Glenn:

I recognize that many Americans, from just about all walks of life, share the following sentiment:

More than anything else, Obama's endless invocation of the "change" mantra was not about promises of sharp ideological or even policy shifts -- as needed as those may be -- but instead, was about changing this core Beltway dynamic, delousing the Washington culture.

Obama's decision to "get along by going along" with the FISA amendments in July persuaded me that however much I might wish that "delousing" is what Obama means by "change", I seriously doubt he means to disrupt the "core Beltway dynamic". Leaving Joe Lieberman as chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is another example of how the "core Beltway dynamic" is likely to continue purring along for some time to come.

I think Obama is more of a Beltway Establishment type than either of the past two Democratic presidents, Clinton and Carter. That may actually help Obama accomplish more, in view of the strength-sapping battles about "legitimacy" both Carter and Clinton had to fight with the Beltway Establishment. But I think Obama views "change" as generational and incremental, much like John F. Kennedy, and not as transformative in the tradition of Progressive Era Reformers.

Franklin Roosevelt's senior appointments (or indeed his 1932 campaign) did not particularly portend the change that came -- much of the ferment of the New Deal came from activists at sub-Cabinet levels and in the agencies (which of course were a favorite FDR technique for side-stepping Washington gridlock). So I could be wrong about Obama and real reform. And not even FDR changed Washington overnight, or indeed in a single term of office. So even for the more hopeful among us, it would be prudent to lengthen and manage our expectations.

and whining about attacks plays into the GOP/Corporate Media theme of Democrats being "effeminate" and "weak" while Republicans are "manly" and "strong".

Bill Clinton showed the way awhile ago by getting into Chris Wallace's face in a very direct way, and putting him on the defensive. The Democrats should not fear, but rather welcome, the sound of Republicans and the Corporate Media whining about how "divisive", "partisan", etc. the Democrats are. The Democrats did not win 31 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate in 2006 by blurring lines and being nice -- they won decisively by defining the Republicans as the party of an unpopular and seemingly endless war, a city by negligence, incompetent policies and incompetent officials, and corruption.

Unfortunately, the Obama campaign thinks this approach obsolete and a turn-off to the casual and yet-to-be registered voters they believe will be the decisive element in November. I can only hope that the Obama strategists are right and I'm wrong -- but even if I'm wrong I don't think this fundamental problem in our polity will be resolved by an Obama victory. The corporate media will remain in thrall to radical right-wing Republican personality trashing until the advertisers who pay for the media make the "Infotainment Tonight" version of the news unprofitable. I don't think a Democratic president can govern successfully by a policy of nonstop appeasement of the radical right.

I am not worried about McCain "pandering", or "flip-flopping", or changing his mind.

We could indeed build a rather impressive consensus behind the proposition that it is a good idea for a President of the United States to change his mind once in awhile -- particularly if it means changing a policy that has demonstrably not worked.

I just wish this issue would be presented by the Democrats in its true, starkest terms -- what the modern Republican Party stands for is an elected dictatorship, which they have foisted on the country for the past seven years, and indeed have kept in force since the 2006 election by their unprecedented use of bogus "filibusters" in the Senate that would have made old Theodore Bilbo blush.

The "state of war" rationales are equally outrageous -- we fought the American Civil War, World War II, and the Cold War (contemplating nuclear Armageddon) without ripping up the Constitution. Eisenhower would have been aghast at the theories being propagated by these dangerous radicals.

We need to stop taking the counsel of our fears, and attack these people for trying to overthrow our Republic.