Obama was, arguably, grooming Kagan for the Supreme Court when he appointed her to be his Solicitor General. It must have been no surprise to him when Kagan expressed clear support for indefinite detention during those confirmation hearings. From the NY Times:

[Kagan] said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law -- indefinite detention without a trial -- even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Kagan, evidently, imagined there was some way around the 2008 SCOTUS Boumediene decision; which, IIRC, nullified Bush's legal claim that the Constitution gave the President the power to detain indefinitely without trial. At any rate, in May of '09, Obama promised to seek new legislation to provide a firmer legal basis for indefinite detention. From the NY Times:

He said he would "work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

However, on 09/22/09, the Justice Department announced that:

"the administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress" under the 2001 use of force resolution [which is not quite the same as Bush's claim that the Constitution gave him that right].

The problem with Kagan is Obama.  Another disappointment.  These are among the most important choices.  Many never get to make them.  The Repubs are in disarray and repudiated.  What better time than to shove a know liberal down their throats.  There are plenty to choose from.  If they reject the choice, they will fall further in esteem in the public's eyes.  Only then be accommodating and make the apparent Establishment choice than Kagan appears to be.  The GOP backed down regarding financial "reform" and that shows the dire straits they are in.

Obama offered hope and change.  This is the type of moment when it can actually occur.  Does this choice, like others in a long line, really convey that?  Does Obama believe he is so weak he must accommodate the other side?  Once again, hold your nose and settle.  That seems a more realistic slogan at this stage.

It would be interesting to look back at the rhetoric Obama supporters, especially here, who, I suspect, told us how it would be different, less cynical, turning the page.  How many of the present Obama policies and appointees, starting with Emanuel, would they have agreed with back then, in the heady days, when it was all about principles and the corrupt ways of DC?    

Now, it's just a different set of players playing the same game, including Obama, though he promised otherwise.  Remember the commercial about Tauzin?  And something else that has not changed is the way that supporters line up, despite policies to which they once objected, to follow along and even defend who they support, just like their former brethren on the other side.  Playing the same game.

Liberals will go along in the end, too.  That is how it always comes down, because we can't let the other side win.  And Obama knows this, and uses this to treat his friends worse than his enemies.  He profits from the very rigged system he told us he would change, thus making back room deals with Tauzin himself.  It evidences that the Establishment forces that control the Democratic Party, and America, are not his target, but his benefactor, albeit he presents it in a softer form that the GOP.  Nothing has changed at all.

What's for public consumption seems no different from professional wrestling, at this point, in DC, and even here.  Most everyone playing their roles in the script, with the outcomes, for the most part, already known by the players.

Republicans openly appoint people that they are able to flaunt to their base. Miers ran into a buzz saw when she was deemed too soft. Only a hard line conservative would do.

Democrats should feel positive enough in their core party principles, that they don't feel the need to run and hide from them.

Now, we have a Democratic President nominating, as others have pointed out, an intellectual cypher to the court--and one who virtually everyone agrees will move the Court to the right, whether incrementally or substantially.

No wonder we live with the image of the "weak party"

The myth of Democratic weakness is one that needs to be exploded, stat.

It's not weakness. They are doing exactly what they want to do. They're not betraying your values -- they don't share those values.

Liberals really need to get this. Democrats are not poor put-upon folks who are scared to stand up for their principles. They don't HAVE those principles.

It makes it so simple.

If they are against Kagan, that's all we need to know.

That's why liberal blogs so enamored of Obama keep featuring videos of them.

Kagan isn't very liberal about civil liberties? Not so liberal about the power of the executive branch? Supported Bush's policies? Not a champion of liberty? Whatever.

He also makes a point I made last night: Obama has never been the liberal that liberals thought he was.

who truly believed that were those blinded by his light. but then, as that great ancient greek philosopher, BTD, stated:

"pols are pols, they do what they do."