How Blago viewed Senate:

Throughout the intercepted conversations, Blagojevich also allegedly spent significant time weighing the option of appointing himself to the open Senate seat and expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including: frustration at being “stuck” as governor; a belief that he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor; a desire to remake his image in consideration of a possible run for President in 2016; avoiding impeachment by the Illinois legislature; making corporate contacts that would be of value to him after leaving public office; facilitating his wife’s employment as a lobbyist; and generating speaking fees should he decide to leave public office.

Now we know what the Senate is actually good for.

http://chicago.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/dec09_08.htm

I think that's all going to get dropped now. The much better game is going to be to tie the current shitstorm in Illinois to Obama.

"I don't care how many sock-puppets and political marionettes infest the comments sections, it's all worth it when I can have two updates, over easy, with my toast and coffee. "

Try the coffee straight, without the alcohol. It's good that way, too.

"Between excessive citizen activism and excessive trust or passivity, the former is far preferable to the latter."

Yep. And, as Hildebrand's weak-ish (imo) post at Huffington shows, the push/pull noise from the left is being heard by team Obama.

The Left universally scorned Bush's "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" message, and rightfully so. Which makes it all the more amazing that some seem to want to hang a similar banner on Obama.: "Mission accomplished--we've won--go home."

Personally, I would like some really capable people to re-examine the structure of the intelligence agencies.

certainly not an expert, but it does seem like a horrid mess, in need of untangling.

There is also the issue of the out-sourcing intelligence and other govt. functions to private corporations. For example, in all the recent talk about Brennan, chief advisor to Obama and once-certain CIA nominee, the issue of his being CEO of "The Analysis Corporation" has not come up much. Brennan's company held and still holds (I think) a contract from state department for a half-Billion bucks to handle passport processing. Remember, it was employees at Brennan's company who got caught snooping in Obama's electronic data as well as McCain's and Clinton's. God only knows what else they do for the Govt.

The revolving door between govt. spy agencies and corporate spy companies is dangerous development, and Brennan a prime participant in how that all works.

Hayden received personal criticism for his role in the controversy when he spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on January 23, 2006, to defend the practice of warrantless surveillance. During the question and answer period following his speech, Hayden appeared to deny that a "probable cause" standard is contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--which limits the government's ability to conduct searches and, by extension, surveillance.

Knight Ridder reporter Jonathan Landay prefaced a question by noting that "the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures." Hayden responded: "No, actually--the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.... That's what it says." When Landay continued, "But does it not say probable--" Hayden said: "No. The amendment says...unreasonable search and seizure."

In fact, the amendment refers to both "unreasonable searches and seizures" and "probable cause."

Later, responding to Landay's question, Hayden stated:

Just to be very clear--and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me--and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one--what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe--I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

Writing up the exchange, the online magazine Editor & Publisher (January 23, 2006) wrote that Hayden "appeared to be unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when pressed by a reporter with Knight Ridder's Washington office--despite his claims that he was actually something of an expert on it."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_V._Hayden

Let's say there was a law professor--constitutional specialist even--who suddenly, out of the blue, became president. What are the odds he'd appoint a guy who had displayed such ignorance about the 4th amendment?

Hildebrand's comments stem from his seeming belief that governing must be done from the center. Governing from either the Left or Right is not sustainable (they'll just point to Bush as an example). Bill Bradley has said something very similar--that while while either Left or Right can kill proposals, only the center can generate them--and then push them through. Proposals like health care, for example.

Obama's team has already been identified (obviously) as not being of the Right. Their campaign (and campaign opponents) did that for them. But they also believe (I think) that they must be just as clearly separated from the Left in order to govern effectively. This is what Hildebrand and the whole Obama team is doing. In a way, the more they piss the Left off, the better positioned (branded) they are to govern effectively and pursue partnerships in the center.