Your conclusion is especially profound - and I would love to see some research that connects the dots between the American Likudniks and the health care battle.

Rec'd.

BUT...I think the debate can get back on track. I'm working on a letter now basically imploring the President to take the same personal ownership stake in this debate that he did in the stimulus debate.

All of the posters on this thread make good points, I believe. But the only way a strong public option is going to happen is if Obama starts throwing around some of those ethereal "political capital" chips he's been stacking.

Mr. President, you do NOT leave important legislation like this in the hands of Congress. That is the one sure way to end up with health care UNreformed. Screw the fear of a "unitary executive", Mr. President, and take over this effort NOW.

The Blue Dogs and New Dems will come along - but not for Pelosi, Clyburn, Waxman or Markey. Not for Reid, Kennedy or Dodd. Only for you, Mr. President, will they get off their fences. Give 'em a push.

Gallup says 61% approve. Oh, and he's been ranging from 59% to 69% in the same since his inauguration.

40% by December? Holy hyperbole, Batman! You're like the blogger who cried wolf.

Which was a major point of my comment on your last blog.

In fact, the VERY FIRST COMMENT you quote says:

I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

Obama's all but coming out and saying that any serious war/torture investigation will have to wait until his second term. This makes eminent political sense. He has a lot of immediate imperatives, and investigating Bushco can't be all that high on the list right now.

Moreover, Presidents usually do more politically difficult things in their *second* term, simply because they don't have to worry about getting re-elected.

Here's another quote from the passages above.

Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

All of the above is very well phrased doublespeak, which is second nature to a successful politician. Obama gave an answer here that commits him to, well, nothing.

How can you know if "there were high officials who...broke existing laws" and "...engaged in coverups" without investigating said officials first?

I'm not saying there aren't areas where Obama appears to be moving slowly, if not completely changing direction, on campaign promises.

What I am saying is that he never committed to investigating war crimes. Every one of the above quotes talks about things like restoring America's international reputation, dealing with our past, etc.etc. But it's a BIG jump to go from that to "Obama said he'd investigate, and he's not." Because, as far as I can recall, he never said that.

I do not recall his campaign making any definitive statements about investigating or prosecuting possible war crimes. If you have those, please cite your sources, as it would certainly strengthen your argument.

I have no objection to criticism of the President. I've engaged in it myself. And I do believe there needs to be an exhaustive inquiry into our conduct of the Iraq War. But I humbly suggest you should take some of the advice given upthread and examine the general public's reaction to the President's actions and policies to date. They simply don't point to the dire electoral losses you portend (threaten?).

I might also point out that the economy became the #1 issue the day Lehman Brothers crashed. That was six weeks before the election. The economy made itself the #1 issue. Stumping about DOMA/DADT is politically stupid when you're losing 500,000 jobs per month.

It's really strange how losing $1.2 trillion of market valuation in a single day's trading (the day after the first bailout vote failed in the House) can shift priorities, eh? The economic recovery, a great deal of which is tied to successful health care reform, is the administration's top priority, as it should be.

There are certain political realities that prevent hot-button issues like torture investigations and gay rights (both of which I support) from being on the front burner right now. Many of the votes Obama will need to get his economic initiatives through must come from Blue Dogs and New Democrats. These conservative Dems control about 1/3 of the House Democratic Caucus, and they are on the fence about or opposed to the President's positions on said hot-button issues. (You can safely assume near-lockstep Republican opposition on those issues.)

3rd Bass is currently on my iPod, and, appropriately enough for a Friday, Johnny Kemp is in the on-deck circle.

The point being, this sort of things happens with women all the time - whether they wink at the camera or not. It;s not right - but it's just as wrong that some women (and SP falls into this category) engage in some of the behavior artappraiser describes elsewhere in this thread.

And, sadly, all this may just be a prelude. Imagine the headlines and ledes if Stormy Daniels decides to challenge David Vitter. It'll make "lipstick on a pig" look like "chicken crossing the road" (no offense, Bwak!).

I did a lot of election canvassing in West Virginia, southern Ohio and central Pennsylvania. More than once, I got this joke thrown at me:

"Didja hear what 'CHANGE' stands for? 'Come Help a Nigger Get Elected'!"

Lest we forget, there are many modern variations on "nigger" jokes that do not actually use the word, in addition to those jokes which still do. It's easy to dismiss them because Obama actually won the election. But there are numerous vandalized campaign offices - and harassed campaign workers - who will gladly testify to just how "acceptable" some people find those jokes.

I regard your last sentence as pure speculation meant to cause foment, and it's disregarded as such due to a lack of supporting evidence for it. I hope that others who read it regard it similarly, as we have much bigger fish to fry.