Well, I sure didn’t mean it personally, and I’m sorry you took it that way; didn’t mean to offend. And I’m sure that Mr. Rich gets some things right; the old saying is that even blind squirrels find acorns, right? I just find him very distasteful, that’s all.

Rich has said enough inane things that I just don’t find him credible, but that means that all I’m reading is right-wingers? Where’s the logic in that? I didn’t refer to all liberals, nor did I suggest that it was because Rich was a liberal that I didn’t listen to him; you read into that. He’s a nutjob, but there are plenty of liberals who aren’t, and I’d rather listen to them. By this reasoning, I guess I’m somehow obligated to watch Keith Olbermann, then? Because if I don’t, then I never listen to any lefties. I just don’t get it, Bob.

Hanson comes from the right, to be sure; at what points, I’d ask, are his analysis incorrect?
My point is this: The analysis that Hanson offers is simply what you’d expect from the Right. While it has good points, its aggregated focus is off – making Obama what he is not. Hanson’s ideology is skewing his view of Obama.

Rich’s analysis shows that for liberals, Obama is not liberal enough. For conservatives, he is the next coming of Marx or Mao. Brooks makes the same assessment.

It seems to me that they are right, and Hanson’s diatribe against Obama is shown for what it is in that light.

As it hurts yours when you make baseless assumptions that I “only read those (I) want to agree with”, etc. Frank Rich is a nutjob, and I don’t have to read every one of ’em out there in order to comment on an issue; how did you possibly reach the conclusion you did about my reading habits simply by my discounting Frank Rich?

Brooks, on the other hand, while frustrating at times, is a decent voice of moderation, I’ll agree. I’ll read the column. But what we have to cut through as best we can, it seems to me, are the sentiments attached to both sides of the debate, and look at the facts as they present themselves. Hanson comes from the right, to be sure; at what points, I’d ask, are his analysis incorrect?