Of course it is a serious issue, and of course it deserves consideration. But the President cant advocate for it. It is a political impossibility. He would becoame a one man Cheech and Chong. America is much closer intellectually to witch burning than to legalized marijuana. I am not saying the change is not possible. I think it is. I think it will happen soon. But it needs to be introduced by a whole host of people from both major parties, otherwise the party which does introduce it will be pulverized. And this is not like fighting for a principle that has decency behind it like civil rights. No matter what it will be seen as legalizing a drug.

Up to this point I had been an Obama cheerleader, everything he said seemed articulate and compassionate after eight years of that embarrassing moronic fuck-wit from Texas. But yesterday's dismissive, joking response to a serious inquiry really disappointed me. I think he could do better, and I hope that he will do so when the opportunity arises again.

Rated.

-Greatfuldan
Take a look at the context of the question. It asked in a way that legalizing pot would be a way to improve the economy. The president is a wonk, he understands our language. He's not going to fall for a trap that would bring the knuckle draggers out in droves.

Thank you Paul for your articulate and powerful piece here. One of the best stated on this topic.
Bill and menathan: We've had 72 years of the same excuses you offer here. It really has worked so well this far...Tommy Chong has had the courage to stand up for this issue for decades...even went to prison for it. All Obama has to do is have a debate.
You think he'll be pulverized Bill? I think he is far stronger than that. Marijuana law refrom is probably the only truly bi partisan issue...Please, look at the federal and state legisaltion that has been voted upon and/or passed.
Civil Rights, Womens Sufferage, GLBT rights, abortion rights are just a few important social justice changes that happened without a whole host of individuals from both parties. But instead of asking a handful of brilliant polticians to stand up for the issue....marijuana should just wait until a majority of mediocre ones come around from the outdated and extreme politcal concept of absolute cannabis prohibiton....
And please look at the polls...even a webpoll on CNN today....America is actually closer intellectually to legalizing marijuana than almost any other issue. Pot is more popular than the President himself.

Congratulations: You've found the perfect combination of subject matter to become the blogger laureate for slackers -- television and pot.

You're barking up the wrong tree, James - my audience, as demonstrated here, is clearly composed of highly articulate, energized readers.

1st, he's already got yer vote.
2nd, what makes you think he should do what you want?
3rd, him turning green would scare many, anger many, and do him no good.
4th, if you had citizen initiative, you could act like citizens.
5th, but you don't. you prefer to beg, to whine, but never, never act.
6th, you can smoke anyway, or switch to beer.
7th, many, many people think he's got more important things to do, a viewpoint i recommend.

On the other hand, "blogger laureate for slackers" has a pretty nice ring - how about I think about putting it on the back of my next book.

Good post and most concise, intelligent argument I've seen on this issue in recent memory. However, my friend, Bill, is right. The President really had no choice but to "just say no" in a country where he's already been castigated for not wearing a flag pin and his wife villified for not ALWAYS being proud of America as an adult who's witnessed of a plethora of wrongs perpetrated by this very nation. Look, I don't smoke pot or cigarettes either and I do drink now and again. But I think alcohol is the most dangerous substance ever legalized, yet prohibition only criminalized it and created a culture of violence that we see mimicked in the drug wars now. So, eventually, there will have to be some type of de-criminialization of drugs, at least marijuana, just to stop the madness. In the meantime, I pity the fool who risks his political career by being honest enough to state what was so eloquently written in this post.

I agree that it would not be politically wise for Pres. Obama to advocate for legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana at this time.

However, from what I understand, alcohol is far more addictive and dangerous than marijuana, much more likely to contribute to violence and fatal car accidents.

I found this article to be very interesting:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126885.100-radical-alternatives-proposed-for-cannabis-controls.html?full=true

The only way it would be legalized is if you gave a big pharamceutical the right to manufacture a THC pill. Then you could bet something would get done with billions in lobbying money. Nevada came damn close to legalizing it though.

This is such a dicey issue. I am mostly libertarianish on this one, although I do get the idea that highly addictive drugs, like meth, might suck someone in and ruin his life from that one try. You might argue that most of us don't choose to use or not use drugs based on their legality (For example, if meth were legalized tomorrow, I would still know what I know about it and choose not to try it), but there really is a subset of people who assume that anything that's legal is not harmful, and those idiots might get sucked in. And then where are we? Gosh, like I said, really, really complicate. Thanks for tackling it. No answers from this corner. (On pot, obviously, I agree with you).

