What I can't square is that the junior Senator from Illinois is from a state where the Republican governor placed a moratorium on executions because of the error rate.

Obama today -- "I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight 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."

Uh huh.  So tell me again why we can trust him on anything he says?

I hope it doesn't appear too off topic.

In some ways this is about how people deal with disagreement and political expedience, and such.  And as much as I really don't want to do this, I will.

First of all, I don't think Obama is endorsing the death penalty on any particular level.  What he's doing is BUYING A RIGHT WING FRAME on a situation that would never, in all liklihood exist, and he's doing that for the soul purpose of inoculating himself against the accusation that he's soft on, of all things, child rape.

That is my reaction to his statement on this issue.  Hopefully that keeps this on topic.

But now I will go on a tangent and address the thing that's happening here in these threads.

What this reminds me of is one of Clinton's answers on torture.  She was asked, if one could be absolutely sure that crucial information could be obtained that would save 1000s of lives, would she condone torture?  And, to address that "narrow" (note Obama uses the same word) circumstance, instead of giving a long answer about how such a situation would never exist, she said "yes."  Insofar as that hypothetical situation would exist.

This inoculates her against the accusation that she's soft on terrorism.  

So guess how the Obama movement responded on that answer?  The spread the lie that Clinton is pro-torture.

This is why I think the Obamablogs and the movement that Obama embraced is a movement of lies.

This is why I have continued to keep going back to this theme.  And I would contrast that with what we see here.  If TL, and the good people who participate at TL were TRULY obamablog counterparts, they would not merely be expressing dissappointment and questioning Obama's resolve.

If TL patron's were truly Obamablog counterparts, TL regulars would be pushing the lie, right here and now, that Obama is PRO-DEATH PENALTY in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

So Obama supporters should take a chill pill on this outrage they're manufacturing about how people are too unfair to Obama.

Besides, given that he did SELL himself as something different, as transformational, so expressing dissappointment, observing that he is NO DIFFERENT AT ALL seems all the more appropriate.  All the more deserving.

Personally, speaking only for myself, as far as I understand politics and wedge issues, issues we still all care about, I have no problem with Obama's statement today.

Why I didn't want to do this is because while I have no problem with the statement Obama made today, because I know his campaign, the movement itself spent so much time lying about Clinton, what would make me happy, what I think Obama deserves is for someone to take the statement he made above:

"I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes."

And do this with it:

"I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied ..... for ....crimes."

That would be giving back to the Obama movement what it has given the world.

Because, I think, he knows he's in the fight of his life for the Presidency -- a contest that should have been a cakewalk for a Democrat in this election cycle, but which is clearly going to be a great struggle for Obama.

Adopting this sort of position is what Obama feels he must do because of the great damage that has been inflicted on his image over Wright, Bittergate, etc.

He knows how much he is regarded as a radical left elitist. This is an attempt to pull his image in the other direction.

And that's how an Obama Presidency is likely to shape up as well. He will take positions that compensate for his poor image.

Suffice it to say, those will not be positions progressives will admire.

In an action that combines cynical political opportunism and outright reaction, Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, has publicly denounced Wednesday's decision by the US Supreme Court outlawing the execution of people convicted of child rape. ...

Obama's rush to embrace the right-wing minority on the Supreme Court is a clear demonstration of his political trajectory. Having become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee--and given the overwhelming popular hostility to the Bush administration and the Republican Party, in a strong position to win the White House--he is moving rapidly to the right, seeking to demonstrate his reliability and fitness to govern from the standpoint of the financial aristocracy that really rules America.

In this context, the most pernicious role is played by those who bolster illusions in the "progressive" character of Obama and Democratic Party, even as their right-wing orientation is openly displayed.

