Of course Obama's cabinet appointments are irrelevant. But the more pressing issue is a semantic mistake which some of these loosey-goosey "progressives" that are such fans of Glenn Greenwald seem bound and determined to keep making over and over again.

I refer of course to the fact that Obama is the opposite of Bush, and what that means.

First of all, think about it: Obama is obviously the opposite of Bush in nearly every way, except maybe that they're both the same gender. Once we have that out of the way, it's clear that the next thing we need to consider is the fact that Bush is stuck on wrong — a fact on which I'm sure both good, decent, loyal Obama supporters and also these fair-weather friends in the "progressive" movement can agree.

So where does that leave us? If Obama is the opposite of Bush and Bush is stuck on wrong, that clearly means that Obama is always right. Thus all of this business about his appointments is, indeed, irrelevant.

I know, I know. Some of you, brainwashed by Glenn Greenwald, are going to argue that there's no such thing as always right, and that the opposite of stuck on wrong is actually not stuck on wrong. By that reasoning, Obama would merely be capable of making the right choice — in certain political circumstances, given the right issues, and under sufficient political pressure to make it most advantageous for him to do so.

What kind of conclusion is that? Some kind of namby-pamby theory of political expedience? Are you people seriously suggesting that progressive politics will continue to require a constant, active, vocal commitment to change even after Obama is in office? That every appointment and every bill are going to count, for the next 8 years?

Look, there's right, and there's wrong. Bush was wrong, Obama is right. He's right now, he'll be right later on, he'll be right in 2012. What more needs to be said?

On these very pages, Joe Conason — with whom I usually agree, but not always — surprised me by anticipating Hildebrand's argument by two weeks: “Whether Obama's appointments make sense can only be judged when those he has chosen have an opportunity to perform,” wrote Conason.

My posting then to Mr. Conason's argument seems equally to apply here: "Really? Don't analyze, just sit on our hands and hope for the best? Had the Roman Senate been thinking so clearly as that, Caligula’s horse, Incitatus, would have been made Consul of Rome."

Yeah, Cheney will bring gravitas to the Bush presidency. Sounds like the same source of wisdom providing us with the "flaming left whining about Obama" and the "qualifications, not ideology" stories.

Keep pushing back.

...If Obama is the opposite of Bush and Bush is stuck on wrong, that clearly means that Obama is always right. Thus all of this business about his appointments is, indeed, irrelevant. -- Amity

I truly love you... you sick bastard.

Just had to say it.

So far these "rumors" have been remarkably accurate. The one about Robert Gates was around long before it became reality. Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State was another one. And then there was the rumor about John Brennan, which didn't pan out, but not because it wasn't true!

Seems to me these "rumors" are really leaks by the transition team to see what they can get away with. If that's true, we will get Gen. Hayden unless people make a Brennan-style stink. And given Gen. Hayden's record, it is needed.

you are having a real hard time adjusting to the changing times and my dad also didn't get it right away what really happened through Obamas election - But after talking and working with a lot of diverse people in the last five weeks he is as surprised as you are - that suddenly it doesn't seem to be as important (as in the Bush years) who Obama (not any other President) appoints for his Cabinet and other high-level positions. But in poking 'fun' of Obamas 'mantra and his followers you are on the right track - Yes - it is a bit like that 'the messiah' has told his followers that the NEW mantra is to forget your f... IDEOLOGY and you know very well how it works when the Pope or your Rabbi comes out with some kind of a

new edict - Even the serious non believers (some Republicans) have a hard time not following this new rules from high heaven - And you might have to come back to the homeland to realize how the spirit of working together (IN JUST FIVE WEEKS!) has changed

the country.

It's like another wall has come down!

My dad sometimes sits together with some of the hardest of hardcore Republicans and suddenly (most) doesn't believe his ears:'Green energy' -YES - health insurance - YES! - supporting the middle class - YES! and even restoring your favorite (still crooked) "rule of law" - YES! YES! YES -

Now you could have a very cynical reaction to this sudden change of a lot of minds but as we are both very positive and optimistic human beings we are very happy about that - right?

( and for a little hate occasionally we still got dudes like Hannity and the Lump)

So - I guess that's what happened in the last five weeks and when 'the messiah (joke) calls on you from now on to leave your ideology at home when you come to work it might be just like this prenup we loved to talk about

And we know for some (who we won't name on UT) - who love just loove their great ideology - it is going to be very difficult - that's true - but i promise they will adjust too!

But they will manage - promise - just give them a little time and i don't think

Is there some semi-coherent point that you're trying to make and can back up, or did you just settle on some "This is what makes Obama tick" formula that makes sense to you and which you're now applying to every move that he makes, to make it make sense to you? And if it's the latter, how is that not, in essence, precisely how neocons see and relate to the world, i.e. via a formulaic prism that insists upon making reality conform to some formula, rather than vice-versa? This is very pre-enlightnement "thinking" and a hallmark of modern conservatism, not progressivism, and why it fails at anything that it touches. Simply slapping a "progressive" label on it doesn't actually make it so. Progressivism is inherently and necessarily self-critical and adaptive, which no formala could possibly keep up with and represent.

I.e. there's no way to know why Obama is doing what he's doing, or if it will succeed. Thus the need for thoughtful scrutiny and criticism by the left. Which is precisely what Glenn and his merry band of brainwashed Glennbots are trying to do. And you find fault with this? Please explain.

"He's smarter than you and knows what he's doing so STFU" is getting really, really old, and was always lame and brain dead, and itself the sign of a washed brain.