In response to observer2's excellent post on netroots overreach, I had the following observation about Glenn Greenwald, who's been making frequent trips to the local ExxonMobil for gasoline to keep the fire roaring.
"Yep, he's becoming a perfect example of the intolerant childishness. I rec'd one of his patented, churlish attacks in response to my saying at this point in time, lefties can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Naturally he equated this with "You're either for us or against us," and then extrapolated out that obviously I was proposing genuflection before the sainted, perfect, transcendent one and never mind the jack-booted thugs coming in the middle of the night.
So, I thanked him for making my point, which was that as an analyst I value him, but when he starts drawing conclusions he gets absolutist and hysterical.
But now he's staked out a position, can't back down, and is vested in raising the ante and becoming a standard-bearer, reveling in his own newfound 'power' and the adoring posts of his own acolytes. Instead of talking people off of ledges, he's keeping them up there and essentially encouraging others to join.
But that's all okay, because he's principled, don't you know, and is happy to play the martyr. What would be a lot more useful is if he, mighty constitutional lawyer that he is, would draft sample legislation that would address the worst excesses of FISA and forward it to Obama. You know, try to be part of the solution."

I don't mind the principled objections. I don't mind cogent analysis. I'm not proposing that anyone just "shut up and get with the program and leave your doors unlocked so the Nazis don't have to waste time knocking." But I really wish he'd try to use his pulpit to turn the conversation more toward, "This is why I think the bill stinks, and here's what I'd like President Obama to do about it. He could still have his data mining tools AND protect our civil liberties, and this is a concrete proposal that would help him live up to his promise to safeguard our 4th Amendment rights."

Noticed in the coverage over Wes Clark's comments on McCain's military experience, with which it's hard to disagree, a reference to Obama backing away from said comments. I was a little surprised. They're being misconstrued, intentionally, no surprise, and I thought Obama might be supporting them, since they do undercut McCain's claims to national security superiority.

So, followed The Hill link http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-criticizes-moveon.org-in-patriotism-speech-2008-06-30.html and checked it out.

From being a little bit angry that Obama wasn't backing Clark, it dawned on me that Obama is simply not interested in a 'fight'. I don't mean that he's a coward, but that it seems to me what he's intuiting, and risking all by basing his campaign on it, is that America is tired of polarization, and he's trying to rise above it by simply walking past opportunities to get in 'fights'. 

Of course, we've heard the rhetoric about moving past partisan division. But many seem to be confused about what Obama has been doing lately: triangulating, moving to the center, what have you. I don't think he's reaching out, per se. I don't think he's maneuvering. I think this is actually a large part of "change": refusing to encourage the sniping, the point-scoring, the narrative of nasty, bickering division and entrenchment.

And naturally, after the last eight years, most of us are spoiling for a fight. But I don't think Obama is interested in that moment of vindication/payback. I think he's more interested in actually being able to go to work to do what's achievable, and in trying to transition the country into a "post-partisan" mindset.

Of course, it's not very emotionally satisfying. And it can seem bereft of principle. But given the realities of how paralyzed and divided our politics has become, how petty and maddening, it actually seems to me to be the direction we need. It's like, "What if they put on a war and no one showed up?"

So much of what we'd like to see and hear...In truth, it would only prolong hostilities and deepen rancor. And this is where I think Obama's coming from.  It's simple, and it makes sense. Sort of like saying to estranged relatives, "Look, you can come home for Thanksgiving again. No one will be throwing potato salad, and Uncle Dave and Aunt Jenny have agreed to stop calling each other names."

Not that Aunt Jenny didn't have a point when she said Uncle Dave was a neocon thug.