People complained about Biden supporting the war, but he seems to be the main person in the administration arguing against escalating our involvement in Afghanistan now.

I saw that Dianne Feinstein supports more troops there too--no surprise.

How many troops will Obama increase the US occupation of Afghanistan by?

Eleventy hundred thousand.  We'll invade Iran and Syria with whatever is left over.  The Boy Scouts probably.

Its a pretty obnoxious comment but based as it was from "a source within the White House," I can't help but wonder if somebody asked a janitor or an intern for a quote about bloggers. Still pretty sad.

As to your questions, I would say 40,000 more troops seems likely in Afghanistan.

Harry Reid would probably lose (not that I would miss him.)

And for those of you who are pissed that you are living in "Obamaworld," I would remind everyone that "Clintonia" probably wouldn't be much different and "McCainland" would be much much worse.

Jesse Lee and Dan Pfeiffer are both savvy enough to know that anyone of Axelrod/Gibbs/Emanuel/Rouse could call up Hardwood and find out whom exactly made those quotes, and have them fired.

Really?  So leading reporters generally give up anonymous sources if the boss asks?  I did not know that.

Harry Reid could win Ensign's seat, but I doubt he'll be able to keep his own.  Maybe he could retire to focus on his campaign?  

Aravoisis is disingenuously expanding a statement from a virtual tautology('fringe-left bloggers who are gay are fringe-left bloggers' is honestly how I read the statement, once you strip away the snarky Whooley-eske verbiage) into a broad assault('people who are gay are fringe-left bloggers' is John's reading, one I think is derived more from his love of controversy than from NBC's report).  As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't think HRC having the ear of the POTUS is notable progress does need to get out more.

Afghanistan post-election fraud is much harder to predict than it was before.  Without a legitimate national government, it may not be possible for the US to achieve any goals at all, whether those goals are good or bad.  There's also a slowly developing conservative viewpoint that leaving a huge destabilized mess at the intersection of China's, India's, and Russia's spheres would be good planning on our part.  Counterinsurgency is the military analogue of community organizing, and as such Obama will feel compelled to give it a try; but I have confidence that when Afghanistan is as clearly unsalvageable as North Dakota, he'll take our resources out of there.

Glenn Greenwald and others note you should not be shocked. He describes the Obama Administration approach:

"... In that regard, the furor over Obama's complete inaction on gay issues vividly illustrates the same elements that shape political controversies in virtually every other area -- from war to civil liberties to health care and beyond:

- Pretty words and inspiring pageantry from the President, accompanied by endless inaction or contradictory policies;

- Hordes of people who believe in their heart of hearts that the administration is led by such a nice, just and likable man that it couldn't possibly be guilty of anything worse than a little benign political calculation (just as the evangelical, Texas-swaggering Bush did for Red State loyalists, the urbane, charming and highly intelligent Obama possesses all the cultural markers of a good and decent person for Blue State loyalists, and thus simply can't be capable of anything malicious or destructive -- there's a reason Bill Maher tried to remind liberals:  "He's your president, not your boyfriend");

- Organizations (exemplified by the truly dreadful HRC) that suck funding out of progressives and serve as liberal validators of administration conduct whose overaching devotion is to the Democratic Party and the administration rather than the causes they claim to promote (fortunately, civil liberties groups are the exception, as they have remained steadfast, unapologetic, independent and principled in harshly criticizing Obama); and,

Deeply personalized scorn directed at those who try to hold Democrats and the Obama administration accountable -- since they're the ones who control all branches of government with huge majorities -- rather than devote all their energies to the cheap and easy partisan task of ridiculing and blaming a marginalized, impotent conservative movement which is a small minority and currently wields no power in Washington.
I have no idea who the person is who said this to Harwood or how influential or obscure s/he might be, but whoever it is, that person is anything but unusual or aberrational.  Quite the opposite."

The only solace you should take is that they appear to be on the incompetent side when it comes to identifying threats. These are the people who could not predict AHIP turning on them.

You all know the idiom, "to have touched a nerve" right?  This whole thread seems to me that we're kinda showing how petty and small we can be over an unattributed source calling us names.

Of course I agree that Obama has not been as progressive as we'd all wished that he'd have been.  I also agree that the White House has lead with a narrative that the blogosphere is not to be taken seriously.

But the reality is that we've been making a real impact on the course of the debate* and we're going to keep pushing this country toward a progressive future regardless of how we're viewed by Obama etc.

So wear those pajamas proudly and don't worry about what the talking heads on the TV call you.

* - If you don't believe that online progressive organizing has made an impact on the course of debate on things like health care, simply recall that as the debate began...

1) Democrats in Congress gave up single-payer right off the bat,

2. then almost conceded defeat on a public option,
   
3. then we stepped in and raised half a million dollars for House Progressives, signed about seventeen different petitions
   
4. and now we have Alan Grayson bullying Republicans around on moral and ideological grounds AND we'll probably get the 5%-Medicare-Robust-Public-Option out of the House.  

Jerome's right in that we can't be too self-congratulatory until the final product is reached, but we've certainly made progress -- especially for being a bunch of pajama-wearing know-nothings.

To address your stealth edit (after obviously being wrong, and calling rational people delusional)

No...candidate obama could not foretell the future.