So, to everyone who thinks I am out of bounds with my opinion that Glenn seeks to "criminalize policy differences," will Obama bring a break with that past? Will Obama preside over investigations and prosecutions of "war crimes"?

No, and no.

I'm really not sure if you're being sincere, E-man, or just provocative as per usual. There has been debate along the lines of your question in these comment threads for as long as I can remember.

For the record, I think the chances of any government for any party self-policing are slim and none. I don't think there's any salvation to be had just by voting the right people in, but by constant and sustained - and intense - pressure for change.

An Obama administration might be more receptive to such pressure - or might be more effective in dividing the opposition. I don't know if that's change I can believe in or not.

If opposition to kidnapping, renditioning and torturing innocent people is elite, then OK, I'm an elitist.

If opposition to a lawless black hole on a Navy base in Cuba is elite, then OK, I'm an elitist.

If opposition to an unprovoked, illegal attack and occupation of a country that was never a threat to us is elite, then OK, I'm an elitist.

If opposition to warrantless wiretapping, indefinite imprisonment without charge, and the-law-is-what-the-President-says-it-is is elite, then OK, I'm an elitist.

Some people, like you, are loyal to political parties like they're sports franchises. Personally, I could give a shit whether the Red Team or the Blue Team gets the trophy in November - I just want my goddamn rights back.

Instead of going after Blue Dog Democrats, why not actually try to convince the American public that progressives have a better way of taking the country forward?

I think that's what's being discussed in the article. Have you read it?

It's amusing to see the number of comments in this thread which seem to be responding only to the headline and subhead blurb of the piece. If read very literally, I suppose, the blurb could be interpreted as a sort of Jacobinist call to guillotine all the reactionaries, but this is a kind of reductio ad absurdum that I have a hard time accepting that anyone could even believe.

I'd strongly suggest people actually read the piece itself before commenting.

I couldn't care less about what the pundits and posters on this site think

Yeah, you've made that clear.

Anything else you'd like to add? If not, thanks for your contribution to the discussion. kbye

Thinking you have a right to have your say in congressional elections where you don't live/vote is highly arrogant.

Why? This happens all the time... do you really think all that campaign money comes from the immediate neighborhood of the candidate?

This is like electoral concern trolling...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/29/democracy

linked at sig.

You guys are funny.

* The Watergate scandal

* The murder of Nicole Brown Simpson

* The anthrax poisonings of 2001

* Breaking II: Electric Boogaloo.

Since no court found anyone guilty for these offenses, they are not crimes. QED.

you Hard Lefties state out loud that specific people should be put into jail -- even before they have been convicted.

Who said that?

Are you being tortured? Has your family been threatened or killed? Have you been pulled out of bed and questioned at 2:00AM?

Ain't that America. Land of the Not-Tortured, Home of the Un-Threatened/Killed, Place of the Sleeping All Night Without Being Questioned. Lee Greenwood could set that to music, I bet.

Let's hear it for complacency - it's not like there's any example of a country where keeping one's mouth shut led to the loss of their civil and human rights, so we're cool.

Don't you get bored having to create new logins over and over and over again, Electro... just to post the same half-hearted one-line drivel over and over and over again?

Hell, I get tired just thinking about the narrowness of your life. Get me a pillow.

Juan Cole, PLEASE become a citizen of another country.

...become the constant refrain of the Right?

Dudes, dig: this country was formed inclusive of the Tories that didn't even want independence. They were not forced out or locked up. Why? Because this is a country, not a country club. Membership is not restricted to the like-minded only.

The idea that a geographic area should be occupied only by people who agree with you is as pernicious as it is tiresomely boring. If you only want to hear echoes, then stay at home and shout at the walls.

Freedom means freedom to disagree. I value living in a country with people that have wildly different opinions than mine: including the one that says I shouldn't live in the land of my birth.

That's awesome.

In many cases, brevity is the soul of wit - you seem to be bent on proving that it is possible to reach the heights of inanity with a remarkable parsimony of verbiage.

My hat is off, sir.

lbj 'freed the slaves', but he also initiated military policies that got nazis hung.

Methinks the 36th President has come "unstuck in time."

No matter what

Every large mammal will go extinct in my lifetime.

Since human beings are large mammals, this statement is self negating. I saw that episode, dude:

Captain Kirk: Harry lied to you, Norman. Everything Harry says is a lie. Remember that, Norman. *Everything* he says is a lie.

Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Norman. I'm... lying.

Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!