I have to ask what Obama thinks he is accomplishing by dissing Moveon.org and Wesley Clark? What does he think he's accomplishing by attacking those that stood up to the Vietnam war in the 60's? Well if it's trying to kill off his biggest supporters, I think he's succeeding beyond his expectation. Republicans never diss their base. You'll never hear them criticize the far-right christian theocrats. You'll never hear them criticize the "free market absolutists" businessmen. Well democrats eat their own, I guess.

PS Cinzia not voting for president, is the same as voting for McCain. Give Obama your vote. You don't have to like everything he does, but he'll represent you better then McCain will.

It's particularly fascinating to watch people finally come around to the notion that Senator Obama is -- gasp! -- a politiician.

Yes, I, too, am displeased with Obama the last few weeks. Much as he may be a new form of politician (label him how you like) he's a politician nonetheless.

Holy shit, did you read the most recent Sy Hersh bomshell on Iran?

"Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

Pelosi and Reid must go - impeachment needs to be brought back on the table before the madmen in the WH start WW 4.

his election is less likely, not more likely, the more homage he pays to these these tired, status-quo-perpetuating Beltway pieties.

This is exactly the jucture at which reasonable people suddenly disagree. I've placed myself squarely in the "But it's important that he win anyway" camp but I can certainly understand the point of people who will withhold their support based on his apparent embrace of the Village narratives.

I think that the most important service we can continue to provide is to point out where that narrative has holes in it. (For an important clue, the spot where absolute falsehoods are put in print are usually where the underlying arguements are unsupported as well: http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_06_29_archive.html#8859557845933898715)

To whit, attack Obama personally as well as professionally. Jump on his reversal on previous positions and disavowal of progressive values, all while banking his (McCain's) own lack of firm standards and values aren't as closely examined.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16055.html

So much for "respectful campaigning".

It would almost be funny if the stakes weren't so damned high.

And the "lessor of two evils" is still evil.

Thanks to both GG and to KO for making an effort to mend their analytical and oratorical fences over FISA, at least to an extent that may serve to prevent the commenters in the liberal blogosphere from allowing the surrounding "debate" to devolve into a "follow the gourd/follow the shoe" scene out of Monty Python's Life of Brian. Glenn is, well, obviously the smarter of the two, but we can all use KO's articulate bombast once in a while.

And thanks for keeping the eye on the ball: Obama simply has to win in November or who knows where this county will go and what will happen next to our Constitution, but that does not mean Obama should not be reminded that the reasons his election is so important include adhering to principles -- constitutional principles -- that Bush & Co. have done their level best to render "fringe, leftist, weak" inconveniences. Moving to the "center" that the neocons would define means moving toward fascism.

People admire Obama because when he speaks of "principle", he's spelling it with an "le". When McCain and his advisors speak, you can bet they're most often spelling it with an "al". There's a difference. Obama needs to remember not to change that in the name of "moving to the center."

Did you read my post?

"Cinzia not voting for president, is the same as voting for McCain. Give Obama your vote. You don't have to like everything he does, but he'll represent you better then McCain will."

My point is, I'm no longer convinced of that, though I'd love to agree with you.

I'm no longer convinced that anyone in the political establishment represents American individuals anymore.

I've long felt pity for Republicans who wish their party would go back to being fiscally conservative and leave the social conservatism to the churches and Rush Limbaugh. Surely there are many of them. Now I wish the party I most identify with, the Democrats, would go back to representing individual rights and liberties.

I made no such assertion. But I hope my question to Frankly---and Frankly's answers---were useful to the many non-lawyer lurkers.

I didn't mean to imply -- and don't think I did -- that you were one of those making those assertions about pardons. I linked to FMD's comments because it pointed to the basis proving that Presidents can issue pre-charge pardons. I didn't link to it to suggest anything about your views on that matter. The link over the word "those" (as in: "those who assert" such things) was the to top diarist today at Kos who is asserting that.

Dear Mr. Gree,

With all due respect, I think you need to update your political categories. I think if Glenn's column has had a consistent, well made meta-point these past few years, it's that in our politics today "the left" and "the right" are less important than those who care about preserving our democratic institutions and those who don't.

The current 'neo-conservative' power structure is not 'the right' in any sense recognizable before the rise of Fox News. Netactivists like MoveOn are also not just composed of the old or new "left", but a wide variety of people who hold heterodox positions on a number of things. This left isn't just for socialists or new dealers any more.

There may be one or two situations when the old left-right vocabulary is useful, but now I think (and I think this is a well-made point here) such talk mostly just serves Beltway myths about the eternal left, right, and center. Such a way of conceiving politics is easy and it sells, but I don't think it reflects reality.

Reread Glenn's posts about where American public opinion is, and then decide what you mean when you say the "lefties"--aren't they actually "the averagies" on many issues? (Iraq, GWOT, the environment, FISA, etc.)

Best wishes,

John