There are various issues that McCain would be wise to focus on in the near future, issues where Obama will be compelled to take a position that may not be popular amongst supporters, in an attempt to further force Obama's hand.

I'll take this a step further and suggest, that first and foremost amongst these issues, is the issue of Iran generally, and in particular, the various resolutions, in Congress, calling for a naval blockade.

As I must always advise, I may be showing my ignorance of your system here, but isn't it inevitable that both McCain and Obama, if for no other reason than by virtue of being Senators, will have to take a position on at least the (Democratic-initiated!) Senate Resolution?

With regards to Iran, Obama dare not adopt a position that varies from McCain, even though I expect some supporters cling to the belief that he (still) favors diplomacy over military action.

(And in this same vein, I'll trot it out again: what I understand to be senior advisors to the Obama campaign, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, along with the comparable advisors to the McCain campaign (incl. James Woolsey), endorsed what I understand to be an AIPAC-derived Report on US-Israeli cooperation regarding the "threat" of Iran. As I further understand things, AIPAC is thought of as being the impetus for the Congressional Resolutions, too. See where this is going? Or am I misguided?)

When I first raised this, those who commented were skeptical, but I still believe that the Republicans will continue to proceed based on a simple premise (when I first proposed this, I saw it more as a gambit, but no more): that Obama, like the Democratic Party, will not repudiate the key tenets and "accomplishments" of the Bush era, especially in the area of war/military.

(Also looming on the horizon: withdrawal from Iraq. It ain't gonna happen, both Obama and McCain know it, but only one politician's supporters believe their candidate favors withdrawal.)

Obama's seemingly sudden political deafness, or "triangulated transformation" should I say, is remarkable for how quickly it's happened. Wesley Clark was not defended by Obama for stating what should be obvious, that being a prisoner of war does not a foreign policy credential make. By the same token, scurrying away from a fight on matters such as FISA in order to avoid being called names by the opposition isn't much of a profile in courage either. Yet worse still, if Obama believes that legislation to be acceptable (and his only stated reservation regarded the immunity provision), then his political antennae are either deaf, dumb and completely inoperative to the demands of his party's members, or dismissively turned off.

Obama has shown scant regard for the netroots blogosphere who supported him early on. He has built a campaign organization that has sought to avoid hearing the voices of others who have every right--indeed, obligation--to speak on matters of privacy, war, economics and health insurance, to name a few. Sure, he's better than McCain, but that's a pretty low threshold.

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

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.

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.

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."