Gore initially ran as a centrist after 8 years of Clinton prosperity. But when he spoke to the NAACP in July 2000, the populist came out. Listen to that speech. Remember Gore's acceptance speech, "The People vs the Powerful?" Read or listen to that. His third debate. Check that one out too (he goofed on the first two, the third was just right.) Of course, he got savaged for his populist talk. Yet he still got more popular and electoral votes than Bush, despite Bush's theft of Florida's electoral votes.

And now look at him. Bag on that goofball Kerry all you want, hell I'll join you. But leave Gore alone.

You have a huge double standard here. Every politician moves to the center after the primary. They all do it and they all have to do it in our two party system.

And I still think you're wrong on hiring/firing decisions for faith-based groups. Every "faith based group" HAS to do some hiring based on religion or they couldn't hire the appropriate faith leader. If you don't want federal money going to groups that discriminate based on faith at all, then you don't want money going to faith based groups at all.

Why not just admit that -- that you don't think there should be federal money at all for faith based groups? Because there is NO means by which federal money can go to a faith based groups if your standard is that they can't take faith into account in hiring at all.

And why would you find Obama's position on this surprising or a shift? His community work was largely based in relationships with faith communities and institutions.

Furthermore, this line of argument reminds me of the Bush I and Bush II gag rule policies wherein birth control clinics couldn't get money if they even referred women to birth control clinics even if the money was kept completely separate. I don't like that at all.

Digby is right. The notion of internal 'firewalls' within religious institutions that keeps govt. money from 'other' money is ludicrous. The result will be improper influence and leverage of govt. within religious institutions, and visa-versa.

A useful precedent is the identical (and equally bogus) rationale that was used by the big investment houses in "separating" their investment-banking and stock-analysis arms. It was a total failure. The companies doing business with the banking firms were able to leverage pressure on those firms to give false, misleading advice regarding key stocks and bonds. Huge damage to investors, the public, including large public retirement funds and the like.

You might be able to firewall money, but you can't firewall the influence that comes with it. Public financing of good religious works, regardless of the benefits they may bring, is simply not worth it. Too dangerous.

to Bernard HP Gilroy that this is not about blogs, nor is it even about progressives trying to flex limp muscles. It's about the United States Constitution, which this FISA bill treats as an irrelevant "damn piece of paper." That's what this is about; and that's why so many people are so incensed at what they consider Obama's flip-flop: not because he's turned his back on them, but because he's turned his back on the Constitution in order (let's see if I have this) - in order to save the Constitution at a later date. That's what this is about.

The whole Nixon didn’t pardon his subordinates argument is a red herring. Nixon was trying to avoid being impeached. Impeachment was the remedy the founders envisioned for abuse of executive clemency. That’s a real threat in the midst of a presidency as Nixon was (at least it is if you have a Congress with a semblance of a spine). But it’s more or less an empty threat at the end of a presidency (as Bush will be after November). That’s why Bush’s relatively moderate and sane Dad thought (correctly) he could get away with pardoning Iran Contra figures (notably Weinberger) and that’s why Bush Jr. won’t worry about large scale pardons. In case there was any doubt, he already tipped his hand with the Libby commutation, for goodness’ sake. To say nothing of the fact that Bush was willing to violate black letter law -- FISA -- for his surveillance law. Why would he not be willing to use his perfectly legal pardon power?

I'm not going to get upset over Obama's centrist genuflections over the past two weeks. It might be a thank you to Reid, Pelosi, Blue Dogs, I don't know. But this guy has an amazing learning curve and if he appropriately gets heat for some of these things, he has plenty of time to straighten up and fly right.

It's early. Wait a couple months for the ecomony to collapse further. Wait till he debates McSame and makes complete mincemeat out of him. That's the time to hit America with some populist memes. I think he will win handily. It's the economy, stupid. And unlike Bill Clinton I don't see him getting sat down by Rick Rubin and Alan Greenspan and being told who really runs things.

This has the potential of being another 1932, as far as potential for changing an entire economic era. A sea change. Remember, Roosevelt was a patrician elitist with a very moderate and centrist initial presidential campaign. So I wouldn't get too bent out of shape right now.

While it's not a surprise, that's a hilarious piece of revisionist history.

OK, if I understand you right I think we might be close to agreement. You acknowledge (I think) that there is a difference between attacking a candidate's qualifications to hold office and attacking his ideas about what the holder of that office should do, ie. his policy positions. You don't like the word "personal" to label this distinction, so I have dropped it.

Your complaint is that in his attack on Clark, Obama is playing only by his own rules, while Clark has not agreed to those rules. Clark is playing by a different set of rules wherein attacking someone's claim about their qualifications is a fair attack. Since these rules are perfectly reasonable, Clark should not be attacked for playing by them.

I would not myself attack Clark for exactly this reason. But Obama as a candidate has to hold people who might otherwise be seen as his proxies to the standards he holds himself, even when those standards are stricter than the formal rules of argumentation.

Clark, by the way, no doubt understands this, takes no offense at Obama's attack, and imagines he is still being useful to Obama's campaign, even when in this case being useful requires, paradoxically, being condemned.