I think we are being continually reminded that O is simply unwilling, or unable, to take on a fight with his (our) political enemies, preferring to take the path of least resistance. He is playing us on the balance scale against them. How much can he satisfy his supporters while simultaneously not riling his opponents? Behind this lies some kind of poorly understood power wielding (threats?) by establishment forces demanding the preservation of their privelege, wealth, influence, and status. As Krugman points out in today's op-ed, these people treasonously opt for their political positions over science and reason, or the constitution. Civil liberties be damned. The photos must not be seen because they are a setback to American psy-ops, and they weaken the propaganda position of this class internationally and domestically.

Some of the stuff here is getting ridiculous. O first went wrong by throwing Rev Wright under the bus? well, first he defended his relationship in a pretty decent speech - you may remember it? then, when Rev Wright showed himself to be all about him, he was cut loose.

Forget the details, however, and let's just say this one more time, slowly: Obama is a p o l i t i c i a n! He is not a saint, he is not a religous leader and he is not (nor has he ever claimed to be) whiter than white.

If you want Gandhi or a Martin Luther King, you have to accept that you'll get no formal political power.

"I've been searching for an Obama supporter who (a) defends his decision to suppress those photos but also (b) criticized him when, two weeks earlier, he announced that he would release those photos. I haven't found such a person yet, but I'm still looking. "Glenn

You'll be looking for a long time because the majority in the middle have moved on and are not focused on this anymore. This is very old news, but at least it gives Glenn something to write about.

I wonder if Obama is actually implementing Leiberman's agenda, rather than having Lieberman assist in implementing his.

If McCain had been elected, he would have owed Lieberman - big time.

What does Holy Joe have over Obama which causes Obama to kowtow in the general direction of New Haven?

@ Jebbie:

"Don't you find it rather disconcerting that you don't know that a President you support (and voted for?) is not breaking both domestic and international law or lying us into war? Precisely what has Obama done which makes him any different than McCain?"

I find it disconcerting that some people can't tell rhetorical questions when they see them. I will admit to having my knowledge expanded by bystander earlier on - I'm not one of those that thinks they know everything - but I'm pretty comfortable in my knowledge that O isn't lying anyone into war. As for the question in the last sentence, you've obviously made up your mind that Obama and McCain are exactly the same so what good would any examples be? I find that disconcerting, I tell you.

I think it's transparent to everyone that Obama has no intention of coming close to bringing us within the rule of law. I remember a post you wrote where you noted that the danger of what the Bush administration was doing was that the next administration and administrations to come would be sorely tempted to leave it in place--that the lawyers for the next administration would advise not to give up powers that the Bush administration had grabbed. Here we have it.

The weird thing about the photo release issue is that the level and blatant nature of the hypocrisy seems taken for granted--by the media, political class, etc. With the exception of the ACLU and some in the blogosphere no one seems bothered. That's a testimony to something Tony Judt said which was that the problem for the US democracy wasn't so much the abuse of power by the state--democracies, he suggested, could survive that, but the "will to ignorance" on the part of the public. Yes, public opinion shows concern, but where is the real political organizing to pressure Congress and the administration? Is it that the forms of organizing via the internet were useful for the election campaign but failing us around specific policies? Having the means to mobilize isn't the same thing as mobilization? What's going on with the public in the US that can't be blamed solely on the media, who it doesn't trust anyway?

And that is why you are having such trouble finding the principled democrats who both support Obama’s current position and who criticized his former position – because most of us HAVE taken those two seconds to consider the nature of Obama’s current role; we recognize the euphemistic nature of the “endangering the troops” argument; and we see his reversal as a function not of hypocrisy or political expedience, but of a belated recognition – likely prompted by his military advisors -- of the difference between what it means to be an effective journalist, say, or lawyer, or even congressmen, and what it means to be an effective President. These are not the same thing. Nor should they be.

Obama had the title "Commander in Chief" when he initially announced that he would comply with the law and release the photos.

What's changed?

He needs to be impeached.

You'll be looking for a long time because the majority in the middle have moved on and are not focused on this anymore. This is very old news, but at least it gives Glenn something to write about.

Are you going to allow your wife to resume posting any time soon?

Here’s how it works:

• You present a rational argument in the comment section of this Blog (Thanks for the Ken Gude article link by the way – very informative).

• Unfortunately, much of your comment is in conflict with Glenn’s views.

• Glenn returns with a snarkly comment that quickly lowers the level of discourse.

• You attempt to provide a rational response to his snark.

• Glenn’s cult, sensing fresh blood in the water, quickly jumps in using semantic-twisting pseudo-logic and ad hominem arguments to support Glenn’s view.

• The discussion reaches playground-level (I know you are, but what am I?).

• You leave in disgust.

You appear to be a student of logic and reason. Please be aware that trying to present these two principles to this group is often an exercise in futility.