Could be that storms are moving in?

King Lear liked to just hang out and gale (new verb?) along. Maybe not a great idea tonight - and he had artistic license? I yawn. perchance to dream.

Stop over? I'll ask Pedinska to peel some snack fingerling `taters.

If you wish, and I believe it's a good idea, we can build something?

While Pedinska cooks, we can shape mashed potatoes? Snowmen.

Serious. After a snack, take a cold shower.

Lock the bathroom door. Why?

Pedindka staggers in a daze.

She bathes with anyone? No.

Pedinska drinks cuke juice.

Gordon cause you to gain much weight.

He was a anorexic teenager. He's obese?

No.

Gordon sips one-half a beer. No bare tummy.

He thinks kissing makes women fat and cute.

A lot of this has probably been said before, but I just wanted to get my $.02 in since I think Glenn is 100% right in the Keith Olbermann / Jonathan Alter dustup. I’m a big fan of Olbermann (and still am) and likely a bigger fan of Alter than most here, but they are just wrong about FISA and the fact they were providing some cover for Obama over an issue that Olbermann saw fit to do one of his Special Comments when Bush was the one pushing immunity. The only thing that’s arguable is the degree of cover they were actually giving Obama and their motivation for doing so. Glenn’s words about Olberman providing cover for Obama had to sting and I have a feeling that subject matter and the political reality that must be considered will be no small part of Olbermann’s SC tomorrow.

Whether or not Olberman or Alter is actually wrong is not what bothers me; it’s how they act after they have been criticized or questioned. Olbermann’s references to Glenn in his Daily Kos diary dripped with the same kind of condescension and personal attacks for which he is regularly making Bill O’Reilly a Worst Person in the World. It sounds like Alter initially took the same tack, and it is good to hear that he became more reasonable in his email exchanges with Glenn. One would hope Olbermann does the same tomorrow.

I, and I suspect many other viewers, have come to see his inspired and inspiring Special Comments as drawing a line in the sand. As Glenn has said, this line should be no different whether it is Bush or Obama in Olbermann’s sights. Recognizing that Olbermann wears different hats on his show - host, correspondent, pundit, entertainer and orator - that may require some leeway in his approach on issues such as FISA at different points, there still needs to be an underlying general consistency in viewpoint, particularly when it has been expressed so directly and heartfelt in the past. If viewers perceive Olbermann is not following through on his Special Comments, they will begin to see them more as theatre and less as sincere, patriotic oratory.

Also, Olbermann spoke of Obamaian certainty in his piece at Daily Kos. Olbermann might be on the lookout for the similar certainty regarding his sources. A second legal opinion may not be a bad thing. That 0.04 of additional intelligence often can spell the difference between being right or wrong.

Glenn’s post today about Democrats tacking to the center for political expediency and how well that has worked for them in the past is the perfect follow-up to Obama’s shift on FISA. The Bill O’Reilly’s, ably and willingly complemented by the Liberal media, are going to cast Democrats as weak no matter what. If I’m going to be declared weak, I would rather it be on an issue where the opponents’ over-the-top policies demonstrably have been proven to be disastrous than my on my overall willingness to stand by and argue for my beliefs.

Finally, to those here, if any, who sincerely are talking about not voting for Obama due to this (and not those who obviously are here just to take political advantage of the situation): you don’t flunk the student for one wrong answer, even if it’s a twenty-point essay question.

Neither President McGovern nor President Mondale had to move to center or try to immunize themselves against the doubts raised by Republicans on national security. Nor for that matter did President Dukakis. This didn't stop them from getting elected and, as you analysis makes perfectly clear, there's no reason Senator Obama should not follow their lead.

As Gore Vidal put it so precisely, ""It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people."

The American Sheeple rally behind Obama like he is somehow different than the rest, he not! Also as to your thoughts on Keith Olbermann he's what Tweety Bird called a Hypotwit. Keith is not a liberal but he does play one on TV. Keith is a Libertarian, i.e., a pot smoking Nazi. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against the pot smoking part, it's the other thing.

Glenn keep raising hell my friend we need another million journalists just like you!

Peace,

Ernest

I realize this is going against conventional wisdom, but the ability to pardon someone who has not been convicted of a crime is a power that has been assumed by the president without any basis in the constitution. legal-explanations.com defines "pardon" as "the act of the highest authority in the government who rules the law and has power to forgive someone who has commited crime or have been convicted of the crime thereby, restoring the rights of that person and releasing him/her of the present sentence. Normally President of the country has such powers to pardon and once such pardon are granted the sentence is removed from the books as if it has never occured." If it has not been established that a crime has been committed, no one can be pardoned. This means that the President also has no right to declare amnesties, at least without an act of Congress, although such powers have been assumed, to good effect, by presidents since the time of Lincoln.

So, let Bush declare all the premature pardons he wants. It's about time this was tested in court.