Paul - haven't you figured out yet that Obama is a politician. If you believed everything he said in the campaign then you were fooled.
He will not do this because his ambitions come before your wants.
And unfortunately or fortunately (however you look at it) he will not make a big deal to legalize pot. The political cost is too high on both sides.

The day after the election he signed a bill to continue the spying on Americans. Something many of his voters do not support or appreciate. But he obviously knew he was going to do it and it never really came up as a campaign question. Although I have many liberal friends who thought he being against it was implied.
He will do what he wants for himself, not his voters. If the two are the same then fine. If not, the voters will take second seat.
Look at torture. We wont do it, but he is allowing rendition;
allowing the dirty work to be done elsewhere while keeping his hands clean. He said it is unacceptable because it was a good talking point. But new he is Pres now and knows the threat score and he will keep it under wraps. Bush came right out and said it so everyone is shocked. Obama will downplay it and let the public awareness dissipate.
It is easy to promise cures for all the left outrage during a campaign. Its not so easy to keep those promises when you are responsible for the safety of the country.
He will continue to break campaign promises, rightfully so in my book, but it will be at the disappointment of the far left who believed every work he said.
Won't raise tax on less then 250K income? That is already being broken by "taxing" in ways other than income tax.
But that is politics.

I completeley understand all the political and strategic reasons for not endorsing the legalizing of marijuana. But what is really starting to bother me about him is 'the political business as usual' feeling I'm getting every time I see or hear him. Seeing Rahm Emmanuel with that gloating snicker on his face in the background as the president was doing so well answering the questions was disturbing. Tell me the truth Mr. President, just go ahead and say all the things that the smart people on Open Salon pointed out about the consequences to his career. He brought up the question (against the advice of his handlers?) and then he jokingly dismissed it without any discussion or explanation beyond the few words he said. I voted for him and it hurt my feelings.

Paul
I live near Vancouver, Canada, where street murders of drug sellers have happened at about 1 a week since January... sometimes 3 or 4 in a night, all caused by the war on drugs in Mexico that has dried up supplies here in British Columbia. We trade weed for coke and ecstasy pills, apparently, and the shortage of Mexican hard drugs has resulted in street wars for larger slices of a hugely lucrative drug money pie.

Sometimes innocent bystanders are caught in the hail of bullets, too, so it's not enough to say, "go ahead, shoot each other!"

And, Hillary Clinton said in Mexico last week that the American demand for drugs is what fuels the crime there. And, our politicians won't TOUCH the pot legalization thing for fear of offending your government, of whom we live in terror of offending, constantly. You should experience the trial of getting across the border now, for ordinary citizens, after 9/11 !!!

It's a political nightmare. What could Obama do but smile? A really wonderful thing for America will be Medicare for all, and that alone will cost him a second term, so how can he possibly go for legalized pot?

When he laughed his snide and sneering little chuckle about what kinds of people voted the question, I felt insulted.
I hope that he is TOLD about what kinds of people voted for that question.
Many many of us HERE are business people, home owners, etc.
Also, many many of us do NOY use drugs.
I am one who uses no alcohol or OTHER drugs.
I supported that question being asked.
So, what "kind of person" am I?
I may pose that question for the next "clownhall" meeting.
I wonder what "kinds of people" would vot efor my question?

And, we have a new troll laureate, J J Barker(up the wrong tree).lol

Paul, I so agree. It was easier to laugh because the question concerned solving the economic crisis--it may help a great deal to decriminalize and tax, but it is not a panacea. It would have been harder to laugh had the question addressed the class war aspect of the cops seizing all assests even before the trial (for their own use and profit) and wrongful imprisonment for a victimless crime.

I know that Obama has bigger fish to fry; however, this has been the TOP issue in all the internet opportunities to provide input. To dimiss it with a laugh is to appear not to be listening. Altho, many studies have shown that decriminalization is the correct way to proceed, it is never acted upon. However, I think he should at least appoint a commission to study it; if similar findings are shown, then he could point to that to take any action which might remove the heat from him.
I do not know what percentage of the Mexican drug trade is pot--since we began limiting the sale of ingredients, Meth is now an imported drug. That is the worst problem.

