What could possibly be objectionable with a longitudinal study in the results of pregnancy outcomes? DO NOT BECOME a wack, please. Sometimes a longterm study is JUST a longterm study, not a threat to women's health rivalling the holocaust. Your conclusions are ridiculous.

I suspect that this study will conclude that, for women with abortions, the long-term result was concern and a huge sense of relief. Wouldn't that be a kick!

I do research into medical stuff, and would love to be in the competition for this. Wooeee, this would be a biggie, too. 11 YEARS OF MEGA-FUNDING.

I wouldn't be slanted. NOPE. NOT EVEN A LITTLE. PROMISE. Just GIMME THE GRANT.

This is a classic witch hunt. Plus the witch hunt involves that old favorite, politically correct speech. It's especially choice and wonderful since it also includes GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.

I am NOT interested in getting muzzled by the CORRECT STATEMENT as VETTED by gay activists. This is a ridiculous and stupid campaign against Mr. Obama. It is ODDLY VINDICTIVE, too. Why the excessive venom for Mr. Obama? Odd indeed.

I would NEVER expect to have this kind of a diary from Greenwald. I think it's an abuse of trust to use this space for this kind of idiotic witchhunt.

"Look buster, the equality rights of gay and lesbian Americans are no minor issue (she, a white heterosexual declares)."

I have no problem with that. What I do have problems with is 1) witch hunts 2) guilt by association and 3) VERY exaggerated reactions to OBAMA lettle teensy weensy problems. Why is it that so MANY are just JUMPING all over Barack on this? Very very odd, in my opinion.

I think Greenwald's blog was hijacked for a witch hunt, but hey - LET'S BURN SOME WITCHES, eh?

On the day that Obama joins Dodd in opposing the repulsive FISA bill, there are many comments about a questionable decision that someone, certainly not Obama, made about some rally. The decision might have been questionable, but there are many sins in the background of many persons. Hey, look hard enough into my background, and there are one or two things that I wouldn't want coming out.

This is a full-blown witch hunt. It's purity trolls run amok. Rather than concern about his policy positions, or lack of experience, there is this amazing bullshit going on.

And, yes, I'll just say it straight out: I think there is a little racism going on here. I bet some Edwards supporter has this problem. He has black churchmen who support him, and many of them are not great fans of homosexuals.

Finally, if it comes down to it, I'll go with the black churchmen over the gay activists. Gay activists cost us 2004. How? By parading out to SF to get "married" by Gavin Newsome, in those illegal ceremonies. You could HEAR the sound of anti-gay marriage petitions being printed as people watched those stupid ceremonies. That led to the gay marriage initiative in Ohio, and that brought OH into the Bush column. Not only are religious blacks unfond on homosexuals, so are many hispanics. This kind of gay overreaction, and racist at that, repels many blacks and hispanics.

So, I think that we should all get along, eh? And, if we want a witch hunt, we should witch hunt republicans.

Pam:

Now that Obama has invited an openly gay minister, will you be doing a follow-up column? I certainly hope so.

After Pam's diary yesterday castigating Obama for something or other god only knows what, Obama has now rectified the situation by inviting a gay minister.

I expected Pam to spend a little time on this. After all, if you rip somebody a new one for doing something naughty, you should have the BACKBONE to also reward them for doing the right thing.

Just on the "rip Obama" beat, eh, Pam?

Pam:

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad that you responded to Obama's approach to responding to the statements people have made.

However, you did the piece yesterday HERE, in the Greenwald forum. I think you should respond HERE. Responses other places are likely to be missed, and, to be frank, I think that Greenwald's forum has a higher profile than does yours.

How about adding something to today's column about Obama's response? I think that Obama came up with a good solution, but that may just be me. Personally, I think that the entire situation is just a witch hunt. Obama is a smart guy, and this controversy is very unfair to him. I'm not really an Obama backer by the way - I just want people to play fair.

Pam chose yesterday to launch another portion of the unfair witch hunt on Obama. Today, instead of using the space to cut Mr. Obama some slack, she just avoided the point.

Obama responded to the criticism from you gay wack activists, and you did not return the favor. So, fuck the gay activists. They are a bunch of UNGRATEFUL CRAPPY LITTLE CHILDREN. They are always crying and whining. Thrasher is an idiot, but he is right about 1 thing. The gay lobby is about 2 % of the Democratic party, but 100 % of the whining, ungrateful, demanding little shits infesting our party now. I'm 'bout tired of all the crap dished out by gay activists. Kerry did not win in 2004, mostly because of anti-gay votes. Anti-gay votes cost democrats everywhere every single election.

When did gay votes get us democrats ANYTHING, when you are outside of New York and SF? In other words, the gay lobby in the Democratic party COSTS us PLENTY, and GETS US NOTHING.

I don't agree with Glenn on this. When you launch an attack, you have the obligation to be fair. Pam is not being fair. I took her to task for it. So, now I get blamed. Great work.