Can a president pardon a corporation rather than individuals?

Also keep in mind some of these politicians, like Hoyer, are not "moving to the center" because they are forced, but are actually freely following their own positions on the issue(s).

for starting my morning with a link to a blog post comparing Israel to the Third Reich. That's always charming.

It sounds like you are calling Obama a flat-out liar who is simply misrepresenting his beliefs to get elected. Was he just lying to AIPAC about his beliefs regarding Israel, in order to dupe them into supporting him? Are you saying he actually opposes the death penalty for child rapists, but deliberately lied about this belief so he could appear more Republican?

Have you considered the possibility that he is being honest about his beliefs, which differ from yours in some respects?

This trend is as disturbing as it is familiar, and worse than any individual instance of such craven capitulation, is the broader perception it creates. As the GOP further descends into the realm of its most maniacal Id, salivating over torture, summary executions, genocide, racism, and on an on, the Democrats' meek acceptance, rather than flat denunciation and ridicule, allows the average Fox News American to think that the new "center" lies somewhere between Mussolini and Pinochet. Worse, this leaves even the mildest reforms proposed by Democrats, whether on health care or taxation, way over on the "left," along with any hope of changing our absurdly self destructive foreign policy, dire financial straits, and embarrassing human rights record.

Every time the Democrats embrace the framing surrounding whatever bizarre outrage the Republicans and the Beltway Media have suddenly deemed Necessary and Serious, the delegitimize any meaningful change, and make the insane, disastrous, and plainly failing comic-book derived "War" into a permanent and malignant part of our political discourse.

At this point, the fact that most voters have rejected, and are indeed disgusted by, the direction the country is heading, seems almost beside the point... Republicans may have their flaws, but tolerating dissent and abandoning their base are not among them. Would that Democrats learn a thing or two from them.

When offered the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like one, the public will choose the Republican every time.

though the selection of a veep usually doesn't mean a lot come november, i think obama's will tell us a lot about the man. if he chooses a socially conservative pol like jim webb, or horrors, sam nunn, it will tell me he's hedging his bets and compromising, even though i'm sure his hardcore enthusiasts will spin it as being indicative of his intelligence and open-mindedness -- you know, the usual barack-can-do-no-wrong nonsense.

always thought the dems screwed up by running bob casey for santorum's old seat. don't get me wrong: better bob casey than rick santorum. but the latter's negatives and approval ratings were in such shambles there was no reason for the dems to compromise by running some pro-lifer like casey. in short, they could have run someone in the kucinich mold and won that seat.

I'd love the Democrats to move to the center of the political spectrum -- the global center, that is. That would of course mean that they were moving left.

It's only poor definitions that leads people to call the mid-position-so-far-right-you-can't-see-it-from-the-actual-center the "center" of US politics.

The US has two right of center parties: one slightly further right than almost every single right-most major political party on the spectrum of every single 1st world democracy (that party is called the Democrats); and one that needs a two-page fold out to depict it on the traditional left-right axis, and only then when you jig the scale.

But now I'm well off track... apologies for venting on a pet peeve.

Thanks again Glenn for your spot-on analysis.

Glenn, as you've laid it out, it all seems so obvious.

Why then do the national Democratic "strategists" refuse to see it? Can they really be so stupid?

A question for Mr. Greenwald regarding pardons, immunity and the Fifth Amendment. It has little to do with the discussion in question but you are a constitutional lawyer and are therefore most qualified to answer it.

Does the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination protect against incrimination in a jurisdiction outside the United States? I think we're all sure that as Bush leaves office he will issue blanket pardons for everyone in his cabinet and staff for any crimes he/she might have committed during the administration (ala Ford). Fine, I say. They may escape the justice they deserve but now they cannot invoke the Fifth, so they can be subpoenaed before Congressional committees and be forced to testify under threat of perjury. This will allow us to rip the lid off the whole disgusting can of worms that has been the Bush regime and the entire conservative movement in this country. Recently, however I was listening to a radio interview with author Philippe Sands who suggested that many of Bush's people might be prosecuted in other jurisdictions. So my question is, Could, say, Donald Rumsfeld invoke his Fifth Amendment right if there was a chance of him being prosecuted in Germany, the World Court, or a Sadr controlled Islamic Iraq?

I am personally very glad that over the past couple of weeks Obama has shown signs of adopting the following "moderate," "centrist" opinions: the government should have the right to spy on its citizens without warrants, the government should have the right to kill its citizens, uncritical support for Israel is as important if not more important than the safety of our own citizens. Why do Democratic presidential nominees consistently fail to label this extremism for what it is? I think one could be forgiven for thinking that on these key issues there is essentially no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

What makes this all the more infuriating is that Obama beat Clinton in the primary at least in part by running against this kind of nonsense - her vote to authorize the Iraq War, her calls to obliterate Iran, the 3AM phone call ad, etc. Compare Obama trying to justify his flip-flop on FISA to Hilary defending her vote for the Iraq War: both try to pretend that these decisions were principled stands, but both seem at least dimly aware that their craven political manouvering may cost them valuable parts of their base. I'm sure they'd rather not consider the cost to, say, the Iraqi people, or the American people for that matter.

All of this makes me wonder if Obama's opposition to the Iraq War was indeed a "fairy tale," had he been in any position to authorize or block the Iraq War from happening, what would he have done? And, more important, what would have guided his decision?