That slant seemed to attract a large and loyal audience during the Bush administration, but it may have suffered when Barack Obama became president.

Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, whose stable of contributors includes Froomkin, said late Thursday: "With the end of the Bush administration, interest in the blog also diminished. His political orientation was not a factor in our decision."

His audience "may have suffered" since Obama became President? What does that even mean? Did it suffer? Alexander doesn't bother to say. And what does Hiatt's "interest in the blog also diminished" mean? Interest among whom?-- GG

It isn't that difficult to figure out. It makes complete, logical sense if you think about it for more than 30 seconds. They mean that there is declining interest. Most likely that there were fewer hits to the site and that was a result of less interest from Democrats concerning political issues. That the WaPo suffered less of an audience. Especially if/when Froomkin was "bashing" our new Dear Leader. The average wingnut is entirely too stupid and would always be inclined to either not read Froomkin at all or complain about his column. The average Democratic voter is only marginally more intelligent and, now that their guy is in charge, they are paying less and less attention to political issues.

Tell us Glenn, and be honest now, has your readership been affected by Obama having been elected? You are somewhat of an anomaly so it may not have affected you as much but I would bet that many "liberal" pontificating pundits working for a more mainstream news outlets have seen their readership decline.

that lowlife twerps like you could care less about anyone or anything other than themselves. -- pcisbs

It's "couldn't care less." That is, unless you meant what you wrote and you believe that Greenwald does indeed care.

Why are all wingnuts fucking morons? Actually that is a silly question.

my '51 Panhead.

-- Titonwan

Not much compared to yours but '01 BMW R1200C here. There are days, especially now that I am out of a job and looking for work, when I seriously consider mounting up, pointing it south and never looking back.

I am disputing exactly that. The evidence for my contention is the last eight years of a staggeringly unpopular Republican president. Heightening the contradictions FAIL.

-- Paul Daniel Ash

I don't even know why I am bothering. I guess I can't get it through my thick head that you truly are that pessimistic. I just can't believe you are at that place.

What seems best now is to work to elect more progressive candidates even if that means losing some races that Dems would have won if they had run a more moderate or conservative candidate.

What we also should be doing is helping the organizations and groups like the ACLU that stand for what we believe in instead of politicians and their organizations. --rjcrane

Those are both supportive actions that will never be winners in the long term. Those two "actions" will never bring about significant change because they do not hit at and truly threaten the heart of the problem. They work on the margins and thus are marginal.

Consider the following please.

The problem is systemic:

More and better politicians of any stripe are not the answer for two simple reasons. First, we will never be able to elect enough of them in any given election to affect substantive change in the short term. It will not happen and everyone knows that. The results of the past 2 presidential and 3 congressional elections go a long way toward proving this fact.

Secondly, because we can not elect enough of them this next round, those that we are successful in electing into the current gamed system will either be compromised and/or marginalized by the time we are able add to their number with even "more and better." It is truly a "one step forward, two steps back" approach that leaves us farther behind at every turn.

Also, because the problems are systemic, lobbying, begging, cajoling, etc. an entrenched, corrupted establishment by way of groups such as Accountability Now and/or the ACLU will be nearly worthless.

What you are proposing is no different than what people have attempting to do from the nearly inception of our republic. Elect better politicians and lobby. How has that worked out? Well, we are living the fruits of those efforts right now, no? The only way to bring about change is to threaten the heart of the establishment. To force them to change. The only way to do that is to make them fear and respect us. They only way to make them fear and respect us is direct action and civil disobedience. Without direct action and civil disobedience, all the "supportive" (incrementalist) efforts in the world will be ineffective.

Who knows, if McPalin had won, by 2012, or 2016, our streets might have looked like Tehran's now. Messy? Certainly. But, in the long run, like 20-30 years, I believe we would have been better off.

Personally, I'd like to see millions of Americans in the streets, but it's going to take more than illegal surveillance to make it happen.

-- jlamkin

Agreed.

There is no difference, which was my point.

-- Paul Daniel Ash

Come on man. You know what I meant. I began by saying "it was working" and I believe it might have. It is obvious that there is more of a chance for change with Republicans in charge. You aren't disputing that are you?

Yeah.

Since that worked so well the last time.

-- Paul Daniel Ash

It was working. And what we have now certainly isn't so what is the difference? And don't come at me with SCHIP and stem cells please.