Maybe we could get large corporations that produce snacks to lobby by convincing them that the more marijuana smokers, the more munchies...

Legalizing marijuana is a hot potato issue. Although I would have voted for that question being asked (had I got around to voting), I wasn't insulted by his joke about the people who voted online for this question--give him a break. I thought it was funny.

Obama's answer simply said he didn't think it was a way to grow the economy. That leaves the door open. Indeed, his attorney general, Eric Holder, has already taken some initial steps to decriminalize marijuana. More steps (making it a misdemeanor for instance) would gradually get people used to the idea. We need to approach this slowly. I can visualize a day when marijuana will be legalized but not in the near future. It would be political suicide for the president right now.

Good post--I am so glad you brought this up for discussion.

My only problem with making it legal is that there is not, to my knowledge, an accurate test to tell if someone is too stoned to drive.

Freedomisgreen,

First of all, I dont offer excuses. I have nothing to excuse. You are not going to send me to my room without dessert. I am not ducking anything.

Second, you are underestimating the puritanical base of this society. Understand me when I say this. I am not opposed to legalization. I tend to think it is a good idea. But the vast majority of people do not follow issues. The vast majority are not open minded about such things. If the President were to be involved with it, or suggest doing it, he would be branded a drug dealer. The President is a singular asset. Would I use that asset for this issue to the exclusion of all others? No. And the chance does exist that could happen.

We have sports where you bounce balls off of every exposed surface of your body. Can you name one where you bounce things off of your eyeballs? No? Why do you think that is?

The real benefit to legalizing marijuana will be getting people to FINALLY shut up about it.

:)

The point that I think everyone is missing about pot is the enormous economic potential of industrial hemp. We purchase hemp products from China and Canada and on the other hand, militarize our southern border. We could suppliment our biofuel, textile and paper industries by stopping the prohibition of industrial hemp.The agricultural sector would boom. Is HEMP really a four letter word in America?

The folks who "missed an opportunity" are all those whose PRIMARY issue appears to be legalizing pot. Now we've got a president who's fighting fires on a number of fronts, particularly against a media that's just waiting to jump on his ass for any question/answer.

While legalizing pot has a number of positive effects, putting Obama on the spot, criticizing him for not cheerleading the effort, and choosing this as The Most Important Issue of Our Time, is just plain stupid.

It makes the "hippie, pot-smoking, slacker" character look less crazy.

At the risk of barking up the wrong tree (or whispering up the wrong bush in this case), I want to address the first point that Paul makes in his posting.

Before doing that, however, I think that Obama's laughing and dismissive reaction to the question about pot is indicative of Obama's overall stance - he is solidly within the framework of the ruling circles and what they will and will not countenance. He never, ever goes outside that charmed circle. first, because he doesn't think differently from those inside the circle, and second, even (arguably) if and when he did, he isn't going to jeopardize his career and the privileges of power and fame by biting the hands that feed him. His reaction is a statement about the man and his worldview.

Now as to the first point that Paul makes about "democracy:"

I don't make a practice of regularly reading PL's postings, but he does manage to get EP's and so they come to my attention. I say this because he may have at some point commented about the fact that Obama has UPHELD the Bush White House's egregious violations of the rule of law and of morality: to wit, to name just a few of the most damning and consequential, - torture, rendition, indefinite detention, commission of the supreme war crime (invading a country that has not attacked you first), signing statements that overrule the law just passed by Congress, "state secrets," and domestic spying.

In case anyone objects that Obama has SAID the US doesn't torture, note that torture has gotten worse at Gitmo since he was elected and note that Obama, contrary to his public pronouncements about habeas corpus being the "foundation of Anglo-American law," has decided that the some 600 prisoners being held at Bagram have no right to challenge their detentions.

Exactly what kind of "democracy" is a president advancing and improving upon when he sabotages keystones of liberty?

Even if Obama WEREN'T doing these shocking things himself, his refusal to prosecute the Bush regime for their transgressions means that any president, himself included, could openly override the law, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution more generally, and say that Bush and Cheney got away with it, why can't I? Indeed, Obama has already used two signing statements since taking office.

