That is the only realistic explanation I can muster for why she remains the editor of Salon.com, vs. becoming a full-time pundit and/or an op-ed contributor or a regular columnist...elsewhere. (Is it ad revenue? subscriber revenue? controversy? rev up the readers? where’s the CEO? or the officer in charge of assessing just plain NOT fair and balanced reporting? or the one in charge of assessing journalistic reporting, vs. opining?)

You made your position clear on Hardball today and on “your” site Salon. (And both well timed to appear simultaneously. Interesting.)

But did Russ Feingold’s response on MSNBC get mentioned? No. Of course not. That might have diminished or damaged your take on the situation at hand.

Of course I don't hang on to every hyperboly handed down from that amazing media maven Joan Walsh, who for one, is of course deeply "concerned" about Obama.

WHAT??!?!?! Joan is "concerned" about Obama?? Is this true??? I had no idea!!! Well, if "concerned" about Obama, then I'm "concerned" about Obama too! In fact, my concern is so epic that I'm going to call in sick for a few days, wailing at the top of my lungs, gnashing my teeth and rending my garments; and most especially raging, raging! at the dying of the light. My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? My hyperbole shall know no bounds!

I am wearing all black for the next fifty years, and writing in Ralph Puma in November.

Now we all know that the Brandenburg Gate is a deeply symbolic Berlin landmark, intimately bound up with the best and the worst in German history. We can all appreciate both Obama's interest in using such a landmark as a backdrop for a major speech and the issues that such a decision raises.

But Joan loses me when she starts to discuss the "Brandenberg Gate." Where is this "Brandenberg Gate" and what is its significance? I see that there is a Brandenberg in Nordrhein-Westfalen, which is on the Western frontier of Germany (i.e., all the way across the country from Berlin). It's not too far from Maastricht. Is Joan's point that by speaking near that symbol of European unity Obama will highlight his own issues with NAFTA? I would like some clarification here.

Many thanks,

HPhiB

PS: Joan, I hope Nora enjoys her first semester in community college. Stay strong and keep her away from the "overprivileged class!"

While I agree with you that Obama's capitulation on FISA is cause for chagrin, I felt that the snarkiness that you indulged in regarding Hillary Clinton's vote against the bill detracted from your otherwise powerful point. I don't think you can so easily dismiss speculation that Hillary, were she the presumptive nominee rather than Obama, would've cast the same cynical vote as "silly". Nothing in Clinton's political record suggests that she

would've, with so much more at stake, have shown any more backbone than Obama. The "more progessive" healthcare and populist policies that she presented were largely co-opted from John Edwards, and you know as well as I do that whomever the Democratic nominee was would've "modified" their stance on NAFTA once general election season arrived.

As the great Glenn Greenwald himself has written, to criticize Obama on this issue is not to say that he isn't clearly a better choice than McCain. In your own previous posts, you have made clear that, realistically, progressives don't have anywhere else to go. The options, sadly, are clear: stay at home and be marginalized, vote for Nader and be marginalized, write in for Hillary/Russ Feingold/Homer Simpson and be marginalized, vote for McCain in betrayal of all of the values that one would hold in professing oneself a progressive, or vote for the candidate who will best advance progressive values, while holding his feet to the fire when his actions deem it necessary to do so.

Progressives were destined to lose this battle. FISA is just too much of a non-starter for the average American, and the sad truth is, most people, if given the choice,

would sacrifice individual freedoms for security. Most of us would rather be safe than free. If this were not the case, the Republican party would not be able to so consistently and successfully use fear as a campaign tool. This is not to absolve Obama for what can only be described as a very troubling reversal, and does not mean that we who are sufficiently aware of what was lost today shouldn't be disgusted at a political

party that often seems incapable of standing for any principals. Since Obama is the anointed leader of that party, and one who brazenly professed not to do cowering,

he deserves the brunt of your scorn. However, let us not pretend that Hillary Clinton would be a more progressive alternative, and let us not pretend that we really

have viable alternatives. The tragedy is that while I will continue to support Obama enthusiastically, there will be many who would've otherwise been proud to cast their

vote for him whom will now do so "holding their nose" as tightly as they would've had Hillary won out.

If it was offered at no price.

Like I need another online tabloid only now one with a TV talking head as its editor? If you're looking for level headed you're not gonna find it here. But if hype and flash are your kind of thing, you won't get substance, but you might get a little bit of zing.

Obama had a unique opportunity to at least be a politician who manifested integrity, and ideally someone who harnessed the power of that grassroots action. He can no longer claim that integrity

That's just it, grassroots movements can't rely on any individual politician or political party to change society. I was never relying on Obama to do the things we must do ourselves. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that as a movement, progressives NEED a receptive political leader in the White House that can be moved.

We elect politicians who are more receptive to progressive thinking and push them with sheer numbers.

Abolitionists were appalled by the nomination of Lincoln. One of his biggest critics was Frederick Douglas. They would have rather had Chase or Seward. But Chase or Seward would never had been elected and what direction would history have taken if Douglas was elected instead of Lincoln?

With Obama, progressives have an opportunity to make gains. Were the Republicans to retake the Congress or retain the White House, the opportunities will be nil.