I had a similar thought: does Accountability Now have a role to play?

RE: marches/demonstrations: I don't agree that marches are ineffective, if done right. Torture/Bush admin investigation is an issue where I would spend the money to fly to DC to march. If enough people did that, I think it would be effective; as opposed to say, 100 people gathering in Oakland or San Diego.

The difference is . . . there is no difference.

Persuasively argued.

What exactly is it you have a problem with here? That Glenn criticized Obama, or that he was correct in doing so?

The funny thing is this: Ann Coulter was the person who defended the President, right or wrong, for the past eight years. So, if there's a contest for who will be the next Ann... well, I'm just sayin'.

"Roland Burris for majority leader

That really is the best idea ever. As you say, it's impossible that it could be worse."

Glenn, It could be worse!

For the worst I would nominate Inhofe.

In the House I would nominate Hoyer.

I'd go even farther and argue that there is a moral obligation to express dissent, particularly on questions of war, torture, and civil liberties. This seemed to be the general consensus among activists during the Bush years, even in the knowledge that we were unlikely to force a change in policy. Now that we actually have some influence, why are we so afraid to use it? Isn't the moral imperative the same?

AIPAC is merely a lobby. It is powerful because it is efficient, well funded, and well organized. ATM there is nothing to counterbalance it. Does anyone else think that a single issue Foreign Policy PAC that is antiwar and not beholden to the two party system would be successful in cracking AIPAC's (and the Establishment at large) pro-war armor? -- C. Sinnard

Prof Cole wants very much to set up another internet based PAC to counter the influence of AIPAC and other Israel First lobbies in DC, and he started off his effort to form this PAC by slamming as "useless" the global street protests against the Israeli onslaught on Gaza.

Not an auspicious start, to say the least, but it has long been traditional for internet-based startup political efforts to declare the "uselessness" of taking to the streets and to claim some higher motive, purpose, and utility for whatever is being proposed online.

The trouble is, in the case of the recent all but unanimous Congressional resolution supporting Israel in the current hostilities, AIPAC was not unopposed; many individuals and organizations expressed their opposition, and not just in the streets. In fact, the opposition to Israel's actions against Gaza is more widespread and more vocal than I've seen in this country for many years, and around the world it is enormous and raging.

It's not that there is no pressure in opposition to AIPAC and the like; there's plenty of it.

The problem is that this pressure is not "heard." And it's not "heard", in large measure, because the people and organizations who are applying this pressure are not "inside the Palace," whereas AIPAC most definitely is. AIPAC is "heard" not so much because of the money they give to candidates but because of the relationships their advocates form with the High and the Mighty. Oh sure, money makes a difference, but it's not just that. Nor is it just advocating a position or policy or issue. It is even more importantly about basic social relationships, understanding and appealing to the vanity of electeds (and their staffs), currying, stroking, sucking up, going along with some (questionable) things to get your own interests heard and acted upon.

Lobbying 101. But even if you do all those things right, you still might not be "heard" if you aren't on the inside of the gates that keep the riff raff out. In other words, in order to affect policies and opinions inside the Palace, you have to already be "inside." And that's where AIPAC and some of their kin shine. Many of them started out "inside." They were already there.

Their opposition is almost entirely "outside."

Markos and others can give some advice about how to get "inside" those gates, but even being there is no guarantee of being "heard" if the relationships aren't there. And to go from "outside" to "inside" -- if you're not already linked through and to "insiders" -- can take a very long time.

That's why I say that Prof Cole's efforts, while laudable, can easily take ten or even twenty election cycles before they have a significant effect on policy. By that time, the issues will have changed.

It's one way the status quo is maintained. AIPAC isn't forcing its position on Congress; Congress was already there. Opposition to that position with regard to Israel is just not something they feel an affinity to.

If they see that the People won't tolerate it, through direct action in the streets, boycotts, divestment, constant high profile PR campaigns, etc., and through extensive lobbying and direct candidate support/challenges, it's possible they can be persuaded to "listen," but they won't necessarily change their minds -- at least not in the short term. Unless their position within the Palace is jeopardized by not changing their minds, they'll stick with what's comfortable and what they know.

It's really too bad that online efforts cannot coordinate with and mutually aid more direct efforts -- such as street protests -- but so far, it hasn't worked. Cole does himself no favors by continuing to discount the efforts of those who put their physical presence into the struggle.

A video on the Mondoweiss blog:

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/max-blumenthal-exposes-the-jewish-crazies-in-new-york-.html

When a woman says that Muslims "slash" their children ceremonially, Blumenthal says, "A religious ceremony?" Yes. Blumenthal says, "My parents had a mohel [rabbi who performs circumcisions] slash my penis." Genius. The woman is dumbfounded, then says that's inappropriate analogy. "It made it look better," Blumenthal says with drop-dead satirical rapier thrust.

Genius! "It made it look better"! LOL!