It's shocking to me that Paul and others like him can overlook these matters of such magnitude and like Pollyannas speak of Obama advancing democracy.

It seems to me that the anti-marijuanna laws at the federal level are essentially an Un-Constitutional extension of the Commerce Clause.
It is now Supreme Court Doctrine that if you grow a pot plant in the backyard, then because you would have bought the pot on the "market" you are affecting demand, and therefore the Commerce Clause is operative.
That is an absurd extension of Gibbons versus Ogden. It should be like we should have done with abortion, and made it a matter for the Several States to decide. The Right and the Left are getting hoist by their own petard of not being willing to live within a Constitutional framework; a pox on both their houses.

Maui Mom wrote: "While legalizing pot has a number of positive effects, putting Obama on the spot, criticizing him for not cheerleading the effort, and choosing this as The Most Important Issue of Our Time, is just plain stupid."

Did I or anyone else say this is "the most important issue of our time"? It's your strawman that's stupid, not criticizing Obama for missing an opportunity on this important issue.

Dennis Loo wrote: "I don't make a practice of regularly reading PL's postings..."

There's your main problem - but it is refreshing to see such a frank admission of ignorance.

Unfortunately our politicians are hampered by the fact that they run for reelection every 2, 4, or six years. I can't see it happening.

While I agree it is probably the right thing to do, Obama is in no position to advocate for legalization at this time. The Right would portray him as a crazed left-wing druggie. What is needed is someone in a safe House seat to take the lead on this and become the point person. It won't pass this time, but it will start the country warming up to the idea.

p.s. - Happy Belated Birthday

Paul:

I do find your postings amusing (and far, far less toxic than Dr. Amy) and so when you get an EP, I sometimes tune in.

My point was, obviously, that I wanted to allow for the possibility on your part that you HAVE published something previously lamenting Mr. Obama's abject failure to put an end to the horrid anti-democratic (to say the least) practices of the Bush regime since you don't even remotely hint at this in the current post - quite the opposite, in fact. For you to then reply, in total, with this -

"Dennis Loo wrote: 'I don't make a practice of regularly reading PL's postings...'

"There's your main problem - but it is refreshing to see such a frank admission of ignorance." -

is, certainly, not only wrong, since I wasn't confessing "ignorance," (it takes quite an ego, by the way, to claim that one is an ignoramus if they don't read all of Paul Levinson's undoubtedly extraordinarily edifying postings), but even more telling, you haven't even tried to address the heart of the point I was making. To restate it:

To say that Obama is advancing the cause of democracy and ignoring completely all of the things he has been doing that are the very opposite of that, as you do, is a grievous oversight and a sign, err hmm, of ignorance, may I say?

But then, for me to expect that you would argue with actual evidence, perhaps I expect too much?

In any effort to loosen the cult-like anti-drug laws, regulations, and culture, your up against primarily White European-based ethnic biases. Illegal drug enforcement has grown into a huge business with many thousands of full time jobs on the line and a total budget nationwide of, what, $100 billion per year?

Brazil's President Lula Da Silva's recent comment on "White, blue eyed culpability" for the financial debacle is even more appropriate applied to the handling of what is deemed "illegal drugs."

.............Prison INDUSTRY ............ Law enforcement INDUSTRY................Read Catherine Austin Fitts, she sounds like another conspiracy ranter but it make me ask the question; why is the fixation always on commerce? Bush was fixated on saving us from EVIL...now this guy is fixated on saving us from STUPIDITY in the finance industry( oops! and now saving us from Al Qaeda!)

I feel confident I can take care of myself at my local level.......I would like to try at least!

It's NOT a serious issue and it deserves NO consideration! Every so often, usually when a Democrat gets elected to the White House, the pot heads come out of hiding and try one...more...time to convince the rest of us that we're actually missing out on something here that only THEY seem to understand. You are all mouthing nothing new.

I wish you all would just stop using, abusing, and blowing smoke of all kinds and stop trying to foist drugs on the rest of society. If the War on Drugs is a dismal failure then it's more because of the buyers than U.S. policy. Maybe you all should just stop buying them and we can save a few billion dollars and actually use the money for other more positive things than cleaning up after your sorry butts.

