This absurd state of affairs would be comical were it not so serious. The lack of awareness on the part of Abrams (who I believe is also a lawyer) to challenge Blakeman is nearly as bad as Blakeman's assertion. Having read the post and comments, I'm reminded of the old Star Trek episode "Omega Glory," involving a post-apocalyptic battle between the degenerate Yangs and Kohms. There, we have the tribal chief holding tight to his chest a crumbling, meaningless Constitution that no longer functions as a foundational document of government. He intones in fractured Latin the relic's holiness while demonstrating not a scintilla of awareness of its meaning. What was once viewed as a comical, heavy handed piece of propaganda now seems embarrassingly prescient.

What is the point in having Pelosi and Ford appear at Netroots Nation (and forgive me if others have written about this) since the very purpose of the community, at least as I understand it, is to identify critical issues and generate solutions to them (such as Accountability Now)? Both Pelosi's and Ford's positions are well known from their voting records and their public comments. Having them participate simply affirms, for them certainly, that they can continue to hold Progressives and civil libertarians, to name but two interested parties, in the same contempt as they hold the disinterested and uninformed general public.

The purpose of Accountability Now and Strange Bedfellows is to punish those Congressional members for having abdicated their responsibilities to the citizenry. By having Pelosi and Ford as "guests," Netroots Nation has undercut this worthy goal and rewarded those who ought to be punished.

I suspect you're right, that the Netroots' "form of post-partisanship proceeds by declaring a general amnesty, in which it is forbidden to view the Other as Part of the Problem." To that extent (and "irony" is almost certainly too weak a word for it), Netroots Nation reinforces the notion, as stated by Glenn, that "the idea that the Rule of Law is only for common people, but not for our political leaders and Washington elite ...."

Moreover, solutions to this contemptuous treatment of the rule of law will not come from the likes of Pelosi and Ford since they've shown themselves to be, by their words and votes, part of the problem. Yet worse, they'll leave the gathering with the certainty that their positions will cause little to no damage to their futures (notwithstanding Ford's loss in '06). After all, they've been welcomed by Netroots Nation so how bad can it be?

Thank you for the information. I didn't mean to suggest (although I might have, inadvertently) that the entirety of the Netroots Nation gathering was devoted to Pelosi and Ford.

Glen, you write "it should be emphasized that the McCain campaign is shamelessly drowning in lobbyist influence," and this is certainly true. ThinkProgress (via the London Times) has a piece on McCain hatchet man Randy Scheunemann and his direct ties to Worldwide Strategic Energy and its subsidiary Caspian Alliance. In short, Scheunmann and Stephen Payne (the latter caught on tape "offering access to top Bush administration officials in exchange for “six-figure donations to the private library being set up to commemorate Bush’s presidency,") have worked assiduously on Kazakhstan's behalf as it sought/seeks energy deals with the US.

So what long-term gain does Obama receive from AT&T's (or any other corporation's) convention sponsorship? Less than he might think. Here's a fine example of non-editorializing "news" from another corporate body, the NY Times, on Obama's trip to lands where foreign people reside: "The visit was part of a weeklong tour that will take him to Iraq, Israel and Western Europe on a trip intended to build impressions, and counter criticism, about his ability to serve on the world stage in a time of war. It carries political risk, particularly if Mr. Obama makes a mistake — the three broadcast network news anchors will be along for the latter parts of the trip — or is seen as the preferred candidate of Europe and other parts of the world."

Regarding his "ability to serve on the world stage," yes, to be sure, John McCain has demonstrated more than adequately his deep knowledge (Sunni/Shi'a confusion, Czechoslovakia v. the Czech Republic and Slovakia, to name but two examples) of world affairs. So Obama clearly has to vault this major hurdle to overcome McCain's obvious advantage.

And God forbid, as Carlotta Gall and Jeff Zeleny suggest, that Obama might be seen as the "preferred candidate of Europe and other parts of the world." Apparently, this is the best reason yet to vote for McCain since it's simply not acceptable that foreigners might have a preference. After all, if foreign people prefer Obama, well, obviously there's something not quite American about him.

The NY Times might just as well be owned by AT&T or any other such company. It's writers, in this case at least, are already representing the corporate interest and those of Scheunemann and McCain which is, naturally, a redundancy.

I do not agree that "Congress has to build the apparatus to enforce its will, e.g., with respect to contempt of Congress." There is no apparatus to be built. It's in place already. All that's required is the political will to enforce it. Sunstein may want to skirt the issue, particularly since Obama is still a sitting senator, but that doesn't mean Congress lacks the tools.

As we know, or at the very least strongly suspect, the Democratic leadership in Congress was and remains complicit in the Bush Administration's illegality. They participated because they were afraid of a popular backlash following on the heels of 9/11.

That complicity and not a lack of "apparatus" is the central problem here.