On Friday, The ANSWER coalition is organizing a protest against the Washington Post's ignoring the protest last weekend of the thousands of activists protesting the attack on Gaza. They're going to protest in front of The Post's headquarters.

http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_homepage (link also at signature)

I am unemployed, struggling, have sought jobs for the last several months, have gotten little response from employers, except for the odd apology about hiring freezes or filled positions.

Is this something you could write about...related to the bailout and the devastatingly irresponsible decisions made by Wall Street and our government? I know you're background is in constitutional law, and I love your posts about Guantanamo, warrantless surveillance, the noxious members of the washington consensus, etc... it feels cathartic to read them and they empower us as citizens. I love your voice, how you use the power of clear thinking, credible reporting and research and wicked turns of phrase to make us all feel heard.

Now, I want that same voice used to vent my frustrations with watching corporate America renovate offices or buy toilets for sums of cash that I, and so many others, need. And to maybe take away from the shitty, failure-like feeling that come with being unemployed.

That's all. It's a personal, somewhat selfish request, and I know it's not really your thing, but I thought I'd give it a shot.

Keep up the awesome work.

Thanks for being honest about your mistake, Glenn. And another excellent outcome of this: when Mr. Shane writes what he does, no doubt a voice holding him accountable will be in his head. (And vice versa)

One important note: Reporters like SS need to take responsibility for headlines and subheadlines. They notoriously relinquish that responsibility to copyeditors or editors when, in many instances, a fear-mongering headline like that that can frame or distort an entire story.

nice slips (or intentional?) in your last paragraph. "Martial" unions and "scared" bonds. awesome.

well done post. as a moderately informed political observer (well, apparently i'm very uninformed) i've always seen daschle as some kind of nice if slightly beleaguered democrat. i hope obama's image doesn't diverge with his substance as much.

Nice sentiment. Your lack of cynicism and snark is appreciated, as is your optimism. I'm with you.

"For my part, I have not changed my mind and never, pace Glenn, stated that the Obama administration was complicit in torture. I said it should be very careful to avoid that."

After their decision to cover for their predecessors Monday, Andrew wrote

"And with each decision to cover for their predecessors, the Obamaites become retroactively complicit in them."

Pretty weak. I guess he's a politician now.

Dear Glenn,

I showed my 70-year-old dad your Bill Moyer's appearance and I wanted to share with you his reaction.

Some background on him first. He's a career gov't guy, a Hillary supporter, a solid lock-step Democrat who is often enamored of various politicians depending on media spin(Bill Clinton, hillary clinton, now obama). He doesn't really read or know blogs, and would describe himself as a centrist. He loves Tom Friedman and David Brooks.

Anyhow, he was pretty engrossed with what both you and Jay had to say, going so far as to call you two clowns brilliant. Especially resonant for him were the ideas of insiders being threatened by mobilized public anger, and the media complicity in marginalizing that outrage.

Anyhow, measuring his response to your ideas was meaningful to me. It's a small metric, but one i was surprised and heartened by. Your ideas are labeled radical in some circles, but when presented to your average citizen (who watches lots of mainstream cable and network news outlets) they are accepted for what they are: keen, simple observations.

You have a new fan. And i think my dad might be reading some blogs going forward.

Thanks, and keep it up.

Instead of seeing the obvious: 1)Person A breaks law egregiously, 2)law-breaking should be investigated, at minimum -- about four thousand "pragmatic" problems and distortions and weakly-argued stop orders crop up in between 1 and 2 by the "rational" progressives among us. Why? I'm not sure I understand.

Relatedly, it seems like kind of a hatchet job Nate Silver did on David Sirota. He set up a very informative argument about rational v. radical progressives based on his examination of history, and then he associates Sirota (without explaining why except by calling him dishonest and demagogic, which may or may no be true, I dunno) with the radicals, and slams them both.

Bloggers with healthy, vibrant, engaged comments sections also build irreplacable credibility with . A major source of your credibility, after all, comes from your ability to withstand criticism publicly since your blogs are so, er, shrill and liberal scoldy.

Andrew Sullivan's credibility suffers for his lack of one.

To be fair to other bloggers, though, you have the trial lawyer's gift of verbally body slamming people with whom you disagree. Not to diminish the power of your arguments, but you are blessed.

(Someone oughtta compile a best of your comment beat downs.)

On a personal note, you make me aspire to clearer thinking.