analysis you hit all the numbers and set things out in a scholarly manner. In your outright homage to Barack Obama prior to this, however, you do everything but offer to have his babies.

I find it interesting that you have absolutely no ability or inclination to be fair and balanced where your outright worship of Obama is concerned but can see every wart on legal war policy manipulations.

So I guess what I'm getting around to asking is 'Who REALLY wrote today's summary and analysis for you and does he or she get a substantial cut of your Slate payment for doing your gravitas level thinking for you?'

What does this have to do with anything?

Gatewood is a rapid Shrillary supporter. She can't post anything without the obligatory slam on Obama.

Yoo was just pimping out the law for his ideology and that in her lesser way Dahlia darling doesn't hesitate to pimp out her Slate bully pulpit spot to do the same thing for her ideological god.

It's rather good to know these things when critics are in turn committing similar errors in ethics, even only on the e-zine level. Honesty and integrity; you know those intangible elements that are no longer in vogue in this world? At what level does ethical corruption begin, and when does it begin to matter?

Still if you want to be ignorant that's your personal call.

Gatewood:

Yoo was just pimping out the law for his ideology and that in her lesser way Dahlia darling doesn't hesitate to pimp out her Slate bully pulpit spot to do the same thing for her ideological god.

Thank you for proving my point.

To say the least!

It's just hard to take a Shrillary supporter when they talk about "honesty and integrity".