A logical response in seven words: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US."

Bush read those words on August 6 before the attacks, and went to go clear brush. But only Democrats stand accused of not doing enough to fight terrorism.

Glenn gives his arguments on the proposition that "Democrats must move to the center", and says that it is empirically false. But his arguments are lawyerly, that is he gives only one side of the question - he ignores facts which are inconsistent with his position. While this is only natural, since he is a lawyer, and he may be propagandizing rather than evaluating, I think the scientific term "empirically" is out of place here.

Unless he is deliberately propagandizing, or making an argument as before a court, I think he and others would benefit by being more objective, which would probably give a better understanding of the subject and lead to better strategy.

Journalists do recognize an obligation to be objective, though this does not mean that they themselves are objective, and can easily see the factual one-sidedness of Glenn's arguments. Thus part of their criticism of Glenn is valid, if they are judging him as a journalist.

Having given frequent small donations that we could afford, I responded to his latest solicitation by removing myself from the email list. When asked why, I said I was giving that $30 to Barbara Boxer for her active opposition to the FISA capitulation. My wife did the same. More of this might get his attention.

Of course I'll vote for him. How much we'll donate in the future vs to others is up to him.

I may have this wrong--but my understanding is that Obama has already stated he will vote against FISA. He has also said he would filibuster such a bill.

And here we have an "inside pressure group" lobbying Obama to do the lesser of these two actions, one which will have no material impact on the FISA bill, given the senate vote count.

I just don't see how this is holding Obama's feet to the fire in any way. But it does provide him political cover--as he can truthfully say he voted against FISA.

Actually, it looks like Glenn (and implicitly the WSJ) are probably correct here. Glenn points out that in the quote you gave from Audacity of Hope, Obama stated that he favors the death penalty for those who rape and kill children -- not "merely" those who rape them. In fact, doing some googling I can't find anything where Obama has advocated the death penalty for a crime against individuals that does not involve murder. So it looks like his statement on the Supreme Court decision is at best in tension with his previous statements.

For this bogus "shift to the center" to work politically, the ancient Republican axiom that "the left" is always weak has to be true.

Didn't Obama prove that by altering course and selling out?

Ironically Bush is considered a 'strong man' for sticking to his 'principles' and not changing his position (even if it drives the country to total ruin).

Is saying that you support the rule of law (and the constitution) so bad?

But his arguments are lawyerly, that is he gives only one side of the question - he ignores facts which are inconsistent with his position.

What is the other side? This is a real question, by the way, I'm not just being argumentative.

Just saying "you are doing this, and it's wrong" is a funny kind of a criticism, in my opinion.

This is what the group says:

"Senator Obama - we are a proud group of your supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics. Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!"

Yes, in formal logic, "P *and* Q" is false unless each of P and Q is true.

But in common usage, people often say "P and Q" when they mean, in formal logic terms, "P *or* Q".

Common usage can be ambiguous.

Assuming your interpretation ("P *and* Q"), that would mean that Obama was saying that murder and rape are co-requisites, so a murder -- no matter how heinous -- could merit a death penalty ONLY IF there were also a rape.

That interpretation seems dubious to me.

So I think Obama meant, in formal logic terms, "P *or* Q".

Republicans quickly figured out they could paint Liberals as marginal players, elitists. (For a cinematic tour de force see Scorcese's Aviator, when Howard Hughes visits the Hepburn's in Connecticut.) Ask any modern era Republican (Conservative politics is dead) and he will tell you Russert and Matthews are part of the Liberal Media. (They are the modern day version of the Hepburn's)

Can Obama play this game, can he marginalize Republicans (specifically those rural Republicans who put Bush into office, not once, but twice?) Sure he can. He needs someone like the Rev Wright to help him, but not the Rev. Wright. The Right Wing clergy helped deliver Bush, and Democrats need to push back the Racist, Homophobic, subculture in America, and that means using Gay Marriage as their wedge issue.

In sum he should use the bully pulpit to marginalize hate and intolerance. Its a sweet challenge, and one Obama will embrace. His success will drive back the dark force in American politics, (and as the memory of 9/11 fades), and it will allow Republicans to return to their Conservative roots, which will restore the checks and balances between the branches of government. Who should Obama choose for VP? How about Atticus Finch?

What an enchanting name. Once you have found love in a foggy night... you'll never ever be alone again.

You know it.

Life is no longer just a lonely island of a shivering bowl of jello. You seem one as normal as blueberry pie? I sit here and feel so dumb. I'm as corny as a piece of cob, and blogging, and flying a flag before the 4th of july, and tying with one blue finger?

I hold on to hope.

A dope has ho hope.

I heard laughter on occasion that sounded like babies angelic wings.

A fool gives a reason.

I hope people have enough common sense to admit they don't know.

O be real careful and don't fly away.

The B .O. news, frankly, makes me remember the lyrics to the song:

~O wash B.O. (no sweetie pie) right out of my hair. Send B.O. away.

(P.S. RMP. The book by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman 'on killing'... wow.

read while in a scalding hot Epson salt bath with open wounds.

those who need to read it more that you, etc., are the media.

The media is the virus that infects to sicken 'our' nation.

my thanks to Lt. It was/is pain, but a necessary pain.)