we should call it "The Democratic Business as Usual Convention."

that's all been heard before.

...it is severely dehydrated.

If anyone's looking for me, I'll be out in the garden with Happy2Bhere and GoodCelery! Many more articles like this, Glenn, and I'll have the most weed free garden ever.

for our press corpse. Just go to The Daily Howler and type [even!] “New York Times” and “corrections” into the search. They like to write novels. Their novels have changed world history. David Halberstam called the Bush 43 administration “The History Boys”, but the same term is accurate for the Press Corpse.

We call your attention to this for a reason: One way to judge the press corps’ preference is by seeing whose mistakes (and readjustments) they ignore. [TDH, 5/19/08]

This morning, the Times pretends to correct this strange “error.” …It’s the law: Corrections must always hide the extent of the “error.” [TDH, 10/29/03]

Eight years too late: If this nonsense hadn’t changed world history, you could just throw your head back and roar! [TDH, 7/30/07]

At this point, if you simply assume good faith from these people, that makes you what we call a Born Loser. But let’s assume that it was a mistake when the Times misreported that comment about the Obamas. Funny! They just keep hearing things wrong at the Times—things which reinforce their negative narratives. [TDH5/12/07]

I am [as usual] cynical that Brennan’s stated reason is truthful.

Timely dissent is a necessary part of Democracy, even when the corresponding element, [that the “Government” actually hears The People’s dissent], is not in evidence. If both have occurred simultaneously now, that is cause for celebration.

One person who actually was a “strong opponent” of these policies in real time and from the inside, and who paid a price for his dissent, was Alberto Mora, former Navy general counsel.

Thomas Jefferson, said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”.

Mora is a patriot.

Nepotism, as defined by Merriam-Webster is “favoritism [as in appointment to a job] based on kinship.” It seems to mean favoritism BY the kin…but I may be wrong.

Nepotism seems certainly to be at work in some examples given [Stevens in Alaska and Lipinsky in Illinois, for example]; but where heirs are elected to office, even if it’s because the electorate is lazy or un [mis]-informed, they may be benefiting from having the Legacy of a certain name, but not necessarily from favoritism by a relative.

From another perspective, having a “brand” as a name can be detrimental to one's aspirations…whether one is conspicuously qualified or not. One of the first arguments I noticed against Hillary Clinton being president [seen again on this comment thread] was the supposed problem about having Bushes and Clintons in the WH for a possible 28 years, even though they would all [well, mostly all] have been duly elected by The [probably un-, possibly mis-informed] People. In this case it was her [husband’s] name that was deemed to DIS-qualify her from even being eligible for the position. As far as I know, one’s name is not a dis-qualification for the office.

I do not share GG’s “encouragement” about the supposed “pure self-sufficiency and lack of family connection behind” Obama’s success. He was practically adopted, and anointed heir, [or was at least seen by The People to be so] by one of the best known names in American politics: Kennedy.

Many people voted FOR nepotism-or rather "the return of Camelot".

who uses a psuedonym to call someone who doesn't a coward is clearly projecting.

reading this thread, even the approximately 85% I seem to not have the capacity to make heads nor tails of. :-)

What I still don’t understand about the “families in politics” [because I think “nepotism” is not the correct word] argument is why a woman like Hillary Clinton should be automatically denied the opportunity to be President JUST because she had the gall to fall in love with and marry a guy who [15 or so years later] was elected president. It’s not like he’s appointing her to the position.

What happened to “judge a person by the content of their character”? Now we are to judge them by thier names and the actions of their fathers/mothers [and, if she's a woman and has takern her husband's name, her husband's fathers/mothers?]

After reading all the arguments, I admit that I still don’t get it.

I’d like to thank sysprog for the articles. I would love to see Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

and Former Navy Counsel Alberto Mora

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?060227fa_fact

in some high positions in the Obama Administration where their courage and ethics can be put to use for the good of our country...no matter who or what their forebears to the seventh generation were, said or did.

I would love to see Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

and Former Navy Counsel Alberto Mora

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?060227fa_fact

in some high positions in the Obama Administration where their courage and ethics can be put to use for the good of our country.

bamboozled?

"[...] The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. "They allege that Blagojevich put a 'for sale' sign on the naming of a United States senator, [...]"

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/source-feds-take-gov-blagojevich-into-custody.html

Release from US Attorney's Office:

http://thepage.time.com/release-from-us-attorneys-office-on-blagojevich-arrest/