Glenn, I know what an "analogy" is, but thanks. When people make "analogies" between Israel and Nazi Germany, I think they usually do it to be purposely obnoxious and gratuitously insulting to Jews who are fond of Israel. It's amazing how often such "analogies" are made, particularly in the left blogosphere, as if there is just no source of apropos "analogies" for Israel other than Nazi Germany. As if, in all human history, there is just nothing else one could possibly think of in order to make an "analogy" involving Israel. It sucks, in my opinion.

Although you make an ostentatious point of telling me that the blogger in question is Jewish, that is of limited relevance to me. Could a gay person make a remark about homosexuals or homosexuality that you found offensive, and if so, would the person being gay make it OK?

if I could get all Americans to read one thing written by any person in 2007-2008, it would be this column.

People using speech Glenn doesn't like to criticize speech he likes.

Also, a question: Has it occurred to you, Glenn, that Obama might actually have meant what he said in his AIPAC speech? Your underlying assumption appears to be that he was lying, i.e., that he felt compelled to make his "pilgrimage" to AIPAC in order to protect his political viability by lying to the members of that organization. (Funny how Obama routinely appears at events and makes speeches to numerous groups, but if it's AIPAC, it's a "pilgrimage.") But what if he was actually saying what he believes? Are you so sure he was being dishonest? And if he was being honest, isn't he a poor example of the ruthless suppression of debate by the "establishment"?

Another question: Can you give any examples of nationally significant (or insignificant, for that matter) politicians whose careers "immediately ended" because they suggested that US policy toward Israel & the Palestinians should be even-handed? (Your other big example was Dr. Dean, but as he is the national committee chair of one of our two major parties, he seems to have weathered the storm...)

"I can pay for your one-way ticket out of my country. As long as you stay out.

Even if you're a USN hot shot, Hornetdriver.

Even if you're an immaculate, intelligent, articulate Zionist, Gator90."

--Holly McLachlan

Holly, thanks for the lovely adjectives, but FYI, it's my country too.

"It took a LOT of balls to write this column. Your career, even your life, could be threatened for questioning Israel. I salute your bravery."

--Dalivus

I find this type of hysterical hyperbole irksome. Glenn (hyperbolically) stated in his column that any American politician who deviates from the so-called orthodoxy regarding Israel would trigger the "immediate end" of his or her career. I asked if he could give any examples where this has actually occurred. Glenn did not respond. (Jim Montague, bless him, gave it a try and offered up George Ball, a career diplomat who apparently was not appointed to a cabinet position back in the 70s.)

Then you come along and oh-so-dramatically salute Glenn's remarkable "bravery" in "questioning Israel" at the risk of his career and "even his life." Well, I guess you're right. Glenn has been criticizing Israel, U.S. policy toward Israel, and (some of) Israel's American supporters for years. And except for his success as a best-selling author, his status as one of the most respected voices on the Internet, and his frequent radio and television appearances, the Zionists have utterly destroyed him.

"I just read Stein's article about the J-Street poll and it still saddens me that a full third of Jewish voters drink the neocon kool-aid."

--Irina99

That means two thirds don't. Of course, if you aren't Jewish anymore, you can't count as part of the more enlightened two thirds. Why abandon the field to the worst among us?

(I can't stop identifying as Jewish, and if it ends being just me and the neocons, I'm going to be very depressed. Irina, don't go!!)

Glenn: "But I'm far from convinced that during the Clinton administration, we had some aggressive, adversarial press on meaningful policy issues (as opposed to tawdry scandals, where the press was beyond "adversarial")..."

The one consistent flaw in GG's generally excellent media criticism is his under-valuation of the purely partisan dynamic that drives our discontent. Since the early 90s, Big Media doesn't serve the Government; it serves the Republican Party and follows the scripts provided.

The reason there was little adversarial press on meaningful policy issues during the Clinton years was that the REPUBLICANS generally were not adversarial about meaningful policy issues in those years. Early in the Clinton Administration, the Republicans pretty much abandoned substantive policy argument in favor of character assassination and feverish scandal-mongering, and the press followed suit. I.e., the press simply did what the Republicans wanted. (Given the popularity of Clinton's mostly centrist policies, the last thing the Republicans wanted was a lot of policy-based argument.)

There was a major policy debate about health care in Clinton's first term. The Republicans and their allies fiercely opposed Clinton's plan and made many misleading and false claims about it. And those misleading and false claims were (surprise!) disseminated annd repeated uncritically by the press. The Democratic president's (much more truthful) claims? Not so much.

If Obama wins, adversarial journalism will return with stunning speed and vigor. Just watch.

my wife asked, What's that awful grinding noise? I said Don't be afraid honey, it's just Glenzilla gnashing his teeth.