Yes, I've heard of irony and sarcasm. It's a stretch to claim that Cockburn was attempting either in his piece. What makes you think I'm a "right winger", or that I revere the memory of Reagan? Is there something at work in your mind which automatically conflates dislike for leftists as love for rightists? That's the sort of simplistic thinking I would expect from a progressive.

If you enjoy reading Cockburn's prose, fine. I have seen the way his magazine has carried the banner of Marxism for years, and I haven't forgotten nor forgiven the assaults and smears from him and his editorial partner, Jeffery St.Clair, in his magazine against Southerners who resisted the attempted outlawing of Confederate flags and monuments.

In my own view, both "wings" of collectivism are repugnant. I see the left vs right dichotomy as a sham. There's no real dichotomy at work there. If Hitler and Mussolini are on the right extreme of that spectrum and Stalin and Mao are on the left extreme, then everything in between is collectivisim.

Cockburn represents the moderate left area of that spectrum, just as Sean Hannity represents a slightly less moderate space in the right area of that spectrum. It matters not to me that Cockburn's prose is more intelligent or more articulate than Hannity's. What matters to me is that his ideology is collectivist, not how sweetly he can present his collectivist views. To me, he and Hannity are little different in essence. Both are collectivists.

You also mentioned; "I read for content and logic, not to have my political prejudices stroked."

If that is true, you wouldn't allow the stroking of your prejudices by Cockburn, who uses his well worded criticism of politicians you dislike to mask the advancement of his collectivist ideology, which is the thrust of his prose.

Cockburn's deliberate stroking of your political prejudices is likely the only reason you find his writing palatable.

Open YOUR eyes. Ever heard of irony? sarcasm? Cockburn even helps one grasp his tenor with his second sentence, "There’s nothing surprising here." Cockburn may not be right-wing, but I couldn't care less. I read for content and logic, not to have my political prejudices stroked.

Remember, right-wingers (so-called) brought us Reagan, the Belle Aire liberal who bankrupted the country, as Bill Kauffman has called him, and the most thoroughly depraved Oval Office occupant ever, whose baleful influence flourishes to this day.

Anyone who would characterize Obama as a "a mild-mannered, antiwar, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago", is delusional.

Obama never, for a single day during his campaign, made a convincing pretense of being antiwar. He has never shown any sign of being mild mannered, either. The euphemism "community organizer" should be dropped for the more accurate title of Chicago Machine Agitator, which is what he was, along with being the attorney (and financial beneficiary) for the supreme Poverty Pimp vehicle, ACORN. Let's don't simply swallow this kind of myth whole without examining what we a re being asked to ingest.

Of course, a dyed-in-the-wool leftist such as Mr. Cockburn has no trouble at all swallowing the myths of "Camelot" (which was never mentioned as a description of the Kennedy regime until after his asassination) and the media myth that Oswald was the shooter in the Kennedy murder. He would like to feed us the myth of Obama as an innocent "community organizer" corrupted by democrat political success. Hogwash.

On the subject of another myth presented here; Wilson was a radical progressive, Mr. Cockburn, not a liberal. Liberalism in Wilson's day was not the perversion of liberalism claimed by today's democrats. The culprit ideology you are groping for as villain is actually progressivism.

Progressives have always pushed for violent, simplistic solutions to what they see as problems. We now have two progressive parties in control of our electoral politics; the original progressives are the republicans and the more recently converted progressives, the democrats.

It's pretty boring to see leftist commentary posted here simply because it's critical in tone of the current administration.

Open eyes are needed if one is to comment on the passing parade without falling into the reiteration of popular myths. Open your eyes, Mr. Cockburn.

"The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an 'enormous failure.' Obama suspended them upon his swearing-in. Now they're back."

Of course, Bush wasn't virtuous but a tyrant and torturer, as Obama now is. And Bush's program wasn't "allegedly" lawless, but actually lawless. Bush and Cheney should be put on trial for violating U.S. laws against torture.

Change you can believe in? Instead: Torture you can believe in.