Joan, I appreciate your usual pragmatic analysis and reasoned tone in assessing our president, his critics, the sorry state of our economy, and the scary state of our political discourse.

I'm inclined to grant you that perhaps Arianna Huffington went too far in her analogy, but then again perhaps not. Time will tell whether our young leader will grow into his large shoes.

Meanwhile, aside from his many specific missteps, I think his administration in general suffers from what is proving to be a continuing problem: Obama and his team have staked a centrist claim that is unikely to please anyone.

Given the hysteria which erupts on the right every time the president says or does anything, it's apparent that what used to be the politics of personal destruction has morphed into the politics of perpetual distraction.

That it's also personal and destructive is a bonus, I suppose.

From Glenn Beck's mindless blather, to the birthers, to the town hall brawls, to the Dick Cheney "dithering," to the billboard equating Obama with Jihad, and beyond, our political discourse has reached subterranean levels.

Political correctness is one thing, but when did blatant racism become acceptable? Why is it okay for Christians to invoke psalms advocating assassination?

Obama needs to forget bipartisanship. He needs to speak for the plurality which elected him and to stop catering to the shrill minority which will never acknowledge his accomplishments nor accept his legitimacy.

If he's looking for a fair and friendly place to turn, he should look no farther than his left. That's where his base lies, his political future lies, and the well being of our nation lies.

Conservatives have spent 40 years proving how bad their ideas are. Can't we try something new?

Maybe he interviewed "Patio Man," the insipid metaphorical figure he invokes to discuss economics in "Everyman" terms.

It's a cinch Patio Man is an expert on foreign policy too.

And journalism.

This is exactly what the G.O.P. needs: Another wrinkly old gray-haired white dude.

If the Obama administration had frozen out The Daily Show from today's "czar" interview, I could understand why other press organizations might want to boycott the event.

If the White House had trampled on The Colbert Report, the reaction might make sense.

But why legitimate news organizations would come to the defense of Fox is unfathomable.

-----------------------------------------------------------

As for Tucker Carlson, Glenn has it exactly right in describing Carlson's view of the "right's perpetual self-victimhood."

About a year ago, I attended a university debate between Carlson and the Huffington Post's Arianna Huffington, who cleaned up the floor with her opponent.

Talk about coming to a battle of wits unarmed!

Carlson was pathetic in his self-righteous anger, his weak analysis, his faulty memory and his general sophistry. Even the normally tolerant Huffington called him out for his intellectual dishonesty.

Discussing the increasing gulf in the U.S. between the haves and the have-nots, Carlson asserted that the poor and middle class should be grateful to the rich for the economic opportunity and prosperity they provide.

He said without the rich, there'd be no middle class.

Yeah, that's how it is in Tucker's world: The many toil for the benefit of the few, and they should be damned grateful for the chance.

Speaking of military service, maybe you know where George W. Bush was when he was supposed to be serving in the Texas Air National Guard?

Where was he hiding?

Contrast him to his two opponents, Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom served in Vietnam with distinction.

Isn't it just typical Republican hypocrisy to project your candidates' flaws onto the opposition.

Bush, Cheney, and their ilk are only good at two things: hiding and sending other people's children into harm's way.

Joan - 1, Tancredo -10

Reading about Rush's latest diatribe, I'm reminded of Groucho Marx singing, "Whatever it is, I'm against it."

And therein lies the problem with Limbaugh's rants: There's a certain sameness to all of them which renders all of them meaningless.

Only a dittohead would thrive in that rhetorical environment.

Once again, Joan, you cleaned up the floor with a Republican blowhard.

I caught your "discussion" Thursday with Tom Tancredo, and frankly he's such an intellectual lightweight, he doesn't deserve to appear in public with you.

I kept waiting to hear him add, "na na na boo boo" to his repeated assertion that just because you say something "doesn't make it so."

Do these people ever take a good look in the mirror?

Other examples of press disdain abound among Republican presidents who followed Nixon:

Almost immediately upon taking office, Ronald Reagan declared war on the Freedom of Information Act, forcing reporters to undertake long and costly legal battles to obtain public documents. And let's not forget his role in eliminating the Fairness Doctrine, without which Fox "News" spreads its lies, smears, obfuscation, and innuendo.

During George H. W. Bush's tenure, his administration set a new standard for media suppression of battlefield coverage, severely restricting journalists' access and autonomy.

The paranoia-driven Bush/Cheney White House furthered the war-time press hysteria, refusing to allow photos of America's war casualties, questioning the patriotism of editorial critics, and refusing to provide or apparently compile civilian-casualty statistics, especially in Iraq.

And who can forget W's love affair with conservative pundits, who dutifully lined up at the White House for their G.O.P. talking points? Or his fake journalist? Or his bought-and-paid-for columnist?

So when it comes to the real party of "Nixonian" tactics, nothing much has changed except that the party of bad ideas has morphed into the party of no ideas, to wit: Even when villifying Obama, a Democrat, they can't come up with a better example than a Republican.

Talk about irony...