The expectation that the Democratic nominee will move to the center. So strong is the expectation, that the nominee's past and present stance will be twisted to fit the narrative. I've yet to see a direct Obama quote that unequivocally supported the DC handgun man. The four or five times I've heard him speak about this issue, his view always seemed nuanced. I've yet to see him quoted saying he was against the death penalty. And while I think he can be accused of hypocrisy on the following two issues, he hasn't changed his position on telecom immunity or public financing.

But go ahead, why don't you, help the GOP malign the Democratic nominee for president.

Very few people I know actually thought that Obama was a "liberal" far to the left of Hillary. Many of the supporters of him I know thought of him as their second (or even third) choice.

I think you could easily spot the repub trolls posing as Hillary supporters in the old days by saying we had to fear a socialist like Obama, someone the "lefty-left" wants. They were usually just trying to start flame wars (frequently successfully) between the two camps. It could get ugly quick.

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 cannot answer for Glenn but I believe his answer would be no, the constitutional protections afforded by the Bill of Rights do not protect us against the actions of governments other than our own.

I voted for Obama in my primary, and I gave money to both him and HRC. I want a Democrat in the White House. While I am perfectly aware that I will not agree with my leaders' decisions 100% of the time, I am alarmed at Obama's "Republican lite" stances of the past week.

But, more than the immediate anger of the potential bait-and-switch I am alarmed at the long-term fallout of this. Obama is being painted as "the most liberal senator" in the country, and because that will energize the Republican base, that label isn't likely to change, even as Obama veers to the right. (Remember how Bill Clinton was villified for being "liberal," eventhough his most progressives ideas were defeated, overturned, or abandonned in favor of more right-leaning policies like "Don't Ask/Don't Tell", "Welfare to Work" and NAFTA; don't forget his many judge appointments that were held up) Then in 4 years (or 8 if we're being optimistic), the Republican candidate will be that much more Right of "center" than ever.

We're heading towards a fascist theocacy. (I *shudder* to think of what will be considered a "liberal" policy by 2016: a free press? secular education? in-person voting? trials by jury?) Obama *must* remain a left-leaning progressive if we are to have any hope of an existing "left."

And so, we have the superdelegates. They are a check against Obama's drift: they can withdraw their support if he abandons his progressive positions. And we can ask them to do so.

GG manages to skewer the punditocracy, LOTEO*, and KO using the same theme.

Cue the "Leave LOTEO ALONE!" comments in three... two...

*Lesser of Two Evils Obama

If you rincipled Leader, then you don't abandon those principles just because of what your opponent says or believes.

A principled Leader would hold the same beliefs and say the same things regardless of whether he/she is running against Feingold or Cheney.

Keep up the good work - I really enjoy your ability to focus on salient issues and facts.

I think the problem for Obama is that he is using this issue to not get "closer to the center" but closer to his own party's leadership. After a divsive primary race, he believes he needs all the Democratic party support he can muster, and as you have shown several times in your blog, the Democratic leadership (Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid) actually WANT this bill to pass as is.

Unfortunately, Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place, where he needs to go against liberal principles (which he may or may not believe in, but until not too long ago strongly espoused) just to become the kind of Democrat his party leaders want him to be.

Of course, this is all conjecture, but I have lost complete faith in the pathetic party elders, and after having seen advisors and the Democratic party ruin Al Gore and Kerry's shot at the Presidency, I am all but convinced that unless Obama breaks away from the party line, he will also lose the election.

I'm confused, Glenn.

You give us two examples of Democrats who apparently got into office by embracing your ideals, and then you mention that the Blue Dogs are also unassailable - despite rejecting your ideals.

Could it be an anti-Republican backlash after all, and not an anti-war, anti-evesdropping movement?

As for the "move to the center", there are at least 20 Blue Dogs embracing that philosophy, compared to the two "non-centrist" examples you presented, and you just stated that it has proven very difficult to unseat them, even with your evidence.

Maybe there's more to their victory than embracing/rejecting neo-con ideals. Maybe we should be looking at them as individuals, and their constituancies as more than blocks of issues.

Even when Obama *does* stand by his previous positions, that's being squeezed into the narrative that says otherwise.

For instance:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/42361.html

But in his 2006 memoir "The Audacity of Hope," he said that some crimes such as "mass murder, the rape and murder of a child" are heinous enough to warrant "the ultimate punishment."

So now the media, eager to squeeze everything into a single over-simplified narrative, are including Obama's standing by his previous statement as evidence that he doesn't stand by his previous statements.

If Obama had changed his mind, and come out against the death penaly, he would have pleased me, but it would have been a change - - yet another flip-flop.

Certainly he's doing some flip-flopping, but it's not fair to use cases where he *doesn't* flip-flop as evidence that he always *does*.