?

Reminds me of when Condoleeza Rice urged all the major networks to refrain from showing video footage of Osama Bin Laden for nebulous "security reasons." They complied, didn't they?

And how insulting and disingenous is Frances Fragos Townsend,in the Isikoff article: "There are legal processes in place [for whistle-blowers' complaints]. This is one where I'm a hawk. It offends me, and I find it incredibly dangerous."

Perhaps he should have taken the standard whistleblower route. But if "legal process" in place are already tainted at the highest levels, why would any sane person trust it?

"I would not question that" -- paraphrasing Bill Kristol's view of enhanced interrogation on Intelligence Squared Saturday night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyWnENXf8_4

So, where the hell were you, Glenn? Your online magazine counterpart, the feckless pro-Iraq war Jacob Weisberg of Slate, got his ass handed to him. Would, Glenn, would that you were there to take on Kristol's (and Rove's) formidable debating and lying prowess. It seems terrible representation from the left makes the right look good in media as well as politics.

Can somebody please undertake a project to isolate all Kristol's lies, and the way he uses exaggerated indignation and facial expressions to get his lies across?

You ever get asked to be part of such things? I would pay money to see you go up against Kristol.

Maybe George is not familiar with the latest NIE? Which is not a defense at all, it would be appalling.

Another hypothesis: Could Obama be ratcheting up anti-Iran rhetoric in order to be able to deal effectively, somehow, with Israel by claiming to be tough on one of their enemies?

These are wild and hopeful imaginings, perhaps, but trying to figure out the gambit here, if it's a gambit at all. I mean, he's already WON THE ELECTION. What's he trying to prove? Or does he actually believe this stuff?