Transparency is a good thing.

BTW, Haywood and Hugh are soon-to-be unemployed GOP lobbyists.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

Wow, he'll know more about employees then the American people know about him.

Somebody suggested why not ask: "Do you or any members of your immediate family know a terrorist? If so, provide complete details about the individual. Has the terrorist ever attacked people or federal buildings?"

First, I really don't get this continuing fascination with the ticket that lost the election. It is over, Obama won and why would anyone continue to talk about it?

Second, if this is what they are going to do and stick with it then this should be a good thing for the Obama administration but I do ask, what would Obama's answers be? The transparency that will become a standard, if this is what they do will be a good thing for the running of the federal government but I also have to ask are they going to shortchange their staffing if someone has something minor in their history but has great credentials? Still, the focus on transparency will be quite good and the tradeoff may well be worth it.

I come to this site a few times a week as I consider myself a moderate when it comes to politics so I fail to understand why so many that voted for Obama are seemingly focused on Palin. I mean, good grief, Obama won and now the focus should be on the transition and the very serious issues facing our nation. The VP-elect was honest and quite correct about how the world will test Obama and are we going to be carrying on like Clinton and the Republicans were and take our focus off the ball or support our President, following his example of bipartisanship or act like a very immature child over Palin? It is these comments about the losing candidate that have moderates like me scared because your focus really is all wrong if Palin is in your sites.

...this nation has not been attacked for over seven years.

No major elephant stampedes either. But Bush did start a war that had nothing to do with 9/11 and has killed many more Americans than 9/11 did as well as tens or hundreds of thousands of others, plus millions who have been displaced, close to a trillion $ of our money spent, etc.

And who was president on that day 7 years ago? Why the freebie, when he was sworn to protect us then, not just after an attack? If we're attacked next September, who will you blame, Obama or Bush?

...You know, that is what causes these people like that man who shot up that church this summer to do what he did,...

No, that comes from a sick individual being fed a constant stream of hate over many years from "upstanding" mainstream media targeting "Real Americans" with a drumbeat message that all problems are caused by the other political side and that a dispute over the right to acquire weaponry is a fundamental reason for the hate. Amid frequently hearing virtual calls to arms, these disturbed individuals--who can't ever get the attention they truly need under a GOP system--lose the ability to distinguish between figurative language and literal.

Do you promote that kids watching video games will be killers too?

Probably some of them, yes.

(link...)

I didn't mean "blame" for launching attacks, of course, just blame for not successfully protecting our country, which you stupidly credited to Bush.

In war, and why that our Congress has been nervous about saying we are in a way [war?] is unexplicable [sic], there are casualties and while you and others can grieve about how many non-Americans are allegedly dead, even if they are that is how is goes when protecting America.

Oh, you're one of those. Everybody deserves what they get for f-ing with the Great U.S. of A.!!! And you dare accuse me of hate. I feel sorry for pathetic types like you. Fortunately, the era of Bush Doctrine arrogance is over.

Second, the hate you are spewing now is no different from that man from this summer and since he is probably mentally ill anyhow please stop making wrong comparisons.

I am just as bad as a hate crime murderer? Uh, yeah, whatever. My observation, though, was valid. Come back when you can point to any violent hate crimes that were committed by liberal, gun-crazy pacifists. In the mean time, chew on this stat, which immediately makes your side look even more demented.

An interactive version of the 2008 Plum Book is coming soon.

sOrrie for my sloppie riting. Im reel bad especually on usin mis-unreferenced pronouns. iLL try again more real carefull.

...with a drumbeat message that all problems are caused by the other political side.

The message coming from purveyors of hate who wrongly place blame in order to further their political war (e.g., Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Liddy, Savage, et. al).

...who can't ever get the attention they truly need under a GOP system.

Meaning the recipients of said hate, some of whom are mentally disturbed enough to act on said blame

Hope this helpps alittle. sORRi!!!!!

Dear Mr. Nobody Bailey,

I'm sorry we have failed you on your frequent quests here to find a font of peace and love. At least some here have tried on rare occasion (see here and here).

I'm sure you're right that we can try harder to follow the numerous examples you keep setting for us in your comments. Thanks for all you do to make this a better progressive blog.

Hey, there used to be a commercial that asked, "Where's the beef?" Now I would ask Obama, where's the change? How many old Clinton has-beens are gonna run his show? I would think that surely he could have found mostly new talent but I do like that it seems he is going to change little about Bush's focus on security, save for giving more effort to getting bin Laden and al Qaeda. If he does that I say right on but since his first full fledged national security briefing, I do wonder why he has toned down his mouth about Bush so much, imagine that. Add in that he is bringing in two Bush officials for his national security team and wow, what will his devoted loyalists say about that?