Come to think of it, I"ve never heard a sucessful person stand up and say, "I'd like to thank my drug dealer for helping to make this happen."

Dennis Loo wrote: "To say that Obama is advancing the cause of democracy and ignoring completely all of the things he has been doing that are the very opposite of that, as you do, is a grievous oversight and a sign, err hmm, of ignorance, may I say?"

You "may say" whatever you like.

But, alas, all that I can say in response to your above point is that it is absurd. The very text of my post should tell you why: The essence of democracy, as Walter Lippmann pointed out back in the 1920s (The Phantom Public, etc) , is an informed and participating public. And that is precisely what an online news conference, with questions asked by people in general, and not just reporters, is doing.

The examples of Obama working against democracy that you cite, by the way, are issues of policy not of democratic process. A democracy can do terrible things - as, for example, in the case of the direct democracy in Athens, when it sentenced Socrates to death, as I delve into in my novel, The Plot to Save Socrates - but it is still the best system of governance ever devised by human kind (or, as Churchill said, the least worst system of government).

Kingsfan wrote: "p.s. - Happy Belated Birthday"

Thanks! :)

What is the nature of democracy?

Paul wrote at the start of his original posting:

"I enjoyed Barack Obama's online townhall meeting yesterday - the first ever, and a good thing for democracy, as have been so many other innovations in new media communication initiated in the Obama campaign and continuing now in his governance."

I took issue with Paul over his first paragraph above as Pollyannish given the appalling (and obviously undemocratic) things that Obama has been doing since becoming president.

Paul, fortunately, in his second response to me, is at last citing some evidence and making an argument instead of being snippy.

Paul asserts, citing Lippmann, that the essence of a democracy is "an informed and participating public."

Let us, for the sake of argument, take that definition as sufficient. Yes, an online news conference could potentially be a forum for better informing the public and enhancing participation. But what Paul misses here is the essence - what is the content of what is actually going on?

Obama can have as many online news conferences as he wants. In the course of these events, Obama has claimed repeatedly that he is not torturing people and that people - at Gitmo and elsewhere - have the right to habeas corpus. This is Obama's way of "informing" the people because an uninformed people cannot, by Lippmann's definition of democracy, make good decisions.

When you examine what Obama has actually done in relation to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and upon Pakistan, torture, rendition, indefinite detentions, habeas corpus, and "state secrets," to name just a few, what you find is that what Obama and his people have been SAYING about what they're doing, and what they are ACTUALLY doing in, for example, Federal Appeals Court filings, are totally the opposite of each other.

Obama is DELIBERATELY misleading and deceiving the public. (Glenn Greenwald at Salon, among others, has been very good on tracking this, by the way.) His deceit, in some ways, is even more egregious than Bush and Cheney's in that Obama claims to be a man of the people and is getting over on people in doing things that Bush and Cheney would have had a harder time doing.

If Paul wants to claim that these are "policy" questions and that they are not germane to the question of his touting of Obama's extension of "democracy," then he is free to do so.

But for most people, the contrast here is stark. We have a president who claims to be an agent of change and hope who is retaining rendition (grabbing people and exporting them against their wills to third party countries where torture is routine), signing statements (he's used them twice already) and thereby overriding Congressional laws, indefinite detentions (expressly denying Bagram prisoners the right to habeas corpus and making the despicable argument in court recently that habeas corpus doesn't apply to four former Gitmo prisoners who were unjustly held and tortured), massive, warrantless domestic surveillance, the duplicitous argument that the US government must launch attacks on sovereign countries (thus violating international law) and continue (unjust) occupations (despite his promises and "informing" of the people that he would withdraw from Iraq) because these people are "plotting attacks on us" (exactly how Pakistani and Afghani and Iraqi children who are being killed in these military actions are plotting against us I do not see).

Paul is right to say that democracies have (sometimes) done grievously wrong things and cites Socrates' condemnation to death as an outstanding example of this. Democracies are, after all, by themselves, majority rule. They do not guarantee liberty by themselves nor do they guarantee correct decisions since a majority can be wrong.

If we as professors (which Paul and I both are), for example, play a role in the shaping of public opinion, I think it is incumbent upon us to not willingly participate in pulling the wool over the people's eyes.