Hillary has nothing to do with this thread. She is not our nominee. Her position on the case, if she had one, is irrelevant.

neither is sen. obama, unless august has come and gone, and i was in a coma for the month.

apparently sen. obama missed that class in law school, the one where they discussed that quaint document known as the "constitution", and the even quainter "bill of rights". i'm sure he was thinking deep thoughts elsewhere at the time.

see, he didn't hear about the reason the bill of rights exists: to protect the minority from the whims of the majority, not the other way around. had he actually bothered to attend the lectures, he'd know this and, while anguished, would have realized the constitutional correctness of the opinion.

he would also realize that it's not the state's job to provide "closure" for anyone, it's the individual's job to do that for themselves. that isn't the purpose of our criminal justice system, contrary to popular (and wrong) belief.

for myself, as a father, i'd want 10 minutes alone in a room with the perp, to "chat". a completely normal response, or at least let me push the button. again, not the state's job to make me feel better or get revenge.

Tomorrow he'll agree with the Supreme Court completely, but on Friday he'll disagree again.  

Honestly, Hillary is supporting this person?  Really?  I mean, if she hadn't run against him, would she really be putting herself out to support him?  

He appears to have no real principles!  That really bothers me!  Doesn't it bother other people too?  Am I the only person who thinks it's immoral to elect someone without a soul?  Without strong beliefs?  I WANT TO ELECT SOMEONE WITH SOME KIND OF A BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!!!    Is that so crazy?  

Before his disgraceful turnarounds on public finance, FISA and now this - there was ample evidence of his lack of commitment to progressive values. Yet it made no difference to any of the progressive bloggers. WHAT WAS THEIR AGENDA?  Was it just to destroy Hillary Clinton?

I think it is time, if there is still time, for people who have wholeheartedly endorsed Obama to withdraw their endorsements until he begins to acknowledge their progressive values.

It would be refreshing if our candidate would lead instant of following.

This whole review ferments a "vengeance is mine" mentality used as a political ploy, generated from emotionality rather than analysis of a constitutional issue.

Obama's stance on the DP is directly related to his voting constituencies. He's opposed to the DP in gang circumstances while serving the Southside of Chicago. Now he accepts the DP for child rapists in the general to garnish the middle right closer to McCain, to siphon off those Republicans he needs to win.

What also surprises me is that Obama followers are starting to see Obama for what he really is- a politician, not a savior.

No one is saying that child rape is not a heinous crime - I think we can all agree that it is.  But, as in many cases involving children, the testimony is not always reliable.  Further, it is believed that many, many cases of child rape go unreported precisely because it often involves someone close to the family, and the possibility of the death penalty on conviction could ensure that more of these cases will go unreported.  That hardly seems like justice for anyone.

What bothers me about Obama's comments is that they don't appear to have been made by someone with legal education and training, and they especially do not seem to have been made by someone who teaches others about constitutional law.  His willingness to take what I see as the easy way out of complicated issues, and to abandon the overarching idea that the Constitution takes precedence over his individual views, bothers me a lot and once again makes me wonder if he holds any beliefs he is willing to stand up for.  The answer to "is nothing sacred?" appears more and more to be "No."

But the law and order crowd will love it, and this is about votes, so we really shouldn't be wasting our time worrying about whether there will be anything left of the Constitution.

Obama mischaracterizes today's decision as a state's rights issue. It's not. It's an 8th Amendment issue of cruel and unusual punishment in which the evolving standards of decency of a civilized nation must be taken into account

I am amazed at our country that people think it's just fine to kill people like is done here.

It takes a violently psychotic mind to coolly calculate wren to commit their crimes.

Same as the competing boss.

All bosses are the same.

Now, just who chose the boss?

Obama...he's soooo progressive.  His radical right friends and his pro-death penalty positions. No triangulation at all going on there.

While the death penalty is not a huge issue for me, general civil right's for the accused is far more important to me, I don't care much for the Supreme Court getting in the business of deciding what is and what is not a capital offense worthy of the DP.  The SCOTUS is supposed to determine the Constitutionality of a law, not whether its application is appropriate.  

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings.   A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession.  Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee).  While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt.  That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.  ...

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense.  Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations.

I did find this comment in a non-rec diary. I'm surprised it's still there:

When I was campaigning for Hillary I was constantly told that Obama was the new type of politican.  On the other hand, Hillary was skewered because people believed she would say anything to get elected.  Now that Obama is the nominee I am being told not to get upset about what he says because he is just saying it to get elected.

I guess it turns out I was right.  When Obama talked about "hope" he was merely talking about his hope that he could get away with saying anything it took to get elected.