Right now, the Democratic Party is like a foot with gangrene -- it can't be cured, but you can save the rest of the leg by amputating the infected parts.

I hope you are wrong, Paul. At this point, barring any unforeseen developments, (all too common in politics) we are about to find out.

BDS Patient Zero.

;-)

Nah! It was me!

Glenn wrote:

Obama's "candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong";

Good luck with that.

It's never going to happen because there are so few Democrats driven by principle; in my experience, Democrats use principles like a bottle in a brawl, something to pick up and slam somebody with when it's convenient, and then discard as soon as it's in the way.

This is why Democrats spent half a decade in the 90s explaining to us how lying is a necessary tool of statecraft, but immediately complained about how George Bush lied, even before he took office (and please don't bother with "people died": the complaints about "lies" began long before anybody died.) This is also why Democrats spent the entire decade of the 90s explaining why we couldn't complain about violations of the rule of law because nothing had been proved in a trial court ("innocent until proven guilty"), but spent most of the next decade calling the President and his staff "criminals" when there wasn't even evidence that any crime had been committed, let alone a conviction at trial. This explains how Democrats complain about "shredding the Constitution" when they simultaneously applaud a method of Constitutional interpretation that leaves the words of the Constitution without meaning, and also why they accuse a Republican President of tyrannical expansions of Executive power but applauded far more expansive measures from a Democrat President.

Obama will act like a Democrat. Any similarity between what he genuinely believes and what comes out of his mouth will be purely coincidental; what he says will be guided by focus groups. As usual, if they persuade people to their point of view, it will be by lying about what their point of view really is, because they know the public will never accept what they genuinely believe.

I like Obama. I think that the House leaders failed him and put him in a bad political position. I am not sure he has the option to vote against (or not vote on) the bill if it goes forward in the Senate. The Republican distortion/fear ad basically writes itself.

That said, I completely agree with most of this blog. Obama's decision IS a disappointing one. I still firmly support Obama, but I just as firmly disagree with him on this issue. This is the second issue (after his statement backing the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment) where Obama has disappointed me, not just as a politician, but as a former professor of Constitutional law.

Obviously, it won't change my vote. McCain is not a viable alternative. I don't tink that anyone can reasonably argue that Clinton would not make the same decision as Obama if she were the nominee. She voted for Kyl-Leiberman, after all. Right now, I am disappointed in Obama, but willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is in a political tough spot and his decision may have been made because he thought that any other position could lead to a President McCain.

I will however, be watching closely to gauge a couple of things. Will he be a vocal voice in the Senate demanding changes in the bill? Is this a unique situation because McCain (bafflingly) out-polls him on terrorism and the public has little patience for or understanding of the issue at hand and are easily duped by "he's soft on terrorism" scare ads? Is this the beginning of a trend.

I urge all Obama suporters to write his campaign expressing their disappointment with his support of this bill. I also urge them to "vote with their wallets" if it appears that Obama is not delivering on what he promised. Just as most politicians are beholden to the special interests, Obama is beholden to the millions of people who have donated to him. We can't afford a President McCain, but 2012 is just around the corner and my support for Obama then is contingent on what his actions are between now and then.

God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

__________________________________

I earlier mentioned Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer, unfortunately diminished, shopworn, and clichéd because its simplicity proved ideal for the non-denominational Christian commercial dimwitted piety market. It's become the text to carve or glue to the Praying Hands knockoff.

But it seems to me that it is the organizing principle of the moderate, centrist politician. It expresses exactly the principle of the orthodox political strategist. Here, "God" is the candidate.

Alas! the devil's in the details, such that it's hard to say whether the inspiration for the prayer was divine, or diabolical.

It's beyond question that Obama has energized a large constituency with signs and wonders of change in certain domains-- first of all, in the radical overhaul of campaigning and fundraising; in this area, there is real bottom-up participation and (I gather) an enthusiastic conviction that Obama is indeed an innovative agent of Change.

And there are certainly changes in campaign tactics; I've heard Obama fans exulting at how Obama fouls off one wingnut bean ball after the other, instead of standing there and getting plunked like previous Dem candidates. He'll wear out the pitchers, then swing for the fences! And, for a change, this one isn't to good to show flying spikes, or run full-tilt into the catcher. Go, Obama!

So the candidate and the campaign are certainly generating Changes that are felt like the Sun in "Here Comes the Sun", emanating from inside the campaign organization.

But how does this reconcile with the Unchanging mendacity, duplicity, hypocrisy, and prevarication that even a Reform Candidate by another name reserves the right to employ as needed-- when crowded by circumstances, as Twain often put it?

I muse thus because I just reviewed a laughably asinine response to a comment about Obama's strange new mock-Presidential Seal at HuffPo. I was struck by a comment in that thread from a businesslike Democratic pragmatist, who unsentimentally argued that the realpolitik is that Obama is wisely exploiting the frustrated civil-libertarians in his base in order to put his bona fides as a Staunch Defender of Homeland Security and Unremitting Foe of Terrorists beyond question.

So, whatever we may think or feel about it is "objectively" irrelevant.

The commenter felt that anyone who understood the first thing about politics would pick up the play, and not get their undergarments in such a twist. If you don't understand how the game is played, keep yer yaps shut!

It's like the Cop Show cliché where the cops beat the hell out of the undercover mole when they bust the gang, so it'll look good. It makes for a good collar, and safeguards the mole from reprisal-- a win/win outcome! What's a few bruises or a broken rib?

In this analogy, civil-libertarians are the mole. Obama is the cop who beats us up. All in a day's work; gotta take one for the team sometimes.

You may call this what you like, but it is most certainly not Change I Can Believe In.