I want to add one more thing about the traditional media's reporting of the Libby commutation. Already, with a bland and depressing predictability, we are seeing news shows and articles portraying the commutation as just some unremarkable, non-partisan, Washington-as-usual phenomenon.

While I would be the first to point out that government corruption is far from new, the media false equivalency between what Bush has done and what "Clinton did too" is pernicious to its core. I think that Dan Froomkin said it best:

We don't know why Libby decided to lie to federal investigators about his role in the leak. But it's reasonable to conclude -- or at least strongly suspect -- that he was doing it to protect Cheney, and maybe even Bush.

***

All of this means that Bush's decision yesterday to commute Libby's prison sentence isn't just a matter of unequal justice. It is also a potentially self-serving and corrupt act.

This characteristic is, plainly, what sets this commutation and entire imbroglio apart from shoulder-shrugging "Washington business as usual" of past pardons and commutations. The point must never be lost; in every respect, this entire affair had as beginning, middle, and full-circle end the White House's crass eagerness to abuse the power entrusted to our government.

Well, I'm not asking for milquetoast or Pollyanna-ist commentary, but rather what I had in mind was something like the 'War Room' posts on Salon, or actually many of the posts on Salon or Slate (or certain articles in Harper's or the New Yorker). Outrage, to be sure, but tempered with something more.

Point well taken. Those articles you like certainly have their place, and I myself don't eat red meat for every meal (I've even been known to curl up with a stoic law review article on sovereign immunity). But I also like Glenn being Glenn, and his sardonic, blunt style is part of the reason I keep reading him.

I suppose all I'd like to add is that ambivalent or persuadable people often respond well to conviction, and having a strong and definite point of view can sometimes be the cold water that finally wakes a person up from his or her slumber of indecision. On the whole, it seems to me that those who would put the breaks on systemic abuse of power, deception, and lawlessness in our government need a bit more decisive rhetoric and a little less pensive measurement, just as a matter of tactical balance.

I can't help but wonder if Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence will register just as powerfully with Americans as his apathy and incompetence during and after Hurricane Katrina.

Tonight Keith Olbermann, in an incendiary Special Comment, provided a stark analogy. The gravity of Watergate, and the true political fallout for that crime, did not truly reach critical levels in the public perception until he fired Archibald Cox for pressing too hard on White House tapes.

Nixon's crude attempt to wave away his political and legal troubles with raw power backfired and cemented public outrage against him. Many aspects of our public culture and media have degraded since then, but one wonders whether the commutation of Libby's sentence will be his Saturday Night Massacre in terms of precipitating a louder and more active public backlash.

But apparently John Conyers is wasting no time having a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the commutation -- scheduled for July 11. I can imagine the line outside the hearing room...

Well said.