Actually, I think they’re upset about far more important issues, Joan, all of which you failed to mention. For example, the fact that Obama plans to reverse the "conscience clause" -- a 30 year old law that provides protection for doctors who have moral and/or religious beliefs that abortion is wrong. This means that if Obama has his way, pro-life doctors will be forced by law to perform abortion on demand. And there’s no reason for this. Abortions can always be obtained from doctors who are pro-choice. Then there’s the fact that Obama has always supported gruesome partial-birth abortions, even if the mother’s life is NOT in danger. And finally, in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted four times against “Born Alive” legislation requiring medical care for a baby surviving abortion. In other words, Obama believes a baby who, against all odds, survives an abortion – a baby who is indeed born -- should be left to die. I believe these three issues are far more compelling than the ones you seem to have cherry-picked to make your case for the current backlash.

Personally, I’m pro-life, but would not to presume to impose my views on those who are pro-choice. Because I believe an abortion is a decision best left to the individual who’s making it. So I don’t seek to overturn Rowe versus Wade or any of that nonsense. At the same time, I share the concerns of many Catholics and non-Catholics alike on the three examples listed above, in which I think Obama is overstepping some pretty clear moral boundaries.

All that said, I DO believe Obama should be allowed to speak at Notre Dame -- because no one in America should be banned from speaking due of their political point of view. Opposing points of view need to be heard if we are all to be clear thinkers, who consider every angle before making up our own minds the complex issues of our time. This is why I’m sure you agree with me that the students at Columbia University shouldn’t have stormed the stage after the school had invited Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist to speak -- and before he even had a chance to deliver his message. I’m also sure you’ll agree that after trying to make things right by inviting Gilchrist back a second time, Columbia shouldn’t have reneged on that invitation in the end. What’s more, I’m sure you’ll agree that leftist students who assault speakers they disagree with politically by smacking pies in their face -- as has happened to Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, William Kristol and David Horowitz – is just as wrong as banning that individual from his right to free speech in the first place.

Congratulations, Joan, that quote is the first truly honest and insightful observation you've made on this blog in a long, long time.

Also, don't get too worked up about Krugman. He's been wrong before, despite his Nobel Prize. Besides, for every economist who disagrees with Obama's policy, you can find one that doesn't. And I'm not knowledgeable enough in economics to even HAVE an opinion on which one of them is right. All I DO know is we're spending money at a rate the CBO says is "unsustainable" over the next ten years. Translation: we may be headed for bankrupcy if we don't put on the brakes. Meaning this may NOT be the time for education and energy after all, as important as they are.

One other thing -- I sense you're already trying to separate Geithner from Obama in as far as who should be held responsible if this plan to buy up the banks' legacy assets fails. (i.e. "I can't help thinking that Tim Geithner is too close to the industry that took over -- and took down -- the economy to tame it.") Please remember, Joan, that Geithner is, at the end of the day, Obama's hand-picked man for the job. In fact, Obama helped ram him through the confirmation process despite Geithner's personal tax woes with the IRS. Obama has now blessed Geithner's plan. It's a done deal. And as Obama himself has often said, "The buck stops here." Let's hope it works.

You're right, Joan. Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest phonies in the Democratic Party. In fact, I do believe the rumor that he and Chris Dodd went to the John Edwards School of Hypocrisy and graduated with honors.

So by that logic, calling someone a socialist is a slur? Is that what you're saying, Joan?

Earlier, you replied to my post about Senator Chris Dodd adding an amendment to the Stimulous Bill that made the AIG bonuses possible. Your reply brushed my comments off as "a good conspiracy theory on right wing blogs."

Well, I don't read the "right wing blogs," Joan, unless you consider Real Clear Politics -- where both sides are presented editorially -- a right wing blog. But I DID see what's been all over the news the last couple of days. Here's a sample:

"In a dramatic reversal Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd confessed to adding language to a spending cap in the stimulus bill last month that specifically excluded executive bonuses included in contracts signed before the bill's passage."

BTW, did you know that Dodd also happens to have received the most money in "contributions" from AIG -- raking in a cool $103,100. Wow! What a coincidence!

Yeah, he's a real sweetheart, Joan. The victim of a right wing conspiracy for sure.