@thehallmark, JackHughes, Little Brother, The Small Town Hick et al

All Dems, all of them deserve criticism for this bill. All of them deserve to be targeted as part of primary races where and when feasible. And all of them still deserve our vote and our advocacy. And if you don't agree with that, then I challenge you to explain why all of the Supreme Court votes that have gone 5-4 where the liberal/sane justices were in the minority somehow don't matter. I challenge you to explain how all the even larger body of maniachal decisions by Scalia and Thomas (and one particularly grossly insane dissent of Thomas's in Hamdi) doesn't matter. Because if they DO matter- and if you've got your cortex screwed on, you cannot deny that they do- then we must continue to advocate for Democrats. We have to change this party from within unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of the destruction of our civil liberties.

Be careful how you respond now. Because some day at some unspecified time in the future you may have an indefinite period of uncharged solitary detention to think it over.

Glenn,

As you've noted, habeas hangs on (at least) one soon to be retiring vote in the Supreme Court. This is to name but one of the fundamental protections of our republic that is currently imperiled.

By all means, let's take Obama to task here, but let's do so in a way maximally favorable to him. Or at least minimally- he will not have dictatorial powers on the Democrats repsonse here. Pelosi, Hoyer Reid, Clinton and other power brokers with vested interests et al may indeed also have strong opinions and certainly have a say. We simply don't know what's gone on behind closed doors, and hence where most appropriately to attribute blame (outside of the blue dogs that are clearly applying the pressure and their corporate masters).

For the love of pete though, let's try not to forget what hangs in the balance. That would amount to our playing a role as villain too. Already in two threads on this subject we have numerous people claiming they won't vote Democrat, which, btw, is the height of stupidity given the ramifications FOR THIS VERY ISSUE and related ones. In this context, lame defenses of Obama remain lame, but are hardly so contemptible as to merit caustic snark by way of response.

In light of what you've written, and the constitutional prerogatives of the next President of the United States, I defy you to disagree.

Obama is killing me today. There's this thing, and the related and worse reality that he is going to facilitate this 'compromise', which as Glenn points out is no compromise at all. It sets a horrendous precedent without anyone anywhere clarifying why that is necessary. Seriously, if we absolutely have to have it, where are the people laying out that argument in the light of day? This is so blatantly the case of corporate influence, it's appalling (and word that Chris Dodd has been caught up in a scandal... hmmm...). I mean, why should anyone have opposed it in the first place?

This is in addition to the reneging on the public financing pledge via unabashedly spinning announcement, and comes on top of his walk-back of his anti-NAFTA rhetoric and walk back of declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. I can in some sense see the last. Obama has by nature of being mistrusted by those who vote Israel/Middle East issues, little to no latitude to defy them without major political ramifications. This also accounts for the irritating now constant recurrence of the flag pin. But why on God's green earth was the NAFTA flip-flop necessary? He never said trade was a no go, just that it hadn't gone for American workers. That, by the way, is a perfectly politically tenable position that also has the benefit of being correct. Here's why:

http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/06/12/can-the-debate-over-trade-%e2%80%93-or-globalization-%e2%80%93-be-separated-from-the-debate-over-exchange-rates/

This is what gets me about all this. I never thought of Obama as somehow different and transformative- I always thought such talk was naive and overlooking of the candidate's core strengths. His pragmatism, sensibility and core decency. But I did think of him as being sensible and as believing that his core positions didn't jeopardize his electability. But he hasn't shown any conviction of that, which is a very bad trait to be showing. The political handlers that are starting to call the shots here are ruining this candidate. I mean, he may still be better than McCain or Bush, but what in the hell kind of standard is that? If he wins by this type of vacillation, his mandate will be anything but change. What good is the Presidency if you can't do anything worth doing with it?????

On a not so separate but equal point, I've just donated to this FISA bill fight fund. Not because I think it will do any good- sounds to me like the fix is in- but because down the road when the ramifications of these types of dreadful decisions become apparent, when Ben Franklin's foreboding, 'a republic, if you can keep it', becomes tragically prophetic, I won't have to ask myself what it was about a small donation I found to be too costly.

The only spin of the phrase shuck and jive is one that doesn't concede its racial context, something I won't dignify by taking seriously. In any case Mr./Ms. White Man's burden, my post was to aggrieved Hillary supporters with whom I can empathize, not Republican trolls or Democrat bigots posing as said. Frankly, I'll be elated if all you inadequate white folk vote McCain. It's going to make the inevitable victory all the more sweet.