I guess a study was necessary, since only quantitative data gets any real respect. Still, its results seems like common sense to me. I've been astonished at how seriously the pundits have been discussing the Publican candidates' chances for 2008. Unbelievable!

Does anyone really think that the voters are (willingly) going to give the keys to the White House to another member of the GOP after Bush finishes treading all over the Constitution, our economy, our social contract, our overall status in the world, not to mention the damage done to our international relations?

Perhaps they might, if there were any serious GOP candidates who were also trying to rein Bush in, but they've all been feeding him have as much line as he wants. No restraints. Enablers, all of them. Excepting perhaps Chuck Hagel, who is not officially even in the race, but whose stance on social issues is just as conservative as Bush's. For the majority of Americans, he could only be a one-issue candidate. The War. However, we need a president who really can address more than one of our concerns at a time.

And we liberals and Democrats have a pretty good field of candidates to choose from this time. None of them would be a huge mistake; Bush has moved the bar so low. We could take our time making up our minds, except that the primary schedule has pushed everything ahead.

What is most ironic about this study's results, though, is that they clearly demonstrats-- with more nuance than the mid-term elections-- that American voters want and expect the Democratic party to start holding the executive branch accountable (and maybe the judiciary, too). Yet, the op-ed pages and talking head programs are filled with pundits urging the Democrats to be cautious about doing too much investigating of GOP corruption. "Move along, folks. Nothing to see here." This, of course, would be the same punditry that has consistently framed the Democratic party as being the "mommy" party, its candidates as weak and vacillating, too weak, in fact, to hit back at the "daddy" party. So how could they possibly defend the country from attack by terrorists, if they can't even defend themselves?

My secret hunch is that most pundits must not (have) read enough novels. Otherwise, they'd be better able to forsee events, e.g., the unfolding of the Iraq War and Occupation, and their personal scores for accuracy (more data) would be much higher. Could it really be as simple as Democrats and progressives and liberals read more literature than pundits do, and are therefore able to extrapolate future outcomes more accurately, because they have a greater understanding of the inexorable?

If so, then I say that that's where our most urgent literacy problem lies.

We cannot have too much of it. Really.

Of course, there are other very important stories that need uncovering, too, but there are also other people in other places who are doing so.

There are very few who devote enough time and resources, and more importantly-- gray cells-- to BigMedia. ( Obviously, Kurtz does not count.) Media Matters and Editor and Publisher come to mind, but they also seem to speak more to the professional, rather than the lay person.

Here, Glenn has an opportunity to expose the POLITICAL underpinnings of what passes for our Fourth Estate, while we are gearing up for another very important election. There is no more important story, given that the apologists inside the beltway believe they are still entitled to monopolize the public discourse, and frame it as they will.

No more!

The public at large does not yet understand why BigMedia is such a thorn in the side of our democracy. Of course, expecting the media to cover itself is pretty ridiculous, given its ugly and greedy narrative. So-- an independent thinker with the intellectual resources-- and a growing audience-- is needed.

In the past "some" readers have complained that Salon has gone too mainstream. Well, in a way that, may be a good thing, if it means that writers like Glenn (and Mark Benjamin, among others) can now receive more exposure in the wider world. For until the BigMedia scandal also resonates with the American public like the Walter Reed scandal did, we won't really have the kind of informed-- and motivated-- voting public needed for the electoral mandates that will make government more responsive.

So... write, Glenn, write!!!

...the rank aroma of the quintessential, "anonymous" SYA commenter who lives to participate in discussions of sensitive topics raised by letter writers to Cary, in the hopes of furthering their distress.

The LW must be a brave soul, indeed, or else unfamiliar with these shark-infested waters. Or perhaps she has a plan to read only Cary's response, or maybe just the editor's choice letters. Let us hope so. Of course, the LW may just be desperate enough to write anyway...

LW, if you do read more comments than is advisable, I promise you that there will be some that are worthwhile. Just try to skim past the others... the poor souls have not yet consulted with Cary regarding their own suffering, and know only how to pass it on. But, fortunately, there are some compassionate readers here, too.

How can reporters report on any improvements in Iraq or in Baghdad, when it is still too dangerous for them to move about, as well? Instead, they must rely on Iraqi reporters to act as stringers, and even for them it is becoming too dangerous...

Good grief! Where is Joseph Heller when we need him? He has missed all of this!