Update!

Obama, like McCain, disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision.

"I have said repeatedly I think the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances, for the most egregious of crimes," said the Illinois senator, speaking to reporters at a hometown press conference. But he added, "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution."

I'm disappointed. My first reaction was that Obama is moving to the middle politically for the general election, and is trying to avoid coming across to swing voters as "too liberal". But I really think his stand is a principled one, albeit one I disagree with. I think that the fact that Obama has been a Constitutional law professor for years means that when he talks about Constitutional law, he's serious.

But I'm still disappointed.

Posted at June 25, 2008 7:37 PM in response to Supreme Court: America's values have become more civilized. But John McCain's values haven't.

No, Scalia did not side with the majority opinion. He dissented, along with Alito, Roberts, and Thomas.

Posted at June 25, 2008 7:07 PM in response to Supreme Court: America's values have become more civilized. But John McCain's values haven't.

the poster did in suggesting that Obama is as willing as Bush to invest "dictatorial powers" in the executive. Of course, the poster was prepared for that with a little pre-emptive name-calling: e.g., "Obamabot", etc.

Obamabots refers only to the extreme folks -- see my link above to obamamessiah.blogspot.com, for examples -- who give the rest of us Obama supporters a bad name. We all know they're out there, so it does nobody any good to pretend otherwise.

Posted at June 24, 2008 7:11 PM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

Well, obviously I disagree. The point of my original post was the opposite of your conclusion. I think Barack Obama's shift of posture on FISA is totally predictable and consistent with his record of pragmatic, center-left, politically calculated policies. I'm hardly surprised by his FISA move, and it doesn't shake my support one bit, but it's gotta be a tough pill to swallow for folks who had a distorted image of their savior presumptive nominee.

Posted at June 24, 2008 2:29 PM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

Even with the unhelpful guidance of a million moral compasses--all pointing in slightly different directions

Posted at June 24, 2008 2:22 PM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

Jason,

I suspect you're new here. I actually DID link to the whole story, so you could make up your own mind. That's what the red text means -- "hey, buddy, there's a hyperlink here, click me!"

Posted at June 24, 2008 2:20 PM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

When you say that Obama has chosen political expediency over morality, I think that you are taking a very narrow view of morality. When I think about what is moral, I tend to think about all of the consequences. You seem to be thinking that the moral thing to do is always to rage, no matter how impotently, against any and all injustice.

Since you bring up the foundations of ethics, you're not talking to a pure Kantian here, but nor am I a strict consequentionalist. I'm a post-postmodern neo-Hegelian of sorts, so I am judging Obama based on his leadership of a nation to realize its civic virtue. Obama holds up very well, in my eyes. But when he falls down by showing willingness to do violence to our Constitution -- the foundation of our polity -- well, then, he shows his weaknesses.

Posted at June 24, 2008 2:17 PM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

I live to serve.

Posted at June 24, 2008 3:27 AM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

Not to be unduly cantankerous here, but would Obama have voted against UAMF? Well, according to Barack ...

According to an item in the gossip column Page 6 in today’s New York Post, Mr. Clinton said at a private fund-raiser Tuesday that Mr. Obama was asked in 2004 how he would have voted on the Iraq war resolution of 2002, had he been in the Senate at the time. According to people who attended the fundraiser, Mr. Clinton was said to have quoted Mr. Obama as saying, “I’m not sure,” and then criticized The New York Times for not highlighting that position as ambivalence over the war.

Posted at June 24, 2008 1:52 AM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

The epitome of being in the tank is to see everything about the person you favor with a relativist lens, and everything about his/her opponent with an absolutist lens.

Posted at June 23, 2008 10:55 PM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives