You can do an experiment 10 times over the moon and not replicate a consistent answer. So, I relax with politics and sports. But, now they are both starting to give me heartburn.

Well, you might have to forgive some of us for not putting so much stock in the opinions of someone who admits that politics is for them mainly a diversion, similar to following team sports. Politics is also about changing the world. But it appears the whole substance of your tantrum is based on the fact that all this second-guessing of beloved Coach Barack is spoiling your fun, giving you heartburn, and interfering with your pleasure in rooting for the home team.

There is nothing wrong with having confidence in a political leader, Graduate Student. I have a fair amount of confidence in Obama, which is why I supported him fairly zealously for the nomination and the presidency. But I would suggest that our obligations as citizens consist in more than just getting good people elected, and then sitting back secure in our "faith" that that leader will do what we want. It's our job to be informed, and participate vigorously in the whole process of government, not just the elections part.

Obama emphasized repeatedly during the campaign that he wanted and expected bottom up participation in the process of government. Debating who should be selected for cabinet positions, promoting the people you support, and challenging and criticizing those you oppose, is precisely the kind of participation he is talking about. It's not a mutiny" to object to his decisions; it's citizenship.

Unless you are actually breaking the law, there is in fact no way for you to "mutiny" in this country, certainly not by expressing your opinion as far as your voice will reach. Barack Obama is not your captain. He will soon be your president, which means he is a public servant who works for you. It is your job to tell him what to do from time to time, especially on the most important decisions, and to work with others to push the government into making wise decisions. If you are not second-guessing the president from time to time, you are probably not doing your job.

Cabinet appointments are extremely important decisions that will have a large role in how the country is governed over the next four years. They happen early on, but are among the most important decisions Obama will make. It really does make a difference whom he picks, and you should pay attention. Do you think Barack Obama just makes these picks all alone with his conscience? He has hundreds of powerful people weighing in all day, people whose opinions and interests he is under enormous pressure to serve. If you and others like you don't provide a counterweight to that pressure, your interests will be neglected in favor of the interests of the powerful.

Candidates and presidents do pay attention to what is being said in blogs, newspaper editorials and other similar venues. A president's ability to get things done, and pass a legislative agenda, depends on his ability to keep the good will and support of a majority of the people, who will be making their wishes and feelings known to their elected representatives in Congress. That gives you a certain amount of power. Not a lot; not as much as Bill Gates; not as much as Ben Bernanke. But some. And by working with others in a coalition you can multiply your power.

I think you are wrong about the powerlessness of the blogs. We heard several times during the campaign that the voices of folks on the blogs may have had some influence on candidates' decisions. There is at least some good anecdotal evidence, for example, that the Obama campaign was close to selecting Evan Bayh as its VP candidate, but turned away from him due in part to a blogospheric uproar.

Based on your comments, I would guess you actually know little about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record. I won't review the long history of debate about that record, which goes far beyond a single Iraq War vote. But I think if you were better informed you might have a different perspective on the debate over whether she is the best person to be in charge of the State Department.

For some people, myself included, foreign policy positions constituted our strongest reasons for opposing Clinton's bid for the nomination. If we had wanted Clinton to be directing our foreign policy, we would have voted for her. This isn't just some sort of cranky "netroots" position, but was a widespread view among many Democrats all across the country. That doesn't mean I can't think of any good reasons for appointing Clinton. She is smart and hard-working, and has a a lot of important global connections. So she brings a lot to the table. And their are good political reasons related to party unity, and Obama's need to neutralize a potential rival in Congress. But I have to balance those reasons against the fact that she took a whole series of policy positions of which I disapproved. Since these policy positions are in some cases literally matters of life and death, I take the issues very seriously.

If you insist of regarding democracy as a fun sport, at least understand that it is supposed to be a participatory sport, not a spectator sport. I worked hard along with millions of others to get Obama elected. Now that he is elected, I will continue to work with others to try to make sure he implements policies I regard as sound. You are free tof do the same.