"Booz Allen is one of the nation's biggest defense and intelligence contractors..."

To my understanding, Booz Allen Hamilton is actually not a defense contractor, but a management consulting company. They may cater to defense and technology clients, but as far as I know they do not manufacture weapons systems as the term "defense contractor" commonly implies. Glenn's original post is vague on this, particularly in the quote that brings up McConnell's connection with the company, and the above claim by Northwestwoods is wrong, I believe. This fact could be important to correct so as not be speciously "gotcha"-ed by Bush/McConnell fans.

I was somewhat disappointed with Obama's handling of Russert's sickening attack. Especially because he referred to his Constitutional expertise earlier the same day (in accepting Dodd's endorsement), I thought he should have defended Farrakhan's ultimate right to vote for whomever he wants, for whatever reason he wants. This I think is the real distinction that Hillary sensed between "denounce" and "reject," although she came down on the wrong side. Denouncing what is unacceptable in Farrakhan's thinking without wishing he could not vote as he chooses should have been enough. Hillary already demeaned herself by trying to exploit Russert's unacceptable grandstanding, so Obama should have taken the yet higher ground by pointing this out.

Surely among the millions of people Obama expects to vote for him in November and among the thousands he's shaken hands with during the campaign, there will be and have been some who harbor anti-Semitic and other intolerable ways of thinking. It's too bad they have these thoughts, but it is also sometimes forgotten that these thoughts are not crimes, and if a candidate rejects the support of everyone who doesn't think correctly all the way down the line (ironically, just the fictitious behavior Obama chided Ralph Nader for), the candidate will not succeed in a democracy, nor would we have a democracy. This should go especially for Obama, who time and again suggests he wants to cross party lines to achieve his goals.

Glenn,

Look at how this piece is summarized on the Times's front page.

Politics, and Scandal, as Usual

By N. R. KLEINFIELD 11:38 AM ET

Why do politicians at all levels keep starring in this familiar and

non-partisan soap opera rerun?

The article contextualizes Spitzer with allusions to Shakespeare and

evolutionary biology. It mentions scandals from both parties, but that

hardly means any one of them was "non-partisan" if looked at in actual

historical, political context. Very blatant white-washing here.

The point Glenn makes is so important. Obama seems rational about so many things, but earlier in his campaign he often spoke about how Great we are, and how we need to be so much Greater. Do you think he can learn that the U.S. has no special ability to rule the world?

Also,

"I underestimated the self-centeredness and sectarianism of the ruling elite and the social impact of 30 years of extreme dictatorship" -- Kanan Makiya

Is this comment about Iraq or the U.S.?

Granting Glenn's point about not scapegoating Yoo, I still want to press on the issue of whether Berkeley should dismiss him. To me, this question actually misses the point that the university hired him after his tenure in the executive branch and his service to the War on Terror. I think questions should be raised about what the justification was for this decision.

But how likely can it possibly be he will be fired, when the basic outlines of what he wrote were already long known? The university was acting as an establishment refuge for a discreditable "thinker," and the disclosure of more details about his thinking wouldn't seem to give Berkeley any reason to withdraw its support.

I mean, more than Nazi comparisons, it reminds me of Chief Justice Roberts's defense, during his confirmation hearings, of his conservative attacks on the judicial branch while working for the Reagan administration. He said he wouldn't be such an "activist" on the bench; he was just working for the administration. As if he somehow at that point in his career just found himself working for the administration, which just happened to be under a conservative Republican. Like Roberts, Yoo got to where he was by not only having certain views--which he wasn't born with, but developed--but also by making certain decisions, about his career but also about the law, which are open to criticism (and in this case, possibly prosecution).

so Yoo was already on the faculty, but on leave, when he wrote the torture memos. Funny, he's such a babyface, I would have believed he was fresh out of law school.

but if he's been consistent with such beyond-the-pale interpretations throughout his career--if never on such a concretely grave subject--one still has to wonder why the university would be interested in him in 1993. Maybe being "controversial" helps, no matter where on the ideological spectrum one chooses to take controversial stances. 1993--height of the culture wars, concerns about ideological "balance" at an ostensibly "liberal" university --has anything changed?

What was Brown's agenda for doing this interview? Because he does himself no favors, only reminding listeners why he was so hard to stomach on TV. He sounds petulant, tired, and unwilling to respond to serious questions without condescension (including the faux-folksy mannerisms that Colbert has named as a feature of the persona he wanted to create). Ironically, he ends with a rant about "people" wanting to hear only what they already agree with. Is he so blind to his own constituency--establishment journalists? He may be thoughtful, but one would have expected his sacking by CNN would have clued him in that he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

Let's hope Obama's team reads this post and turns it into a talking point for ending this foolish and dangerous line of attack.