Obama's reductio ad absurdam strategy is to argue fully the implications of Bush's presidential powers doctrine, making it unpalatable for any court.

Like I've been saying for several weeks.

Glenn, in your list of arguments made by Obama apologists you omit mine, made here and elsewhere at every opportunity.

It is essential for civil liberties that Obama advance the Bush arguments even more vociferously than did Bush himself. If he does not, then there is no resolution; Addington-Yoo will lurk in some file cabinet, ready to be pulled out and awoken by the next Fascist-lite president.

By pushing the Bush absurdities to their truly most absurd limit, Obama can get the courts to drive a wooden stake through their hearts, reducing their potency in the future.

C'mon Glenn, you're forgetting the original "muckrakers" like Upton Sinclair and Ada Tarbell.

Glenn -- Isn't it at least possible that Obama is trying to kill off the state secrets doctrine and signing statements by taking them to extremes? I mean, if Obama merely says, "I won't use signing statements," that bit of Constitutional sophistry remains available for the next would be Fascist-lite in the Bush mold to pick them up and use them again. But if Obama can provoke a confrontation in Court, and obtain a Supreme Court ruling that signing statements are, in fact, unconstitutional, he raises a high hurdle for the next Bush wannabee.

Ditto, and more, for his "embrace of the most radical version of the states secrets doctrine," and other maneuvers in court.

If Obama's arguments in court "prove too much" they'll be struck down.

And, Obama's covered on the right because he seems to be trying to support at least some of Bush's ways.

On second thought, maybe you've thought this through more thoroughly than I have and have concluded that an essential part of the politics of Obama's strategy is that the high-profile liberal bloggers must denouce him . . . in which case you'd be saying what you're saying even though you agree with me.

Round and round. . .

When did Alan Dershowitz move from denizen of the lunatic fringe to sage of the right-center-right? From the late 80's to the mid uh-ohs, I don't think I ever heard the man's name spoken without an exaggerated verbal sneer.

He's interesting, you gotta give him that, but if he's on your A list of sources (that would be you, Dick Cohen) the argument you are advancing is in serious trouble.

Once again, I'm reminded of the movie Bad Day at Black Rock. In the movie, one day during WWII the ordinarily nice law-abiding people of a little town lynched the town's only Japanese family. After the war, Spencer Tracy comes to pay his respects to that family -- their son died saving his life in Italy. Everyone is so ashamed that they do everything they can, passive and violent, to prevent him from finding out what happened. He persists.

That's what we have here. Bush and Cheney stoked up the lynch mob, Reid, Pelosi, et al. (Daschle? Don't forget Daschle!) panicked and went along. Now, after it's sunk in how awful their actions had been and how preposterous the lynch mob leaders' claims had been, they're ashamed. And they'll drag their feet and fight you any way they can if you try to investigate.

Even Spencer Tracy might have balked at this one.

Glenn -- It seems to me that your strong views on the Congress's role in curbing executive power and your dismay at today's Joe Lieberman vote (both of which I, in my gut, share) might be at loggerheads.

Look at it this way: Suppose, as Rachel Maddow and I and a million others think, Lieberman suddenly evinces zeal and dedication in investigating the White House. To the extent that this shines disinfecting light on the executive, this is good, n'est-ce pas?

So, somebody has to do it. Lieberman or Akaka? With Lieberman, the Dems have some political cushion; Obama is popular, Congress is not. But now Reid can say, "Hey, it's not us harrassing President Obama. It's Joe Quisling running amok. He's not even a Democrat, and face it, he had us by the balls. We need that 60-vote majority." Dems can have their cake and eat it, too.

Nobody is more revolted by Joe's sanctimonious mug than I am. And we're all wary of Joe's priorities, whether regarding Middle Eastern policies or indulging his personal piques. But even so, somewhere (Robert Heinlein?) I learned the adage:

"There are two things to do with an enemy. Kill him, or make use of him." The latter just might be better statecraft.

contemplating his hubris, his failure and his ultimate humiliation, on every one of those long, solitary, days, and just possibly repenting and begging forgiveness for the evil he has done.

He's played a religious man on TV all these years -- it might well behoove him to become one.

I cherish a memory of a moment in a campus debate about "The Last Temptation of Christ." The fundies' gladiator -- a nice guy, by the way, if you could overlook his fetish -- got angry about the mocking interruptions by the liberals' guy.

Fundie: "You're censoring me!!"

Liberal: "I'm not censoring you. I'm insulting you!!"

After all, since they're OK with having a 14-year old girl join a harem, why not 7-year olds singing about sexuality?