Don't take this wrong. I read about 35-40 blogs a day and yours is the very first one I read. I wouldn't miss it. But I couldn't let the two "whomevers" towards the end of today's column go without comment.

"Their goal, instead, is to demonize and weaken whomever the nominee is going to be. There's a preexisting media narrative that will be fulfilled no matter who the nominee is; it's the same one that is applied in every national election.

Praising whomever appears to be the loser at the expense of the winner -- while issuing "advice" designed to exacerbate tensions and wedges -- is one prong in that strategy."

Both of these "whomevers" are actually the subjects of a sentence, not the objects of a verb. The whole sentence within the main sentence is the object. So both references should be "whoever."

I apologize. I learned to parse sentences in the 4th grade and keep doing it even 55 years later.

When asked about the possibility of prosecuting Bush administration officials for criminal activity, Obama yesterday said: "I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

If the criteria is not looking backward, then why prosecute the people held in Gitmo at all? Why prosecute anyone? Why try to go after Bin Ladin?

http://husseini.org/2009/01/prosecuting-bush-the-fallacies.html

Is anybody else having problems with being able to hear the interview? I have tried using 4 different browsers and I can't get the thing to work.

It's no surprise that Matthews and others are essentially calling for the murder or execution of the detainees. What Israel has done for years, targeted assassinations, has become (or maybe always was) American policy also. The detainees have it good, in fact. The victims of the drones or of the assassination teams directed by our new Afghanistan commander are summarily executed along with family, friends and neighbors simply because they are deemed to be our enemies. From Yemen to Iraq to Iraq to Pakistan -- and who knows where else? -- we "take out the bad guys," with no need for evidence, judge or jury. They are be bad guys because, obviously, we are the good guys.

PS: The sentence in the essay "there is no credible to support the accusations against many of them" is missing the word "evidence."