your paycheck is in the mail.

What I'm confused about is where Joe Conason stands with regards to the candidates for President. Aside from his clear dislike of Rudy Guiliani (four broadsides in November alone), Conason's position is . . . well, I just don't understand it.

His last two articles, if I can be reductionist about it, boil down to "Obama would make a bad candidate because he's black, and the Republicans would jump all over that," and "Obama's been shirking on his Senate foreign policy duties." But in July, Conason seemed to like Obama's foreign policy positions. Has Obama missed so many opportunities between July and now that Conason became outraged? Or is something else going on?

Not to mention Conason's silence on the other candidates. He's spoken about Huckabee and Romney, but what about Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or Ron Paul or Chris Dodd and his lonely filibuster stand against FISA?

These are not rhetorical questions; I just wish Conason would come out and said what he thought of all the candidates. The long bashing of Rudy and the current focus on Obama leaves some pretty big holes, and I wish he would fill them in.

The GOP's oppo department might have an opening. Great idea for a liberal: destroy our contenders before the year even starts! Does it even matter that every single Democrat would be light years preferable to the jokers piling out of the GOP Clown Car? Guess not. Thanks again.

I take issue with the few other posters' (at this point) sour grapes. I see no problem with Conason bringing up issues with this candidate (Obama) nor do I understand a poster's demand that Conason needs to provide a comprehensive opinion on all candidates.

There is much too much of a "rock star" miasma around Obama and I feel no resonance beyond rhetoric. As a citizen of Illinois, I resent Obama's neglect of his duties on both the local and national level as well as having serious and real issues with his lack of experience at...well, name it.

While we certainly shouldn't undermine an overwhelming Republican defeat next year, neither should we support a monolithic plank and compromise our values. We're in the state we're in because of blind ambition and venality; we don't need to accept these flaws in any of our own nor adopt this behavior simply because it installed the monsters who currently lurch through the shadows of the West Wing.

Joe Conason has clearly pointed out the fact that Barack Obama, as a U.S. senator with a subcommittee leadership role, apparently decided that running for president was a higher priority than preparing himself for the job.

Frankly, we've had disastrous results from the current untraveled pResident. We don't need another one who is all hat and no travel.

where does that leave Senator's Clinton and Edwards who voted to authorize the war in Iraq: probably the biggest foreign policy disaster in our nations history!

incompetent?

cynical?

cowardly?

Obama has the potential to fundamentally change the nature of the game. And it appears as if partisan dinosaurs like Joe Conason are getting increasingly worried about their place in it.

Lest I be accused of "piling on," I will admit I am an Obama supporter right off the bat. But I am also a Conason fan. And a loyal Dem and liberal. Which is why I am a bit surprised by this column which comes out of "left field." I don't see any purpose to it. As someone who has hosted Congressional Delegations -- "Codels" -- overseas -- I can assure you Mr. Conason, that Senator Obama's dearth of visits to the capitals of Europe is no great loss to the American people. Believe ME!

Also the Republicans controlled the Senate until last January. Are you telling me that Obama should have been working hard at SUBCOMMITTEE work instead of running for president in the 11 months since then? Are you kidding me?

I hope this is the last time you (or Mr. Clemons) will write such an unhelpful column -- without coming out and announcing whether or not you are supporting a particular candidate.

With a position like that, you're in a no-win situation. Do travel, and you're accused of taking the job so you can waste taxpayers' money on junkets in Europe. Don't, and Joe Conason accuses you of being unpresidential.

What's a guy to do?

Time to quit beating that dead horse. Clinton did NOT vote for what happened in Iraq. It's time to find a new mantra.

Obama is failing to thrill and it's nobody's fault but his own. That Oprah thing turned out to be a fiasco, an embarrassment.

The blush is off that particular rose.

No not surprised at all after last week's reaction to Conason's reporting, 7 out of the first 8 letters are pissed off at him for revealing Sen. Obama's shortcomings.

The fact that Obama did not capitalize on a golden opportunity to school himself in foreign affairs is very important information that I need to know.

Fact is folks, the guy is caught up in the rock star reverie. The guy ain't ready to hold the office of presidency. Now don't go comparing him to the current occupant, not fair. Just compare him to the other contenders.

His experience pales in comparison to all of them. All of them. Let's get the guy's ears wet first. Let him work his way up. He is absolutely not ready to be president.

This doens't come out of left field. It's the second column in as many weeks from Conason attacking Obama.

The problem with Joe, Paul Krugman, and many other keepers of the liberal flame during the Bush years is that they think Clinton is the best we can do. What they seem not to understand is that the Clintons do not share their commitment to liberalism. On a right to left continuum, Bill Clinton was a center-right president. He was no liberal.

And all avaiable evidence suggests that Hillary will be even more solicitous of and beholden to the large corporate interests running our government and destroying our democracy.

Conason doesn't seem to undertsand that the Republicans have fucked things up so badly that Democrats should strive to re-align our politics leftward in 2008. The pain of the Bush years will soon fade, and we may not have another chance this ripe for change for a generation.

Conason supports Hillary because he believes she will be competent and progressive in moderate, incremental ways; in other words she would be better than any of the Republicans running. And she probably would. It's just we have an opportunity to do so much more than Hillary's record suggests she is capable of.

That said, the argument that Obama has been expending much more energy on running for president than on his senatorial duties is almost certainly true. However, to suggest that his lack of effort as subcommittee chairman is because he's lazy, or doesn't care about foreign policy, is a cheap shot, more appropriate of a political hack than a supposedly objective, albeit liberal, columnist.

As was noted above, the Dem establishment is getting terrified that their wooden, unlikeable standard bearer is going to get beat by an "upstart." Don't worry too much, Joe. It'll be better for all of us when she loses.