"What's wrong with satire and sarcasm and irony?"

In essence, nothing!

I guess it's a personal dislike because so many times it is overdone and abused and the point being made gets lost. I think you will recall the discussions that Kovie precipitated in this comment section. IMHO he won the argument that this type of writing on a blog gets confusing. The intention is not clear.

Elitists seem to love them. Makes them appear edgy and knowledgeable and intelligent.

If you recall the New Yorker cover of the Obamas in outrageous garb, Blitt and his defenders said the cover was so crazy nobody would ever take it seriously.

In the diner in my home town three copies of the New Yorker were spread around to the patrons who were screaming that the picture proved Obama was truly a "terrorist."

I have no hope that the outlandish crimes committed over the 8 years will be addressed. The congress, especially Hoyer, Pelosi, Harman and Reid are complicit in every assault on individual liberty and human rights committed by the Bush administration.

Obama is trending toward the center and conciliation as democrats always do when confronting a difficult and trying situation.

The elitists of Washington and Wall Street will stick together and the country will fall further and further into an abyss.

I have real sympathy for the sick and the poor and the jobless. It is repulsive when you compare their plight to the elite rich, the perpetrators of massive crimes, being bailed out by the congress.

How sad!

C'est la vie!

As Shakespeare said, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." And I think if he wrote that line today he would add the politicians and the Wall Street crooks.

"Dawn Johnsen's appointment is clearly more significant than Jane Harman's snubbing. Still, for pure petty enjoyment value, the latter event wins easily."

Unbelievably, I am enjoying the significant annoyance of Feinstein even more. I didn't know "pure, petty enjoyment" could be so nice.

Today's appointments portend very good omens for the future.

Thanks, Obama!

I am watching the Rachel Maddow show and am thinking that you must get some kind of vicarious enjoyment when you watch it.

Tonight she was discussing Feinstein's role in providing no oversight relative to Bush policies and that she supported all of his nominations, etc.

After Rachel did that she notified the viewing audience that she had invited Feinstein to appear on the show tonight but the invitation was declined. Possibly because the Senator didn't want to deal with those questions.

She is making a huge issue over the fact that the Blair House was not even booked (per Margaret Carlson) when the White House declined Obama's request. Since then they booked John Howard, formerly of Australia.

I just love it. She is really a gutsy, smart person.

"In an interview with The Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would not roll over for the new president the way Republicans did for Bush."

I think, if he were an honest type fellow, he should have said that he would not roll over for the new president as he did for Bush. I thought many times over the last eight years that Reid was, in his heart-of-hearts, a Bushie.

I have little regard for the outgoing Bush yet I evaluate the congressional democrats much lower. Hard to even conceive of the depth of disregard I feel for them.

I've never been able to figure out what Reid has been attempting to accomplish with his obvious (at least to me) Machiavellian tactics.

I am a "bleeding-heart" liberal who tracks GG's convictions almost 100%. Since Reid became the leader in the senate I have never felt that he was plugging for my causes. Ironically, I have always felt that he gave great deference to office of the president.

Often, I've said that I have never been more depressed than when I evaluate the performance of the congressional democrats especially since the 2006 elections. I feel congress supported Bush after 2006 the same as before 2006. I blame Reid.

Even though the republicans are innately evil they have the courage to fight for what they believe in. I can't say the same for Reid and his cronies.

"Oh, come now, there is plenty of blame to go around!"

You are so right1 Sorry for the hyperbole.

"and this is the crux of my theme lately, that there is not much point in writing articles and having a forum like this if it is only to preach to the converted."

For me, a "converted one," there are not many places to go. Also, the topics that Glenn puts forth consistently, day in and day out, are to-the-point, salient, current, and what I like the most, they are confrontational. The themes they address are on issues that just are not discussed in the MSM and should be. They make people like Ruth Marcus and David Broder, and Goldfarb and Klein and so many others respond. Just a short time ago it seemed to me that Glenn was "spitting into the wind," because he would take on a noted journalist and be ignored. That doesn't happen very much anymore.

Also, I get the feeling that many journalists are becoming aware that they are going to be taken to task by him and his influence is growing. After he writes his article, I anticipate the updates which includes his evaluation of the response.

All in all, it is a very worthwhile blog to read.

There are also some very sage commentators here. I loved yesterday's wording change from capability to culpability, in a quote by one of our "esteemed" senators, and which was appropriately noted in Glenn's updates.

Glenn Greenwald, Rachel Maddow and Frank Rich help me, I think, to retain any sanity I might possess.

"There are objective metrics which measure how widely cited and discussed someone's writings are."

Could you provide a link to the aforementioned metrics?

Thanks!