Obama abandoned his long-time preacher and friend like a hot potato when it became politically expeditious to do so. I don't believe Wrights comments to be heinous in any way, though they were universally (and falsely) characterized this way in the media. They were extremely critical, and as such their substance deserved serious discussion. But rather than lead us in this discussion Obama turned away from his pastor and friend, just as he is now doing with Clark (who is hardly a liberal and who made a very good point).

What I want to see in a politician is courage. Courage to tell us the truth and to challenge the deliberate misrepresentations by the media and by political opponents, rather than this win-at-all-costs political calculus that is devoid of principle and character. Courage like that displayed by Russ Feingold in opposing this vile FISA bill, or when he was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. But Obama has been as changeable as a weather vane lately. As Glenn has pointed out, this is making him look weak and craven. He is falling right into the Right's stereotype of Democratic candidates.

Glenn, I hear you on the "dual loyalty" point you make in Update II. After all, I am Spanish-American (my mother is a Spanish citizen). But I'm not sure that the "dual loyalty" being advocated by Jennifer Rubin is harmless. While my "dual loyalty" is confined to taking an interest in Spanish affairs and cheering on the Spanish victory in the Euro 2008 tournament, it does not extend to advocating and supporting policies that are detrimental to my own country in favor of my other loyalty. And that is what Rubin is advocating here. Pursuing policies that help a foreign power at the expense of one's own country comes uncomfortably close to the definition of treason.

GG:

My only point is that "dual loyalty" -- despite its dark connotations -- isn't inherently bad. It's often quite benign.

Yes, I see that. Thanks. It is a very important point to keep in mind lest we stray into the wrong when dealing with this issue (as we did when we interred Japanese-Americans during WWII for no good reason).

Noam Chomsky has repeatedly made this point: that the law is for the poor. What has changed during the Bush years (but started much earlier, with the pardoning of Richard Nixon) is that the fiction of the equal application of the law is dispensed with.

Thus we have legal minds ranting and raving that the Rule of Law is being imperiled by (stand by to gasp) college students getting away with breaking the law, because they are file-sharing, but saying little or nothing about the biggest lawbreakers of all (see http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hamilton/20031023.html, or click my sig). And that's because they are the biggest, and they are unconsciously given a different status by the elites.

Amity says:

Glenn Greenwald has a lot of nerve to tell us, on this patriotic occasion, that we have a duty not to obey our President. He quotes from suspect sources like EFF hippies and what he supposes is common sense to support his claim that our president is not our supreme commander.

First, Greenwald did not say that we have the duty not to obey our President. He says that we have the duty to follow the law, and that if the President orders us to break it, we cannot, for we are a nation of laws.

EFF "hippies" are not the last word here. The US Constitution is. Here is what the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says about this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment makes it quite clear that if the Constitution does not weigh in on some issue, then the issue reverts to the states and to the people. Since the Constitution does not say that the President is our commander-in-chief (just the commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy) then he is not our commander-in-chief. Is this too hard to follow?

From The Guardian article, as quoted by Andrew:

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

This is important information for policy makers. Failure to publish this report could mean continued hunger and death for the world's poorest. But it isn't published to spare poor ol' Preznit Bush. How touching.

Did I get so worked up that I got had? Hmmm. Better go sailing and cool off.

These polls are remarkable because the majority wishes to pull out of Iraq despite all of Gen. Petraeus's best efforts at propaganda, and despite the media's gross failure to report, in any meaningful way, the real situation on the ground in Iraq.

What would those numbers be if we had more reporters who actually were on the ground in Iraq and told it like it is, instead of, say, "reporters" like Mara Liasson and her Fox friends?

(Check out Patrick Cockburn's work, for an example of real reporting. Go to the Independent, www.independent.co.uk and do a search on his name.)