Nothing wrong with that, and I agree with the conclusions, but it isn't actually journalism.

Harrington became a widely read intellectual and political writer. He would frequently debate noted conservatives but would also clash with the younger radicals in the New Left movements. He was present at the 1962 SDS conference that led to the creation of the Port Huron Statement, where he argued that the final draft was insufficiently anti-Communist. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. referred to Harrington as the "only responsible radical" in America, a somewhat dubious distinction among those on the political left. His high profile landed him on the master list of Nixon political opponents.

By early 1970s Shachtman's anti-Communism had become a hawkish Cold War liberalism. Shachtman and the governing faction of the Socialist Party effectively supported the Vietnam War and changed the organization's name to Social Democrats, USA. In protest Harrington led a number of Norman Thomas-era Socialists, younger activists and ex-Shachtmanites into the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee.

Harrington, who died in 1989, would have been appalled by the entire neocon phenomenon.

Your web crew last time was inexperienced and amateurish. If it's the same crew, let's hope they've learned a thing or two. If it's not, let's hope they're better.

The Labor Movement's campaign for EFCA has been really, really weak, especially in rebutting the coercion charge.

Their TV ads have been milquetoast fluff except for the latest Wall St. one, which was pretty good. I don't get the sense that they think they've needed to wage a PUBLIC campaign at all for EFCA, but they do.

Once again the right gets free rein to spread their manure while the left is afraid to touch the subject. I'd rather see a flaming liberal go down to defeat in an ideological battle royale against this Republican canard than "win" another moderate seat on the Supreme Court and avoid the issue.

"Strict constructionists" gave us Bush v. Gore. Never said a word about wars without declarations. Founding fathers my ass. Strict constructionism is basically lipstick on a racist pig.

He's not just intelligent but more importantly, original. The first I knew about and expected. The second is a really pleasant surprise.

Yet I must agree with you this time, this was an EXTRAORDINARY read. Obama is talking the talk better than anyone I've ever read. There's a lot of original stuff here, stuff that no one else says, that I happen to have believed for a long time and wished someone would say.

Read his intelligent remarks on factory work and the people who do it. Who talks like this anymore? It was great. Who else talks about restoring a balance between this kind of work and other kinds that have so dominated recently. And sheesh, was anyone noticing his remarks on the importance or lack thereof of a college education? Instead of the mindless drivel that everyone should get a four-year college education, he both reiterated the value of such an education, while saying it wasn't necessarily for everyone and listing alternatives that might be close to as good. About time someone stood up for, in more than a rhetorical way, for increasing the respect given to people who do this type of work.

This is a man who understands the need for a BALANCED economy. This is something I never dreamed I'd hear from anyone in power.

Now, if he would only stop kissing up to Wall Street and actually take some concrete steps in this direction, my happiness will be complete. But that was a hell of an interview and I urge everyone to read it.

The modus operandi seems to keep throwing anything and everything at the wall and see any of it sticks. Hard to imagine anything like this sticking, but who am I to give them advice.

This lets the Dems play fat. dumb. and happy for now, but frankly, I'd like to see a more organized effort to take advantage of this.

Even if you like your employer's plan, will you like it after the next round of cuts?

A New Deal that was a failure would not have allowed the party that sponsored it to enjoy two generations of political and ideological supremacy.

There are still enough Americans alive who remember a time when things were better than they are now that this gambit of delegitimizing the New Deal will not succeed.

My point: if you're right, and President Obama has no intention of doing anything like privatizing Social Security, WHAT HARM does it do if he receives a million letters saying "Don't screw with my Social Security"? At worst it gives him some unneeded ammunition to use against those who will argue with him for privatization.

The campaign is over, HR. What you, I, or the world thinks of Obama is not the point. The point is what policies come out of the government. I'm willing to wait to see what Obama says but in the meantime, all those cards and letters coming in can't hurt a thing.

I crossed NPR off my list years ago for just these reasons. Welcome to the club.

The NPR model is inherently flawed - when you have a government dominated for the right wing for 28 years, inevitably, public broadcasting will be affected (or should I say, infected).

I am frankly much more impressed with the Air America model which finally appears to have stabilized itself, and I'm more than willing to put up with tacky commercials that air there as a fair price for decent radio in corporate-dominated America.

You have presented actual evidence to the contrary, instead of just questioning the motives of those who disagree with you. I don't know what I think now, but your evidence-based approach to the question should not go unrewarded.