Glenn,

You say:

The central problem is that if Democrats embrace the GOP framework of National Security -- that "Strength" means what the GOP says it means -- then that framework gets enforced and perpetuated, and it's a framework within which Democrats can't possibly win, because Republicans will always "out-Strength" Democrats within that framework.

I just want to state explicitly the consequence of this reasoning. If 'Strength' = 'What the GOP wants to do' then when Democrats try to run on the the 'Strength' issue, they tell the voters that the central question is: Which candidate will better support what the GOP wants to do? And if that's the question, Democrats are guaranteed to lose.

This, as much as anything the Republicans did, is why Max Cleland lost his senate race to Saxby Chambliss. He actually used his own campaign money to run ads touting how frequently he voted with President Bush. It's no big surprise that voters decided the Republican candidate was an even better choice on the 'who will vote with the Republicans' issue.

A question for Glenn, or other lawyers here.

In the section of HR 6304 which attempts to strip state courts of all civil jurisdiction over these wiretaps, we have this culminating clause:

(d) Application- This section shall apply to any investigation, action, or proceeding that is pending on or commenced after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Is it possible for the current plaintiffs to lodge a suit in state courts before July 8, and so slip out from under these prohibitions? If they could, HR 6304 would surely permit that suit to proceed, presumably on to discovery.

I'm guessing the state court would dismiss, on the grounds that the complaint was already being litigated elsewhere. If so, would it still be possible for the ACLU and EFF to drop the federal suit, and still get an unforbidden action into the works?

On the sidewalk of Life a sold-out person is crying.

Weeping. Sobbing. Howling. But ask him/her why?

On the sidewalk of Life, sold-out person's accuse.

The doctor says: You are terminally ill and will die.

So. What does the near-death, dismayed do next?

O me o my~runs via the veins. 0 toxic, a putdown?

I'll get that damn physician back. I'll e-mail @ UT.

I'll call people names and aim to assassinate them.

Character assassination is the most vile depravity!

politically expedient vote FOR the IWR over the Levin Amend to be percieved as "strong" on national security if they need a weather balloon..

Think that one was pretty evident as to why she never became the nominee.

It was seen as political opportunism.

O's jog will be seen for the same thing by someone who criticized her for it, who criticized Mac for his flip-flops (and the meme was sticking pretty well til now)..

and as a hypocrite, who just a few weeks ago, gave a speech to Americans on NOT BEING AFRAID..

How does any attack on the US think the GOP will be seen as stronger?

Explain to me the logic in that one.

Or on Iran--when people know this country is mortgaging everything it has and more to pay defense contractors like Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater for 2 wars already and oil company piplines-how attacking Iran would make us safer or better off?

Puuuhleeez-the GOPs' been tipping thier hand for years as to what its' intentions were towards Iran.

But they have they been caught fishing cards out of their cuffs, pockets, socks cheating for a better hand..

(Sy Hersch has new article on troops inside Iran illegally).

It's really a huge letdown to Obama supporters---to be so ingratiously slapped in the face-by someone not only whom the public believed was someone with some convictions, courage, and intelligence-only to realize he's sold himself out to be just another pandering politician..

As someone who had Americans believing he saw the best in them as well-strength, courage, toughness, and honesty-and mirroring that:America finds herself back at square one with just another politician who sold himself out for the greatness he could have become (and America as well).

More enslavement by the corporate masters..

It was a stupid political gamble--if O was truly unafraid and courageous to be the instinctive born-leader he was meant to be--it would better serve Dems in holding seats in many of the upcoming elections in future years longterm..

But Dems are stupidly gambling short-term gains by jogging rt.-either to cover thier own corruption or selfish corporate interests over Americans'..

Buh-bye longterm Democratic strategy..

Political sellouts are a dime-a-dozen and easily replaced--

It's true leadership of courage, honesty, integrity, fairness, and strength that are the best at determining long-term strategy..

It's about how the campaign makes them feel as much as it is about him as a candidate -- and if that evaporates, so, too, could much of what has made his campaign different.

-- GlennGreenwald

I also noticed and agreed with the comment you're responding to. This all seems so obvious and such and ace in the hole. And it seems just as obvious that Obama could be throwing it all away by playing into this same-old, same-old "centrist" game.

• Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand.

One of Glenn's best posts also quotes G.W.B.'s sole insight: You may disagree, but you know upfront. With Democrats, even the spine lacks a center, strength, or substance.

It WAS Obama's singular strength.

Excellent commentary, Glenn, and so correct. This commentary should be sent to every Democratic candidate. When they think the middle (as defined by the conservatives) is the place to be, they are just "enablers" of ongoing and failed conservatism. They need to stand tall for their belief that progressive politics can provide the needed solutions to long-standing problems. Time for change...believe in change...and articulate its qualities.

I agree that the move to center isn't necessary for the most part (at least on national security) and that it PROMOTES a sense of weakness, rather than strength.

But I don't think thats whats happening, and I think thats where we go wrong in our analysis and our actions to get them to take the correct course.

I think the real reason democrats tack center on these issues is because they ENABLED Bush after 9/11. I really think that these long standing dems, all backed Bush back when his approval ratings were high and now they are just as culpable and are afraid of any real investigations.

I think what also happens in the case of Obama is that he is dependent on these people for his nomination. Without those superdelegates he doesn't have the nod, and they can just as easily throw it to HRC. So they have him by the balls. Not to mention how it would ruin a majority democrat Congress if these people true enabling of Bush were investigated.

So we had Pelosi take impeachment of the table. That has nothing to do with being elected, that is pure CYA. And I have no doubt they took Obama, hell even HRC behind the shed and said "play ball" or we'll undermine you at the convention. The fact is its better for them to get a McCAin who is just as much of an enabler to keep them safe- legally and electorally- than it is to get a reformer that might open a can of worms.

I know people think Obama has some magic clout, but he's actually in a bad position to go against the party itself. Just look at what happened to Dean. Obama is nearly tied with a loser candidate, doesn't have the full number of pledged delegats to win so he needs the supers- but HRC is still close enough that if his supers all abandoned him over some "Dean scream" moment they can throw it to HRC. He has no weight, and is bing attacked on all sides. I think its telling that he's not just seeking to win, but is looking for a landslide. he knows he's going to need a really big mandate from the people. I remember when he said in a rally that he would get his justice dept to investigate war crimes. He got a massive round of applause. I don't think he made the mistake of saying that again.

Its simple, I think, Investigate Bush, telecoms, etc and you'll sink half the democrats in Washington.

Its the only answer that makes sense to me, in light of articles like this that show that moving to center is actually counterproductive.