Love the post! I agree with it completely. I've been telling my conservative friends that this is what they wanted when we took the Fairness Doctrine out of play. This is an inevitable move b/c humans just want to remain in their gated communities that they've built outside of cities to keep the bad people out. This is human nature. We better enjoy it; this is what we built. My advice to everyone - pick your poison, watch Fox and stay out of MSNBC's business - and vice versa. The lines have been drawn, fox just drew it first.

Glenn,

I'd be a bit more cautious if you plan on destroying the personality of Tucker Carlson, especially if you care at holding together your Strange Bedfellows Coalition. Although Carlson is ideologically a rather slippery fellow, he does hold strong ties to Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. He is also speaking at Dr. Paul's Rally for the Republic next month. Just a word of caution, even though I personally don't trust the guy.

giving Glenn Beck -- Glenn Beck -- his own show didn't jeopardize CNN's

Funny, that's why I stopped trusting them.

After following Maddow on Air America Radio for the past several years, I was happy to see her appear on MSNBC. I am now very happy to hear she has her own television show.

She is a smart commentator and can cut through the crap better than anyone else.

I would love for her to have Ann Coulter on her show!

BTW, I'm a hard core Hillary supporter who's voting for Obama because I don't have any other choice.

I never would've picked this post for one in which the comments section would literally make my jaw drop.

Nick, right on! JKP1000, your note to self makea me laugh!

But, seriously? If I view McCain as a bellicose, economically illiterate, full-blown Alzheimer's waitin' to happen panderer to the most wretched excesses of the Right Wing, it's because I'm a Hillary hater? Really?

And Rachel Maddow and KO share matching haircuts (is that code for "teh GAY"?) that cause a visceral distaste in readers of this blog?

Color me dumbfounded.

"Since the Democratic Party abandoned Hillary who was by far the strongest candidate and the media following the far left, I am no longer a democrat and will be voting for McCain."

The McCain who, when asked in reference to Hillary, "How do we beat the bitch?" replied, "That's an excellent question." The McCain who regaled a public audience with a joke about "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" The McCain who opposes everything Hillary stands for in terms of providing health care to Americans? The McCain who took a stance completely opposed to Hillary's in the Ledbetter sexual discrimination case? And you're voting for this guy because you're disappointed that your preferred Democratic candidate didn't get the nomination?

The name "maturity" is poorly chosen.

I'd be a bit more cautious if you plan on destroying the personality of Tucker Carlson, especially if you care at holding together your Strange Bedfellows Coalition. Although Carlson is ideologically a rather slippery fellow, he does hold strong ties to Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. He is also speaking at Dr. Paul's Rally for the Republic next month. Just a word of caution, even though I personally don't trust the guy.

Oh, absolutely. I better start catering everything I say to make sure I never utter a word that is upsetting to someone who might be inclined to support the Strange Bedfellows coalition. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm going to do -- no more criticizing libertarians, or liberals, or Democrats, or independents, lest I cause someone who might support Strange Bedfellows to become angry.

And yeah, you're absolutely right -- Tucker Carlson is a real hero -- virtually a demi-God -- to the Libertarian movement, and so if I'm not careful and don't retract my criticisms, I'll be hated by them, for I spoke Ill of Tucker.

That fIame-thrower David Gregory is practically an anarchist. I understand that time-slot was originally a toss-up between him and Greg Palast, but Palast couldn't hold a candle to Gregory's unrestrained, anti-authoritarian bravado.

Personally, when I want my political coverage out of the mainstream and on the edge, unvarnished and in-your-face; when I want an unorthodox, unapologetic, unconventional, take-no-prisoners, cat-spit, knife-fight with the corrupt, entrenched, Beltway establishment powers-that-be, I turn to David Gregory, the iconoclasts' iconoclast.

I'm sure it's the same with most of you.

So in Sacha Zimmerman's universe, Tucker Carlson is "nuanced" and Dancing Dave is "The frisky, Bush-tormenting Gregory."

Fuck the New Republic: http://radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2008/08/scott_beauchamp_the_new_republic_scandal_01.php

It's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Second, Rachel Maddow is a rare voice of intelligence is cable newfotainment--labeling her as a liberal is a cheap way of marginilizing her smart. And who the fuck cares if she's gay? Does that make her automatically a liberal? I think my ex's lesbian, very Republican mother would disagree.

Amazing that there are still so many people who see the entire world through -- every last square inch of it -- exclusively through the prism of their specific preference in the Obama v. Hillary wars.-- Glenn Greenwald

Including yourself, I take it, as you chose to focus on my one reference to Senator Clinton. Perhaps it was a mistake to mention her, but when referring to Olbermann's recent excesses, his drooling "Special Comment" basically accusing Clinton of advocating Obama's assassination does come to mind. But Maddow didn't disagree with Keith on anything. And sorry, when he drags her on Countdown and forces her to admit that she owes her new show to him, well, it's not a pretty picture.

But anyway, never mind Hillary, how do you know I'm not just a frustrated Dan Abrams fan?

nick's rant brings up a lot of points, but perhaps the most fundamental is the idea that the above slogan is "simplistic". Human socialization is very deeply grounded in developing the skills to fight a war against oppression and get out of Africa. It also explains the fundamental ability to kill one's own species, and to fight anything that is similar but not identical (e.g. races, ethnic groups, religions). Competition is still the primary motivator in most realms of society, and expansion, both in population and territory, still a primary goal and an underlying social forth for things like the capitalist economy, which has currently very few viable alternatives.

Consequently, when the "dirty fucking hippies" of the 1960s and 1970s that nick mentions, proposed shaking society down to the foundations to implement Make Love Not War, they threatened just about every power group in existence, not least of which were the meritocracy, who would no longer be experts if the game changed and the goal were something in which they had no expertise.

One can see the self-perpetuating frames pull themselves together in the current campaign. There could be no judgment on the Political Class for the devastation of the last 20 years, so first the election had to be moved off of a referendum on the current government and policies (the War, torture, executive power, habeas corpus, corporate control, government outsourcing), which was done by turning it into a referendum on the personalities first of Hillary Clinton, then of Barack Obama.

Once that had been accomplished and Bush was no longer a subject matter, the politics had to be changed, in order to make the election "close". Close elections support the media, by increasing interest in the election competition and causing campaign spending. They also support rigging, whether illegal (vote tipping) or legal (pre-announcing "battleground states", forcing all the campaigning to occur there).

The best way to make the election close is to make it revolve around the economy, for which there is little consensus on solutions. If you watch the current round of nationally directed campaign ads, they are, from both parties, directed solely at economic issues. This has a certain circular logic: Advisors from the political science class will tell candidates that data supports that most votes are cast on economic issues. The candidates therefore speak most on economic issues. The voters therefore vote based on what the candidates spoke to, and the cycle continues.

Except for one thing: elections are not determined by "most voters", who are usually very balanced between candidates by economic issues. They are decided by those who vote on "fringe" issues, who tack a few percentage points on to one or another candidate and determine the election. Forcing the election to turn on economic issues forces a tie. The voting public should be very suspicious when the Political Class is forcing ties: They intend to be the ones who decide. Hence the hatred of the 1960s "damage" to the Democratic Party, and TNR's outright embrace of DLC values.

By any and all means necessary, Make Love Not War must not be on the agenda.