Within the next three months, the Obama DoJ is going to find some way to reverse itself 180 degrees and pretend that this is what they intended all along. Want to start a betting pool?

This is profound, Glenn. May that the message be heeded.

My Oxdown Diary I put up this morning is aimed at very much the same theme that progressives are getting upset with Obama's actions that are in conflict with his campaign promises. The diary is an open letter to Obama and includes this warning:

Many of us in the progressive community worked hard for your election once our preferred candidates dropped out of the race. Simple math should tell you that you were not the first choice for most of the people who voted for you or worked on the late stages of your campaign, since you started well back in the pack of candidates before the primaries began.

It was very easy for progressives to join in your campaign for two reasons. First, your candidacy was an affirmation of the American ideal that all people have equal rights and neither race nor family financial status should be barriers to holding the highest office in the land. Second, you had a finely tuned ear and quickly seized on the higher ideals of other candidates who dropped by the wayside in the long primary process. You gained the support of progressives by saying all of the right things on civil liberties and social justice.

Please do not make the mistake of believing that our commitment to you is stronger than our commitment to our values. We were for civil liberties and social justice before we were for you. Do not make us choose between our ideals or you, because, in your most recent actions we do not see the ideals you told us that you would champion.

What happened? Will you return to the ideals that won you the nomination and provided you with the team to achieve your election?

The continued extra-constitutional behavior of the Executive Branch as demonstrated by Barack Obama only underlines the depth of the damage that has occurred over a successive number of Presidencies.

Clearly, the inability of the current administration to renounce the worst aspects of the prior regime is informative.

I did NOT vote for Mr. Obama, I supported Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. Mr. Obama is deeply connected with establishment centers of power and does not represent the broader objectives of the American People, he's made that point abundantly clear. The relevant question becomes how to proceed from here? Apparently, within this two party system, it makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOVER whom we vote for, we continue to get the same policies on the core issues of economic policy, foreign policy, and posture regarding civil rights, liberties, and fealty to constitutional principles.

The fact that we get an admittedly superior cosmetic face for the Executive Branch or the fact that they have markedly shifted position on any number of boutique issues cannot and does not negate the reality of an apparent deeply disturbing disregard for the core constitutional principle candidate Obama repeatedly enunciated in his campaign for the Presidency.

I agree with Glenn, Turley, et al, that doing bad is doing bad, whatever the reasons. But I do also think that if the motives are one or a combination of the political/practical concerns that Glenn addressed, then it makes it much more possible for a growing consensus such as this one to influence the Obama administration (or at least Obama himself) going forward. That is, if they're doing bad because they believe in the policies wholeheartedly, then we're screwed; if they're doing bad because of one or more of those more practical considerations, then maybe the sense of what's practical or possible or desireable can be shifted. Y'know?

To me the motive remains the most important question, if only because it is the unanswered one. Is it because he fears criminal charges against Bush administration officials? If so, what is it that is so potentially explosive? Is he getting talked into it by advisors? If so, who are they and how do we get rid of them? Is it because he was never sincere in the first place about a desire for openness and the end to obsessive secrecy? If so, was he sincere about anything? And if you can 'fake Obama,' whose rise to power--a slick marketing campaign notwithstanding--appeared to be genuinely people powered...

Well, if you can fake the 2008 Presidential campaign, you can fake anything, and the radical fringes start to look a lot less radical.

@GG check this "On the Media"...

Glenn, I don't know if you caught this. I believe you'll want to listen. It's short (<10 min.)

Marc Armbinder's quote (attributed to "Justice Dept. Officials in the WH" @5:30 made my head explode.

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/04/10/01

Hear No Evil

April 10, 2009

Last week, the Obama Administration invoked the state secrets privilege for the third time in as many months when arguing that Jewel v. NSA should be dismissed. How does this square with his much-touted promise of openness and transparency? We asked Marc Ambinder, associate editor of the Atlantic and chief political consultant to CBS.

It's two sides of the same War Party coin, folks. It's all there to control you. The fraudulent left-right paradigm of the War Party is spelling the ruin of our constitutional republic.

Obomba is just a front man (same as Boosh was) for international banking interests that own and operate the centralized U.S.S.A. government via the "Federal Reserve" ponzi scheme that is helping to rob the wealth of the American people in broad daylight. There could be no war or empire or 'homeland' security-surveillance apparatus without the "Federal Reserve" quasi-private central-banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of our debt-based currency and credit. WAKE UP!

I voted for Obama, and on balance I think he's doing a pretty good job so far. On balance, I think he's been more or less consistent with his campaign promises on most issues.

But on this important topic, WTF? I am not of the opinion that Obama is a power-hungry fascist, so I am searching for a rationale that makes any sense. I would like to think that some dead-enders in the DOJ didn't get the memo that we don't do this stuff anymore, but that obviously isn't the case.

I'm not looking for justification, just explanation- what the hell is the DOJ (and ultimately, Obama) thinking?

It can't happen here

I'm telling you, my dear

That it can't happen here

Because I been checkin' it out, baby

I checked it out a couple a times

But I'm telling you

It can't happen here

Oh darling, it's important that you believe me

(Bop bop bop bop)

That it can't happen here

Mr. Zappa in his fine sarcastic mode. Unfortunately, it has happened here and we are in the process of learning the true meaning of the question: What good is it, if a man gains the whole world and lose his own soul?