McCain's recent articulations are not "flip flopping". His pronouncements should be referred to as what they are: a calculated advocacy of dictatorship.

Why this insistence upon approaching McCain's position on the fundamental interpretation of the Constitution as if it's just an exercise in "I'm rubber, you're glue" -- could Karl Rove be any happier than to see the Democrats fall all over themselves trying to equate McCain's views on executive power to the theme of the Republicans' 2004 sound bites about John Kerry? Could there be a more "lead with your chin" way to discuss this actually important issue than to start out trying to pigeonhole it into a Republican mantra?

McCain has, in the past week, hired a senior advisor who openly advocates "near dictatorial powers" for the President in an undeclared "war" environment, which is limitless and unconstitutional on its face. Within days, McCain openly advocates lawless spying on Americans and immunity for those who have broken the existing laws banning that, and he invokes non-existent provisions of "Article II" without breaking a sweat. Let's take him at his word: he is running for "Dictator", not President.

"Flip flop" is way too generous. If we need a euphemism, how about "gone over to the Dark Side". But to strain to get the term "flip flop" out there, all that happens is the rethugs will dismiss the topic as "rhetoric/soundbite" crap.

Yes, McCain may be acting solely from expediency. But it's really vile expediency, not run-of-the-mill stuff. Now, if there's a Democratic belief that the American people would not be repulsed by the idea of intentionally electing a dictator, don't we have bigger problems than whether the dictator is also a "flip flopper"?

What struck me about Broder's apologia is that he chose to condescend by using the word "proportionality" as his guideline for deciding what is, and what is not, worthy of his reproval.

So let's see: Bill Clinton lying about a blowjob is worthy of impeachment. A Senate report confirming the abject falsity of the President's representations leading us into a war of aggression is not. Hmmm. Lying in a deposition about personal conduct with a consenting adult = impeachable offense. Lying to facilitate the same conduct which constituted the principal grounds for the Nurenburg trials and the conviction and execution of Nazi war criminals = not so much.

I'm glad Mr. Broder has cleared that up for all of us. We need more proportionality in this country, yessir.

I saw Lichtblau's article yesterday and was stunned and horrified at the obvious duplicity. I was so shocked, I tried to figure out who this Lichtblau guy is (I really don't keep a scorecard on media types)... only to find that he apparently got a share of a Pulitzer for original reporting related to disclosing the existence of the illegal wiretapping program??? What's with that, who got to this guy and how did they do it?

But I was hoping to see a GG post today in response to the bile in Lichtblau's article, and am grateful for Glenn's analysis/debunking this morning.

Nothing could be more disgraceful than the Dems actually caving on this fear mongering as a last gift to W before shipping him off to the Hague. There is no conceivable excuse for the Democratic Party to do anything other than extend current law beyond the inauguration so that the next administration can address the whole structure of the law without regard for what Bush and his cabal would "demand".

Send Glenn's article to your congressional delegation. Don't let them betray us yet again.

Without even mentioning the grounds for impeachment -- 35 of them -- read before the Congress by a sitting Representative, you do us all the favor of marginalizing this effort to raise the issue of the President's accountability to the Constitution and the Nation?

I'm glad you're so smart and so smug that you can use Salon for the laudable purpose of assuring your audience that there's "nothing to see here."

Guess what? You're dead wrong. The President of the United States is a felon, a traitor and a fascist. And you're too busy to even read the list. What a putz. Thanks for the enabling, O Supposedly On the Left and Critical of the Administration.

Maybe a full impeachment with a Senate conviction is an uphill fight. Maybe it's not even possible, which is hardly surprising with people like you so anxious to concede. But the simple, irrefutable fact is that Kucinich's articles of impeachment reflect serious, country-damaging, Constitution-abrogating executive shenanigans. Sorry it's too inconvenient for you to consider it.

Oh, and those who have noted, above, that your suggestion that the Clinton impeachment scenario somehow "failed" the Rethugs on a purely "political" level which should somehow give pause to the Democrats now, I trust the responses above are sufficient to remind you of what an incredibly silly suggestion that actually is.