Lauding Obama, on the one hand, for extending democracy and, on the other hand, failing to point out grievous actions on Obama's part that utterly undercut both "informing" the people about what's going on and the people's ability to actually "participate" (since they thought (because they were misinformed and also not thinking clearly) when they voted for Obama that he was going to be different from Bush and Cheney and end the war at least in Iraq), and they are getting the opposite of this, then one is not advancing democracy but helping to hoodwink the people.

Finally, the notion that democracies can do bad things, but these are "policy" issues only, as Paul argues in part, represents an ethnocentric view of the world. We here in the US, according to his view, have our democracy and what we do to non-Americans, well, that's a policy question.

Professor Loo - Wonderful read.
Too bad we don't have a few folks with your reasoning abilities in Treasury or State Dept... or anywhere else besides UCSC.

The War on Drugs is a war against consciousness, pure and simple. It is, at its core, about tightening control. And it is the one aspect of the current abuse of governmental power that effects all of our lives.

How, for example, is it OK with anyone that in order to secure or retain a job, one must pee in a cup. Frankly, that is so out of balance that I don't even know where to begin.

Where, I ask, does sovereign control over one's own body, harming no other, begin and end?

Make no mistake about it, this is an issue of civil rights, and until the so-called progressive movement gets that, they are doomed to watch while our constitutional freedoms continue to erode.

For that matter, the conservative right ought to get it too.

Dennis Loo wrote: "Finally, the notion that democracies can do bad things, but these are "policy" issues only, as Paul argues in part, represents an ethnocentric view of the world. We here in the US, according to his view, have our democracy and what we do to non-Americans, well, that's a policy question."

You're inserting a spin and indeed a crucial word, in the above, which is not in my comment, and therefore was not what I was asserting. The word is "only," which implies that I think issues in general are less important than the democratic process.

That was not my point at all.

Here, in sum, is what I see the two of us as discussing:

1. Lev: Obama's innovations in new media have been "good for democracy" - or, helpful to the democratic process.

2. Loo: Obama has taken (or not taken) the following positions, therefore how can Lev say Obama has been facilitating the democratic process.

3. Lev: I was not talking about Obama's policies, I was talking about democracy as a process of government.

4. Loo: Lev's view that the issues Loo raises are "only" policy issues is ethno-centic, etc.

5. Lev: And so my response to that now is: I was not intending to make little - or a lot - of the issues you raised. I was, rather, pointing out that they have no bearing on the point of my blog, which is that Obama's new use of media is helping the democratic process.

PS - to Dennis Loo's allegation that Obama is misleading the public:

Again, the initial point of my post - with the online press conference as example - is that Obama has increased the opportunities for the public to question him.

Do you deny that?

As John Milton was one of the first to point out in the 2nd millennium: the best antidote for falsity is for truth to battle with it in the public marketplace of ideas.

I was insulted by Obama's unthinking dismissal of this issue at the town hall meeting. I and many others who support decriminalization of marijuana (as far as I'm concerned it's a civil liberties issue and all "consensual crimes," including gambling, prostitution and drug use, should be legal for adults) advocated, campaigned and voted for him. The question ranked high in several catagories (budget, drug policy, homeland security) and deserved more than a giggling, dismissive response from the president.

"My only problem with making it legal is that there is not, to my knowledge, an accurate test to tell if someone is too stoned to drive."

Yes we do. It's called "impaired behavior." Pretty much absent (if not completely absent- got to add those qualifiers!) in the case of cannabis, which is fairly evident simply by looking at the epidemiology of auto accidents. If cannabis was responsible for even a slightly disproportionate increase in that problem, it would have been headline news years- hell, decades- ago. (Every once in a while a story someplace like Reader's Digest floats a trial balloon trying to make the case, but it goes nowhere with the public.) The carnage from people leaving, say, stadium rock concerts would have been into the thousands.

It's a non-issue- and, as far as I can tell, one promulgated by people with little or no firsthand experience, making assumptions about the "intoxication" provided by other substances by using the model of alcohol, which is about the most degenerate comparison anyone could make.

Paul:

There’s a Monty Python character you no doubt know of named the “Black Knight” who keeps on fighting even though he’s lost all of his limbs.

You have lost the argument and you’d be better off admitting it and moving on. No one wants to be wrong and it’s hard to admit being wrong, but if you continue to try to fend off the truth then your credibility will suffer.

