the way trends are going and all, and he's getting ready. He seems to be taking it a lot more seriously than PissyPants did when his turn came up, and for that we can be grateful, I guess, but few of us here really wanted at Potentate in office, or any Throne at all for that matter. It wasn't supposed to be this way, but it is this way, and the question now is what, if anything, we all are prepared to do about it?

A benign monarch will hardly be objected to at all; a crazed Autocrat like we've had the last eight years, will raise more hackles. The fact that The Sedona Coot proves his inability and unsuitability every damb day makes his elevation to the Purple less and less likely.

So, Obama it is.

And it's gonna be tough on him from the get go, tougher than on any president since FDR. A monarch needs the kinds of tools he's being given -- if he expects to rule as well as reign.

This really is the transformation of the Republic into the Empire.

Chapter and verse.

Do you think that if we went to any right wing blog, we would find so much bad mouthing of McSame as we have seen with Obama.

I'm not entirely clear on why you addressed that comment to me, RMP. But, to answer your leading question, Of Course Not.

I really appreciated this comment Mona made in response to someone on her blog:

#3 Comment by Mona —
June 17, 2008 @ 6:22 pm

There is this about the Democrats: they have a voter base willing to donate large sums of money to dump and pressure the bums.

No group of humans is comprised solely of angels, but so far I am impressed with the liberals/Democrats around the Intertubes who are willing to turn hard on Dems who — on the important issues — may as well be Republican authoritarians and/or neocons.

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/06/17/8311#
comment-232680

When you line it up that way you'd almost think Pelosi and Obama were ad libbing a bit off identical scripts. Coulda done without that too, today. *sigh* But I never saw call to shoot the messenger. So thanks, . . . I think.

That made more sense to me than any other post about Obama's weird letter.

I suppose I used up my whole stock of whatever neurochemicals permit me to feel outrage sometime around noon today, and I won't be able to get emotional over bagatelles like the death of freedom until the chemicals restock. Because my main reaction to Obama's throwing in the towel has been puzzlement.

He doesn't share the craven cowardice of people like Hoyer, Reid, and Rahm (and possibly Pelosi, though that may be cluelessness.) His forthright defense of the Supreme Court's Guantanamo decision is proof enough of that. So why on earth, Constitutional lawyer and all, wouldn't he take this bull by the same horns?

And I believe you've hit on it. It's not that he's afraid of Republican "soft on terror" attacks or the voters' reaction to them. He's afraid of calling out the 40% of the party who had already made up their minds to knuckle under, splitting and demoralizing the party insiders.

I was disgusted by the pandering votes of Kerry and Clinton and Edwards for the AUMF. But I have long since cut all three of them slack, for having made the judgment that the train was leaving the station with or without them, and they felt they should save their political capital for battles that might be won. Pelosi and Hoyer planned to pull this trick all along, obviously. Obama may have made the judgment that the train had too much inertia to be braked, even by the new conductor on the job. And all the attempt would accomplish would be to spike the well-greased wheels of the other train, the presidential campaign that's just picking up steam.

Grasping at straws, no doubt, to salve my aching cognitive dissonance. I hadn't really expected Obama to jump heroically into the breach, but I had fully expected him to at least vote against the bill.

Here's another straw: Can anyone explain to me what the provisions are in this bill for investigations by Inspectors General (plural?) Barack's statement placed a marked degree of emphasis on them. Now that the civil courts are muzzled, is there any chance that the truth about Bush's lawbreaking could emerge through that avenue?

Most interesting, Che. When my daughter asked me why I chose Obama over Clinton I told her that among the many reasons, and probably the most important one, was that I thought we might have a better chance of being listened to and hence have our input acted upon than we would have with Clinton. His statements from today give me pause...but still. Pause not about Clinton being a better choice, mind you. There is no way that Clinton would have been a better choice.

Because he's far from an idiot. Thats right, the Republicans gifted him with the power of a Roman Emperor, and are too stupid, and too afraid, of their own terror campaign to recognize what they have done.

George Bush will be out of office in six months. Can anyone imagine a more stupid Congress that would rush to invest his future successor with such unfettered power?

The real question now, for the Constitutional purist, is whether or not Obama should be given a Congress to go along with his golden laurel leaf headband.

That's a question I would like to see kicked around for a while.

The way I see it, there is only one more trick in our bag to get the Democrats to LISTEN to us and that is to start a massive DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA campaign due to his support of FISA. With friends like these (Obama, Pelosi, Reid), who needs enemies!

They ignore us, we ignore them. Obviously things in this country are going to have to get ALOT WORSE before they have a chance to get better.

Anyone on board???