Setting aside for a moment the traditional post-primary move-to the "center" question, which clearly is a strategic issue and reveals more about the beliefs of Democratic consultants than it does about those of Democrats (politicians and voters):

Is it possible that the Dems do have a rough consensus about a few things, and the center of gravity of this consensus is well to the right of (or more corporatist than) traditional liberalism (these points are obvious), and therefore the Dems fool themselves into thinking that the Republicans are doing their dirty work for them when they stand up and fight liberal actions?

This would explain the Dems' smugness and apparent lack of awareness that they look weak. If they think they control the clearly-weak Repugs when they do not, then liberal Dems will naturally wonder WTF they are up to. For example, if they really don't want effective or too-strong climate-control legislation, Inhofe is a good man to have on the right, barking his head off. No need for them to state their actual position then. No need to reveal themselves as what they are. And they would never say this out loud, and so we never get an explanation, just bemused dismissal.

Of course, a strong party would not rely on the opposition for this function. A strong party would have its debates in public, and would announce its consensus to the world, and stick to it through the election cycle. By this definition, neither of our parties is strong.

And THAT is terrifying, and says something about where the American system of political representation is right now.

Thank you. WHO stands to gain and WHO stands to lose and WHY are the pertinent questions.

Does anyone have a list of what telecoms are in question, and what districts/states their headquarters are located in?

In about 10 minutes this morning (approx 9:00 AM to 9:10 AM EST) the membership went from 4150 to 4162.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

We want to show the Democratic politicians the consequences of playing loose with our civil liberties; money in the ACTBlue FISA PAC is one way; giving an estimate to the Obama campaign of how much support will be disappointed/fall away if this FISA bill passes is another way.

None of what we're doing is perfect; and it is all of likely little influence. Nevertheless, I think it is worth doing.

If it is in our power to create internet avalanches for the things that matter - let us do that.

IF you ever considered seriously supporting Obama, then I think it is appropriate to sign up for the group (click on sig).

You're right that the Constitution is fuzzy on the point of exactly what is required for a pardon. However, common sense says that an "offense" must be reasonably well defined for a pardon to be executed. For example, if Karl Rove were to be accused of witchcraft, a pardon might be impossible, because the offense does not legally exist (outside certain small towns in New England). Am I right in thinking that?

In this case, it seems to me that a pardon could be crafted to excuse a narrow class of entities from a narrow class of offenses, even without specific charges, let alone a conviction. And it could be general enough that no charges could then ever be brought against those entities for any 4th Amendment-violation-related action.

But I dunno. Is there precedent for pre-charge pardons?

For this bogus "shift to the center" to work politically, the ancient Republican axiom that "the left" is always weak has to be true. I'm not talking about left-leaning politicians, who fear being branded as weak. I'm talking about left-leaning voters. Clearly, Obama et al believe that their "lefty" supporters are such spineless whimps that, once he has them in the bag, they'll remain in the bag at least long enough to propel him into the White House. So his lefty-bots are a done deal, because they can't fight their way out of the paper-bag he got them to crawl into and because they simply wouldn't dare desert him for fear of the kind of president they'll get if they do. But you know what? A lot of leftys just might fool him and find their way out of the bag without the least bit of trouble. Because leftys can fight just as hard as their counterparts on the right when it comes to ideology. The left made Obama's path to the nomination - and they can also break it apart by not falling once again for the old bait and switch by voting for "the lesser of two evils."

Thank you for continuing to produce the most scintillating analysis available. My request is that you examine the candidacy of John Edwards and where he'd have stood on FISA.

Why did smart progressives abandon a candidate who consistently framed the issues better for a candidate running a mushy platform of bipartisanship? Obama always was a centrist candidate, similar to Clinton, and this was our chance to oust centrism and replace it with the fire and passion of the 2006 candidates.

Thanks Glen. This is the constructive argumentation we've come to expect and value from your blog. We know that there is a basic problem with this insecure approach, but people who we both appreciate and need to advance a progressive agenda require constant prodding, not ridicule. This does the job masterfully.

Probably no one will read this coming some 300 comments down, but here goes.

So what, then, is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and National Security[?]

It seems to me that the FISA and much of the other "Bush/Cheney approach" by Democrats has to do with a more long term concern. If there is another major terrorist attack on the US, no one in office at the time wants to be accused of not having done everything possible to prevent it. Having opposed any supposedly anti-terrorist law/policy/etc. will draw that accusation. It won't matter that the accusation makes no sense, there will be so much blame being passed out that no one will listen to reason.

Since most politicians believe a major terrorist attack is a matter of when not if, they are ALL (or most) playing cover their ass. They won't say this, of course. And they want to sound like they are opposed to FISA, and then pass it. They have adopted the "Bush/Cheney approach" because that approach is the CYA approach.

In case of a terrorist attack, politicians can say they didn't know it would be done that way, but it would be hard to answer the accusation, "If you had listened to their calls, you would have known."