... it's worth noting the lack of flavor in today's corporate NYC. I'm not old enough to have experienced the glory days of 42nd Street, but I sure as hell have no desire to visit a Disney-run Times Square these days! I'll take drug dealers and porno theaters over Mickey Mouse any day!

Congrats to Glenn and others.

The truth is that "progressive" US bloggers like GG deserve medals of honour, if not high-level official advisory positions, for all the excellent work they have done over the last 8 years.

I wonder, did he mean that Brennan's withdrawal is the "mis-step" (merely embarrassing) or that it was that Obama considered Brennan, who is controversial, at all? Or, is that a distinction without a difference?

As you know, it's often very hard to know what these TV chatterers mean, but I understood it to mean that, up until now, every name that Obama has floated or even unveiled has been pretty much considered a success, hasn't generated much controversy or turmoil.

This was the first bump in the road. Brennan really was widely assumed to be THE candidate for CIA Director. He's the head of intelligence for the transition and has been Obama's top intelligence adviser.

For him to have to withdraw, and to do so in a conspicuously -- and what seems to me to be a gratuitously -- dramatic way, is the first drama -- the first difficulty -- the transition has had.

Maybe Brennan's out because of that lengthy job questionnaire (the likes of which NO job applicant has ever seen...ha!).

Seriously, though, Greenwald et al deserve some kudos for staying alert and helping to keep "us out here" alert. Personally, I suspect Brennan's withdrawal wasn't exactly his decision.

This is a good, neigh great win. Had Obama appointed this guy, it would really have damaged his credibility possibly beyond repair, and certainly limited the extent to which it would investigate and try to right the deep wrongs of the last eight years. I still doubt that many if any are going to prison for any of this, which is a shame, but there is always the possibility for upside developments (my favored scenario comes with the deluge of information from former officials that makes its way into the press after Bush leaves office, thereby causing a public uproar that provides impetus to launch criminal investigations and indictments). By the way, even the New Republic was critical of the potential appointment.

I disagree with Big Tent Democrat though. Not all appointments are like Brennan where concerns have to be raised. Hillary Clinton, Gates and Jones are nothing like Brennan. Their appointments don't imply an endorsement of Bush policy, and certainly not his most reprehensible, like rendition and 'enhanced interrogation'. They don't even completely imply an endorsement of establishment thinking, although there is far better reason to believe that.

So in these cases, caustic criticism to the point of resignation before there's even anything to complain about (and that condition is sure to be temporary) amounts to little more than working yourself into a fit over baseless speculation, which aside from being utterly pointless is counterproductive, both in terms of keeping the left engaged, and also by the cry-wolf factor (i.e. the best way to discredit important and legitimate concerns).

Brennan was a win because it was an important issue (unlike, say, Lieberman) where the Left had a very strong argument and an acheivable end. The Left should try to stick to that formula more often; whether its potency will wax or wane depends on it.

PS If there's any other appointment to get upset about prematurely it's Geitner. Surely a premium should've been placed on someone who actually didn't have their fingerprints all over the last ten year's adventure in monetary policy making and regulation that has taken us over the precipice. Speaking of which, Happy Thanksgiving all. It's going to be hard living for all too many people in the next few years because of what 'they've' done- be thankful for what you have.

First of all, when you closely read the tone of the letter and pick up the nuances, I find it very hard to believe that Brennan removed himself from consideration voluntarily. This is the letter of someone who is deeply angry that a job which he considered himself perfectly qualified for is being unjustly denied to him. In my reading, he was told that due to the backlash from the blogs he won't be appointed, and he decided to go with a furious bang.

Second of all, it shows once more Obama's ability to actually listen to others and to change his mind based on that. After 8 years of Bush, this may feel like a shocking change for the better, but I would believe that it might happen more regularly. If you think about it rationally, that's how it SHOULD be. For us, this demonstrated common sense by Obama should on the other hand cause us to give him the benefit of doubt more easily. It should also encourage us to keep it civil and apply strong pressure only where it's really warranted. Which doesn't mean to close our eyes, just the opposite. But to review and criticize with moderation.

Now, I know you think it is creepy for US citizens like myself to believe that one of the main reasons we give the government tax dollars is so the government will--whether it is with local police and fire officials, state police, or a strong federal military--protect us.

Don't you ever get tired of being scared?

Not one penny of your tax dollars is intended to go to people committing war crimes and felonies, not the military, not the agencies, not the police. Torture is a war crime. If it's systematic, it's a crime against humanity. It pulls a minimum 20 year federal sentence in the United States. The rest of us pay our tax dollars so that people that torture get put in jail, where they belong. That's a good use for our tax dollars.