Good recap of themes you have hit on many times here before Glenn. I couldn't agree more.

The notion that Democrats look stronger by continually caving to the right is ridiculous.

And the notion this will win them votes is just plain stupid. The true-believers, the 25 percenters, will NEVER vote for a Democrat, the mushy middle will respond to strength, or the perception of strength, which means standing up to the Rethugs and rejecting the worst of their policies and Obama will actually LOSE votes from the left, like he has already lost mine, if he continues down this hard run to the right road.

I realized this move to the right was inevitable once he secured the nomination, but damn, I didn't think it would involve his blatant rejection of promises he made just months before.

Fire Schrum or whatever Schrum-like consultant-bot you hired to run your general election campaign Senator. Before it's too late....

Yes, Glenn, the move to the center cliche is just a smokescreen. The whole point of this exercise is for Obama to demonstrate to the corporate ruling class that is is safe, that he will, like Steny Hoyer and Pelosi, take direction. The ruling class has governed through the republicans so ruthlessly that it has, as even the republicans admit, destroyed their brand. They are now considering whether to govern through the democrats--but need Obama to demonstrate that he will knuckle under. The FISA vote is a good litmus test for them.

They don't really trust McCain--notice how they even tried to prop up Fred Thompson in his place--and could never abide Clinton. Now that the ruling class has pushed Clinton off the stage and sees how erratic McCain is, they are probably looking to make a deal with Obama. That's what this is all about.

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.

I have this on no source, simply intuition, but expect to be disappointed. Obama will pick a candidate to placate any fears of him being a "liberal" or a "partisan". You know, someone like Lee Hamilton. Old, white, provides cover for whatever he does with Iraq and "national security", who has been coming out publicly in recent weeks with the horrors of "partisanship" in DC (not coincidentally, he was just added to the Obama "senior working group on national security"

http://www.county29.net/cms2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15451&Itemid=225

http://www.news-tribune.net/opinion/local_story_143171641.html?keyword=secondarystory

What exactly is a "blanket pardon"? And can a president pardon "phone companies," as Schorr is quoted as saying, or must specific individuals be named? Would those individuals actually want such a pardon, which would brand them for all time as probable lawbreakers?

I agree with Glenn!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/28/191221/902/636/543477

The right has managed to turn the stomachs of the country. The public has moved left. It wants Democrats back in charge.

They don't want Democrats to behave as Republicans. They want them to be Democrats. If they wanted Republicans they'd be voting for Republicans. Duh.

Democrats need to show the "move to the center" advisers the door. That goes for economic advisers too.

Great, great column.

The Beltway Pundits don't even know what's happening in the US hinterland; and they're going to tell us how to deal with Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc.? Surely if Bush had not kept classified all the results of listening in on our phone calls and email, surely the notion that the general public rejects Washington wisdom might have percolated to them by now?

Despite my many phone calls to him, my own Representative, Paul Kanjorski, voted for the FISA amendment. I called him last Friday to tell him I'd never vote for him again. He is being opposed this year by Hazelton mayor Lou Barletta, who has received national attention for his tough guy anti-undocumented immigrant stance (a real gem, this guy). Additionally, Kanjorski has received some negative press recently on earmarks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77zYUEHIHIo) and in another YouTube clip wherein he pushed someone holding a video camera.

From the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader 17Jun2008:

Republican Lou Barletta would defeat 12-term incumbent Paul Kanjorski by 5 percentage points if the election were held today, according to an internal poll released Monday by the Barletta campaign.

Conducted by Susquehanna Polling and Research, a Harrisburg-based Republican polling agency, the results show Barletta would receive 47 percent of the vote compared to 42 percent for Kanjorski. The poll shows 39 percent of voters believe Kanjorski deserves to be re-elected.

sleep?

I feel that these candidates, after they are the clear choice, are visited by some secretive representatives of the power elite who tell them the way it is and cause them to "drift to the center" and let go of everything they ever believed. How else could presidential candidate after candidate turn into milk-toast?

I believed so much in this dream of decency that Obama put forth. Now I have no one to support because I know that he is going to go the way of all leaders: into the bosom of special interests and out of our hearts. This makes me sad.

This FISA thing was an important test for Obama but so have been any number of policy statements and actions he has made since his battle with Ms. Clinton lurched to a halt. He has failed all of them. The man is serving some other master now. And all I know it is not us, the ones who want the war and fear to stop and the freedom and decency to begin.

Thanks for the excellent summary on this issue. I've sent it to the Obama campaign. Who knows if they'll read it, but they need to.

I've got a legal question about pardons. If Bush issues a pardon for everyone in the administration and the telecoms, how can he do that without specifying what crimes he's pardoning them for? Can he legally pardon thousands of people without specifying the names of the people and the specific crimes? If he does, will that mean that any administration or telecom employee can cite the pardon to get away with tax evasion or embezzlement or murder or anything else committed in the last eight years?