It’s better to make a clean break and if you do I will be the first to acknowledge it and congratulate you.

As it stands now you’re either unaware that you’ve lost, which is a shame, or you’re aware that you’ve lost but you’re still trying to wiggle out of it, which is also a shame.

You write:

“[T]o Dennis Loo's allegation that Obama is misleading the public:

“Again, the initial point of my post - with the online press conference as example - is that Obama has increased the opportunities for the public to question him.

“Do you deny that?”

First, as I said previously, you are confusing form with substance. Has Obama “increased the opportunities for the public to question him?” Compared to whom? Compared to Bush?

Your question is either intentionally framed as a trap, or you are demonstrating a superficiality of thought that is unbecoming. Even if it were true that Obama was increasing the opportunities for the people to question him, this is meaningless if he’s lying and getting away with it.

Obama is highly skilled rhetorically. He conveys impressions very convincingly to those who aren’t paying attention to the actual content of his words and to his actual deeds. One of the hallmarks of his candidacy and his presidency is the agility with which he and his team spin what they are doing. What is Obama actually doing in terms of content? You cannot separate the forms and processes from the actual content and outcomes. Otherwise democracy becomes all show and no meaning. This is precisely what Obama is all about.

Second, you say that it is an “allegation” of mine that Obama is misleading the public.

I do not state this as an allegation; I state it as a fact.

It is an obvious fact to any and all willing to confront it.

I’m going to cite only three examples of this fact (There are many, many other examples besides this and they are growing daily. I invite you and others to examine the evidence at my OS blog, in Glenn Greenwald’s columns at Salon, and at worldcantwait.net).

1) Obama is lying about Iraq. He campaigned on the pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months. He has recently stated, as everyone knows, that it’s now going to take 18 months and he’s still going to be leaving up to 50,000 troops indefinitely. He’s calling these troops “non-combat” troops but changing the name doesn’t change the reality. Calling troops non-combat is like calling a vampire a vegetarian. It doesn’t make the vampire less likely to suck your blood.
2) Obama’s changed the terminology, he’s no longer going to refer to detainees as “unlawful enemy combatants,” but he’s going to do with them essentially what Bush did. As I wrote in an essay entitled “Undermine the Foundation, What Happens to the Structure?”

“Yesterday the New York Times reported:

“’The Obama administration said Friday that it would abandon the Bush administration’s term ‘enemy combatant’ as it argues in court for the continued detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a move that seemed intended to symbolically separate the new administration from Bush detention policies.

“But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.” (Bold added).

3) Obama asserted unequivocally during the campaign that habeas corpus, your right to challenge your detention, is a foundational legal principle. During a September 8, 2008 campaign rally he stated: "Habeas corpus ... is the foundation of Anglo-American law, which says very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' and say, 'Maybe, you've got the wrong person."

On March 8, 2009 Obama told the NY Times that we give everyone habeas corpus rights. He then added that if they suspect someone’s a high value terrorist, then he MIGHT not give that person habeas corpus and he reserved the right to go beyond the Field Manual in the “interrogation” of this suspect. His aides hastened to add a further caveat: when Obama said everyone has habeas corpus rights, he didn’t really mean everyone. Bagram prisoners don’t have habeas corpus rights, just Gitmo prisoners. On March 12, 2009, four days later, the Obama team qualified this even further: only Gitmo prisoners detained after June 2008 have habeas corpus rights.

In other words, Obama claims during the campaign that habeas corpus is a foundational principle, upon becoming president he continues to claim that he upholds this principle in practice, his aides rush to say that he doesn’t really mean everyone, just Gitmo prisoners, and not only that, only Gitmo prisoners held after June 2008.

Apparently the foundations for Anglo-American law date from less than a year ago!

Obama is lying and misleading people. He’s very good at it. How this squares with Paul’s claim that Obama is increasing democracy is up to Paul to explain. I hope for your sake and ours Paul that you abandon the effort of being an apologist for lying presidents. Otherwise, you’re engaged in the equivalent absurd exercise of stating that a knife found with blood still on it at a murder scene isn’t a knife at all but a harmless, flat piece of metal and that the blood on it isn’t blood, it’s ketchup.