If Glenn and his right wing counterparts manage to get over themselves (not likely I will concede) they might notice there are still 2 wars currently being lost on and 3rd in planning.

Tactics like the one here from right-wing blogs today, far more than any specific policy arguments, is what is responsible for the political power of the movement responsible for those wars. Sean Hannity apparently spent the first 15 or 20 minutes of his television show hyping these blog comments tonight. Why do you think that is?

Allowing these tactics to go answered becuase you think you're too elevated and important to respond to them may make you feel elevated and superior, but it also is what enables the tactics to succeed. Ask John Kerry. The reason they engage in these efforts is because they want Americans to think: "Oh, the Left is still the same screaming, radical, American-haters that they always were. I may not like George Bush or his war, but I will never make common cause with people who cheer on assassination attempts agains the American Vice President." People like you who turn their nose up and think you're above it all do more to help them succed in those efforts than anything else can.

Our politcal debates are shaped far more on these personality and cultural levels than they are based on think-tank-like policy discussions. You may wish it were different but that doesn't make it so.

Do you honestly think Ms. Coulter, whatever her shortcomings, sincerely wanted the above to happen?

Yes.

That's two quick examples. This childish ploy is Greenwald's stock in trade, it is what he does on his blog.

I'm more than content to have anyone compare the posts of mine you cited to determine the presence of hypocrisy when contrasted with the standard as I repeatedly advocated in this post:

*the ideas and comments expressed by anonymous commenters at blogs prove nothing other than what those individuals think -- particularly in the absence of an attempt to show that the commenters are representative of the blog itself.

* But stray, anonymous comments prove nothing. And those who rely on them to make an argument -- especially without bothering to make any effort to prove that they are reflective of anything -- should be presumed to have no argument at all.

* Though (I believe) even Davis subsequently acknowledged that relying upon randomly chosen blog quotes to make a point of that sort was misguided and wrong -- particularly where no attempt is made to demonstrate that the comments are representative of anything -- the tactic continues to be wielded by the most bottom-scraping demagogues (and journalists) who have no substantive point to make.

* As indicated, comments can offer limited meaning and insight if an attempt is made to demonstrate that they are in some way connected to, or representative of, the content or principal viewpoints of the blog (e.g., a sentiment that is consistent with the blogger's views and expressed on a daily basis by a large portion of commenters in a moderated comments section). But what happened here -- trolling for the most shocking comments without any attempt to show they were representative of anything other than those commenters -- is a worthless exercise which, as Kevin's Law holds, enables one to do nothing other than "make exactly the opposite point" of the one sought to be proven.

lthough I agree that drawing out of Iraq is critical and paramount in the area of foreign policy, I think that restoring some semblance of the Rule of Law and Government accountability takes precedence over even that.

I agreed with your point until quite recently. In fact, I agreed so much that "restoring some semblance of the Rule of Law and Government accountability takes precedence over even that" that I even wrote a book which argues basically that.

But now I think that a military confrontation with Iran is more or less inevitable if we remain in that region. I tend be much more optomistic about the U.S. and its prospects than most of my readers (at least the ones I read via e-mail or comments), but I really doubt that the U.S. could recover damage from such an event (foreseeable and unforeseeable).

Ultimately, it is hard to talk about "most urgent political priority," since all of these priorities are linked (stopping esclation beyond Iraq, for instance, requires a restoration of the rule of law and some limits on presidential power).

It's also worth noting here that for all the talk about the need to force the President to comply with the limits of the law and Congressional oversight, the Democrats in Congress haven't been able/willing to do much yet in that area. Debates over limitations on presidential power are more academic than anything else in the face of an anemic and divided Congress that is too split and afraid to act.