More glib fibs boldfaced in that paragraph:

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. [This is not proof that they disapproved; moreover it assumes that religion was actually in the public square. The logical fallacy is called begging the question.] We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust. We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. [Such things were not seen in the 1770s.] Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. [I just scanned the Constitution for the word "God" and came up blank. And the Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God," not "Jebus' God."]

All you need to do is whistle while you chop the onions, being sure to blow at them. No chilling, no goggles, no water, no nothing! Don't like chopped onions? Blow on it.

You make change against moneyed interests by ignoring them, just as the current president has made change by ignoring his enemies. The strategy for President Edwards is to work with his friends and push against the enemy until he can't push any further. None of this requires negotiation, just determination and clarity.

None of it requires anger, either, but I expect that "A" word to come up anyway. I don't care, personally. I prefer anger--or its polite name, determination--to the wimpy, passive "hope."

Boy, Scherer's readers don't get irony or satire one bit. It's too bad, because his one page of well-tuned explanation says more than all the missing-the-point responses. Thanks for pointing us there. Digby should have just shut up.

I'm sorry, but this swooning over a guy's skin color just leaves me cold. This intoxication with the passive concept of "hope" is a snare and a delusion. The election is not a subject for exercises in creative writing, but for information, analysis and perspective.

There will be euphoria enough for everyone when Bush leaves office and the Democrats gain in Congress. Save the panegyrics for next year.

Thanks for a much more enlightening interview than I expected. Of course Goldberg is being tendentious, but he (and Koppelman) are to be commended for taking Mussolini seriously. It's a dim liberalism that can't engage with a conservative critique, and fascism deserves a fresh look. When you think of the other leading conservatives who just make shit up, Goldberg seems to be worth the wrangle.

"Edwards requested only one thing when he telephoned Obama and Hillary Clinton Tuesday night to confide that he was considering withdrawing before the Feb. 5 primaries. What Edwards asked for and received was a commitment from his erstwhile rivals that they make the eradication of poverty a central theme in their campaigns."

I think this was very smart of him: he challenged both Obama and Clinton without endorsing either. Now they will compete for his voters, and possibly even his endorsement. No longer trying to beat them, he's now asking them to join him. As an Edwards voter, I can say he's trying to make them join US.

Her comment that "it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, it'll take another to clean up after the second" was utterly fatuous, the kind of empty noise expected at a backyard barbecue or a Cancun bar at spring break. Was this really her big line of the night? Did she and her advisors come up with it and rehearse it?

First, I lived through the 1990s and Bush I didn't leave that much of a mess to be cleaned up, at least not like his son did. And Bill Clinton never got a chance to push a Democratic agenda--all he could do was game the Republicans to get the deficit down, which was a fine thing to make of a bad situation but not a ringing Democratic principle. So it didn't take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush.

Second, Bush II has left the government a shambles. What has Hillary Clinton vowed to do in response? What is her ten-point plan to unbreak the Constitution? I don't feel that she's shown specifically why it will take a second Clinton to clean up after the second Bush. All she had yesterday was a false parallelism, an empty bit of wordplay, that to me just reminds me how tired I am of dynasty rule.

I'm a white man; I can think my own thoughts about Obama without wading through this self-indulgent muddle. And I'll even spare Salon readers what they are. I want to know what kind of president he might be. Who's his Rove? Who's his Cheney? Who's his Alito? How would he staff the Forest Service? Will he stop touting Illinois coal? Did he ever take a science course?

Come ON, Salon.

You've repeated this trope about Mrs. Obama, and you're wrong both times. She was asked whether she would work to support Clinton in the general election, and she said she wasn't sure. Look, if Obama loses, why should she fly around and give speeches for Clinton afterward, or for anyone? She's not a politician, she's got a life to return to. And the very question that was asked of her was both premature and impertinent. So please drop this bit about snitty Michelle.

A very patronizing memo that can't imagine any new ways to campaign against the Republican Attack Machine.

For the money I spend subscribing, it would be nice to have a few timesaving tools, like the ability to ignore certain dupes, shills, saps, and trolls permanently.