I was largely agreeing with you -- or, more accurately, adding a thought consistent with your point.

The way the comment section works is that even when you purport to reply to just one person, everyone can read it. So the fact that X makes a point in response to Y's comment doesn't mean that X thinks that Y isn't aware of that point.

-- GlennGreenwald

OK, ok...sheesh....lol. I was just trying to clarify:) I didn't mean to sound testy with my "er...yeah I know" beginning -- I was just confused and thought I was showing that. I guess I didn't expect that response from you is all. Was a bit caught off guard/didn't know how to take it.

WT

Glenn thinks something like it's worked before, and the one thing we do know is that if we do nothing, we'll achieve nothing.

Precisely. Obviously, on days like today, when a significant and repulsive defeat appears imminent and inevitable, the pessimism level is higher, and when there are incremental victories, the optimism level is higher, but in general, my view is exactly what you just described. -- GlennGreenwald

Yes, yes. I KNOW WHAT Y'ALLS PLAN IS!

*Adnoto attempts to pull what little hair he has left, out of his head*

Honestly, I do.

Fellas, I am in relatively good humor this morning so I will just say this -- my main beef isn't with the notion of contacting, cajoling, coercing and threatening our "representatives." In fact I was really hoping that GG would write one of his hammers about IMPEACHMENT and all of you would put your fingers to your keyboards and your ears to your receivers and at least make some noise about it... but I digress... My beef is that I know, I know that that is not going to work by itself. They simply aren't afraid of us...

You know what? Forget it... we have had this "conversation" more times than I can count. We have been over it and over it. I just don't have the energy for it right now. I am trying to move on anyway. My other tab is open to some real estate listings in New Zealand. Effin US dollar... totally in the tank.

I remember when George Bush was talking to Tony Blair and the conversation was inadvertently recorded. Neither of them knew it was being recorded.

It's so weird -- I don't recall a single person here - not one -- objecting to the broadcasting of that conversation. How come?

-- GlennGreenwald

You mean besides the fact that, due to a certain lack of power, Bill Clinton is closer to an average Joe now and, as such, his rantings and musings are only marginally more newsworthy than the those of my next door neighbor? While, on the other hand, BushCo is the current "leader of the free world" with his finger hovering over the button.... Well other than that aspect I would imagine it is because the vast majority of us know that Bush is, at the very least, a moron and and asshole. So why object when he inadvertently proves it?

I would agree, I don't recall anyone speaking up against the release of that Bush video tape or saying it was bad journalism. I also don't recall anyone saying it was great reporting and a very important story (if they did, I would disagree). I don't know Glenn, but I think much of the negative reaction to the Bill Clinton ambush story is because a) it isn't meaningful news and b) most people wouldn't want someone to ambush them in such a way.

I think I agree with you for the most part wrt what "journalists" should be able to publish... but this stuff isn't really meaningful news IMO. Neither the George Bush video tape nor the Bill Clinton rant. It is stuff for Inside Edition, Entertainment Tonight or for future release on a When Politicians Attack dvd. My main objection to this particular citizen journalist is that both she and her "stories" are of the National Enquirer school of journalism as opposed to the McClatchy, Lichtblau, Risen, Priest, Savage school of journalism.

Let me ask you this Glenn... can you ever see yourself operating in such a manner? Can you see the McClatchy guys doing that? Can you see planting yourself in a rope line, playing the concerned fan/supporter, asking a question you suspect will get a rise out of someone and then when they open up, reporting on it? Maybe you would. Speaking for myself I don't think I would do that. It just seems wrong to me.

Why is Feingold the one that gets the "principled democrat" shout out Glenn? I like the guy too but a censure resolution several months ago? Come on. How about what Kucinich has been doing and is doing right now? I am seriously asking here and I would like an answer if you have the time -- are you actually ducking the impeachment issue? I confess I thought you might but how can you write a post like this and cite Feingold as the standard, when Kucinich is the only one actually doing any work to remove BushCo? Kucinich and impeachment don't deserve a mention? Not even in passing?

I would really be interested in an answer. Are you actually ducking it? Is Kucinich "unserious" in your mind?