I had mixed feelings about Obama's guns n' religeon comment. On the one hand, I think a lot of us elitist poor people of color feel the same way about America's backwater burgs. On the other hand, why would Obama say something like this publically when he is campaigning in the very state? Headscratcher.

But more than that, I am always shocked that a black man can be so easily depicted as bigoted for generalizing about white people. You'd really think that it was black people enslaving white people, keeping them from voting, killing with impunity, etc., all these centuries. There was a great article in the NYT a couple of weeks back about how Pennsylvanian Democrats are struggling to find a justification for their visceral dislike of Obama. And, of course, the media so quickly forgets all of its polling and punditry that addressed the question of whether Obama could win over white voters. It seems that everyone knows the reality--many, many white people are racist--but you can't talk about lest you offend that long suffering group.

I actually thought Mcardle wasn't rolling her eyes, but actually scanning her mind for well-met retorts (and coming up empty: courts WANT the press there? Gimme a break.. Obviously, there is no shortage of examples that the government gives the press special priveledges (that are derived, at least in spirit, from the first ammendment)not so the press can make a dime, but so they can pursue their agreed upon role as the public's interlocutors.

She definitely looked like she was in the weeds to me. All Mcardle could do was go nani nani boo boo, no it isn't, is not, etc.

Yeah. Memo to self: don't get into an argument about the constitution with Glenn Greenwald. It will hurt.

Not that this will get anywhere, but I do believe that AG's are impeachable. If I understand this correctly, lying in public in the function of the role as AG is considered a "high crime and misdemeanor". If he lied again in front of congress, that's a felony. Of course, it would have to be the president doing the impeaching, and God did we already go through this once or what?

I actually read this article last night and I was gratified to see that Glenn would cover it. At the time, I was simply blown away that the TIMES have changed so drastically. It really is good news, though I agree that there is nothing new about this info, and that many of us have subscribed to this view all along. FAIR has documented the Military-Media-Industrial complex at length for most of our most recent invasions.

I also realize that many of the less politically aware people in this country, view such opinions as conspiracy-theory and America-hating paranoia. For the NYT to cover this story, and in such a detailed and in-depth, and high profile manner--well, I don't think the impact can be diminished in any way by the fact that a few thousand squirrely malcontents knew it all along. Of course, the NYT's is guilty and of course, the media should have been rejecting such commentators all along. But they didn't.

I assume that the O'Riley's and Hannity's will be out en force Monday making hay about the America-hating NYT smears--this is, after all, the same institution that, in the right wing bizarro universe, gave MOVE ON dot org a discount so it could run slander about our troops--but nevertheless, its an important sign that the witch is dead, and that the media is turning on its masters.

I would disagree with Glenn. Kristol has sacrificed much--his self-respect, his integrity, his humanity, etc., although these sacrifices probably occured long before our president called on his talents in the aid of this most glorious war. Also Kristol's notion of Judaic sacrifice has a contemporary analogue: Israel sacrifices its security, its standing in the world community, and the its social cohesion all to dominate a practically defenseless country that has absolutely no real objective value to it. So in a sense Kristol's piece has a ring of truth to it.

Lastly, my favorite part was this:

"So if Clinton’s Passover message is liberal, and Obama’s is multicultural, one might call McCain’s Zionist. There’s a clear choice of worldviews here — and not just for Jews, but for all Americans."

Whoa!! That is the most radical thing I have ever read in the NYT. If I'm reading this correctly, we are to infer that the best worldview for a multicultural, mostly GOY society that includes Muslims and Christians, is ZIONISM???!!! Does he actually know the definition of this word? What a maroon.

Its not just the Israeli right wing that are rejectionists on settlments. I've said it before, here, and its important that people realize: Labor and Likud have nearly the same policies when it comes to the territories.

Interestingly, Israel is responsible for the creation of the Islamic Brotherhood, which it hoped would be a counterweight to secular movements in and out of the territories. As Rashid Khalidi observes in his new book, "The Iron Cage"

"This reached the point where Israeli military occupation encouraged Brotherhood thugs to intimidate PLO supporters."

The brotherhood became radicalized through the same set of networks that radicalized the Mujahadeen, and in the eighties, Hamas splintered off, as a deformed mirror of Israel's attempts to suppress justified secular opposition to its occupation.

"As Glenn and others have well documented, the vast majority of Jews in America and Israel don't see describing factual historical realities and present real world circumstances as Jew-hating."

I'd love to live in the Universe that you "Glenn and others" do. I've yet met few Jews in America who recognize the "factual historical realities" to begin with, much less a vast majority.

Have you ever wondered just how a two state solution would work? Seriously, have you ever heard of an Israeli sponsored two state solution--hawk, dove, otherwise--that didn't involve Israel controlling Palestine?