`I see, screamed the surprised blind gop-man as picked up a 26-ounce hammer, and a dull hack saw! He hit a thumb with a first bang?

ouch.

Is this a summer Holy Ghost camp meeting?

Who is sitting in the center barn phew? gads.

Che?

If this is Arizona, William T. would be a usher.

I am thirsty for raw goat, cow, or sheep milk.

It's so arid the human lips/tongue is parched.

Justice, Truth, and a semblance of effort? okay.

Democracy!

Someone be sure to wake me up when Russ Feingold runs for president. If Obama can survive two terms, I've wondered who should follow him (or, challenge him after the first term?). IMHO, we couldn't do much better than Russ Feingold.

What you're advocating may be little more than "blind faith" unless you're expecting the government to be more responsive (not to mention, actually accountable) than recent history would suggest.

Agree with you completely--and there's where I think Obama is different from Bush--who actually is proud of ignoring the will of the public. He is constantly boasting that polls mean nothing, and that the only Americans who can judge him haven't been born yet("History will judge", and all that absolute bullshit). "Historians will decide" equals "go fuck yourself"--which happens to be exactly what Cheney told Leahy in the Senate. Cheney unmasked, for just a moment.

I believe, and hope, that Obama is more sensitive to public opinion, and as a result, the massive government he may end up directing will also be more responsive.

Right or wrong about Obama, it is more important than ever that writers like Greenwald apply pressure whenever/wherever possible--especially on Obama. It is his role, and ours and citizens, to give the government something to be responsive to, besides that upper 1%.

I confess to not having long-standing familiarity with your topics or work, hence the question. I came here b/c so many people were talking your stuff on FISA up. So you're making clear that this is where we can come for our daily dose of Obama/weak-Dem slapdown, awesome. i thought you were all legal analysis all the time, so now i'm clear.

I am glad you brough up the conspiracy theory again, though. That got lost in the hub-bub when Obama came out for the cave. Do you ascribe to the theory that he was behind it? You say how do I know? I obviously don't, it just looked to me from the delayed statement and so forth that this wasn't exactly what Obama wanted to be dealing with, but he bit the bullet and went along. Sure, i could be wrong, but that's what it looked like. Are you casting your lot with the conspiracists?

Also, how do you feel about Pelosi? You're trying to knock off Hoyer, and certainly not giving Obama a pass. How about the Speaker?

Lastly, is there a real compromise you would support? Or do you hold that current FISA is fully sufficient and any easing is "heinous"? Do you acknowledge a need for loosening at all? Or are the compromises already made by Dodd over the line of inringing the 4th Amendment.

This is why continued focus on substance would be good. Some of us don't have time to comb archives for your position. Refusing to discuss your established positions lends you blog and commenters an air of closed groupthinking insiderism. Open it up!

I was wondering about the feasibility of attempting to arrange a protest outside of the Senate on July 8th where everyone recites the Fourth Amendment while the updates to FISA are being debated. Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I wrote that Obama

1. is continuing the Faith Based program that Bush created by executive order (true)

2. will likely run the program in a less corrupt, less church/state violation manner

And that I stated my objection was the underlying principle involved and my concern with leaving in a place the precedent of the program, I'm not sure how that makes a difference.

To read @ UT somedays is like attending a warring family reunion at Thanksgiving in July.

Every body seems to have cute dimples.

A deranged wine bibber from the GOP,

and the DNC, get into a scrap quarrels.

Why scar over the `tatter peels. no bruise.

I hope there are some Happy New Year Political Party Alliances. I'd then send Cheerful Hallmark Easter Day cards.

O Capital Hill. Oy!

Stop this darn abuse.

I'd have a Bar Mitzvah ceremony.

People can participate in the public worship.

It's Taoism. Let's enjoy the reverencing the Truth.

If we don't do that, the 3-ring circus will be a flop.

But the anti-Obama feeding frenzy here at Salon long ago hit self-reinforcing Lord of the Flies territory (see Joan Walsh's tarring Obama with some supporters she cherry-picked for their allegedly intemperate comments in support of Wesley Clark), so of course this won't matter.

For months I've been accused of "being in the tank for Obama." On pro-Clinton sites, I still am accused of that.

Now I write a couple of criticisms of Obama -- even as I say that it's vital that he win -- and along come Obama fanatics to claim that I'm part of an "anti-Obama feeding frenzy here at Salon."

What has George Bush's "with-us-or-against-us" mentality done to people?

This was an efficient list of some of the most recent positions taken by Obama. This can hardly be surprise to voters who have been interested in the policy details of the candidates. If you think back a few months you'll remember that there was a large surge of independant and republican voters who were pro-Obama. They had good reasons for it. I think that a lot of his supporters, however, assumed that because he was not a DNC democrat, that this meant he was a progressive. In fact, I think a lot of people on the left, for a number of reasons, have pre-judged him, and have some surprises coming up.

I'm always interested in the lenses in which people see Obama. Everyone has a different take on him, depending on what they know and who they are. Personally, when I found out he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review I knew he was 1) a good leader 2) extremely smart, hard working, and ambitious 3) likely a born politician and 4) not in any way a progressive.

I'm from Massachusetts, where Gov. Deval Patrick, who wrote a lot of the material from Obama's speeches was elected in a landslide. He was a similar kind of inspiring figure and has been rather a disappointment as a governor. I think a large part of the reason that Massachusetts went for Hillary was because of buyer's remorse as "new, improved" politician proved to be "just another" politician.

But Obama isn't Deval. He is tremendously smart, practical, and hardworking. I just hope that progressives find ways to influence him, so that he remains their dream candidate.