"That may not be the compliment you think. Connecticut grows no nutmegs, and reputedly (by some accounts) got its name as the "Nutmeg State" from the propensity of Yankee peddlers to foist off wooden nutmegs on the unsuspecting...."

I know the story, or at least a version of it. It is said that yankee peddlers would carve fake nutmegs from hickory wood. They would then "cut" the pure nutmeg by mixing the fakes into the nutmeg casks. Over time, the fakes would absorb some of the smell, making it very difficult to tell the fakes from the real thing. Excellent way to increase the peddler's margins, and the victims had the benefit of adding connecticut hicory fiber into their diets, none the wiser. It really is an excellent wood...

Believe it or not, nutmeggers took a certain pride in the story, and when some marketing department changed Conn. into the "constitution state", we knew that move for the empty PR ploy that it was.

So it was indeed intended as a compliment, and to any real nutmegger, I'm confident it will be received as same.

youtube clip up at FDL by dodd. very strong, very good. He says he'll filibuster if the hold isn't honored.

I've taken swipes at dodd in the past. No more. He will need help though. Feingold, Leahy--where are you.

Same here. Whether Dodd succeeds or not, it is the good faith effort that is important, uplifting, and seemingly so rare.

It should be rewarded. At the end of the youtube is a URL that takes you to a Dodd donation screen. For folks who think this is important, go, reward him. Leave a comment at his website blog telling him the reason for the contribution. Nothing talks like money. Put your small gift up next to the huge pile of Telecom bribery. Until the money problem can be solved, know that your small money is better than their big money.

Remember that in the AG nominee's opinion, FISA doesn't really matter that much anyway. It is, after all, just a statute, crafted by a bunch of loser legislative wannabees. He claims that the AUMF and article II is all the president needs in order to seach snailmail, electronic, voice, without warrant. So Dodd's actions have meaning only if you believe in law, and that Congress is relevent.

Dodd has raised, according to their site, $70,000+ on this constitutional issue. Not sure when they started, but this seems like a fairly brisk clip.

If so, we don't want your keys. We're coming through via the hinges. Be careful, doorkeepers--there may be flying splinters.

Last I checked yesterday, it was 70K at his website, and I made a comment here to that effect. Update VI mentions 150K. But later, I went back to the site and his website counter specified a decrease, to 60K+. At this comment, it stands at 84K+.

I believe it's important to know with some accuracy how much came in as a specific result of Dodd's hold--an action, and his pledge of filibuster on FISA. Important for us to know clearly, and important for him to understand clearly.

So how much was it?

Ledeen in WSJ: "Victory Is Within Reach in Iraq"

No doubt Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno know all this ["this"=the success being seen all over Iraq]. It is, after all, their strategy that has produced the good news. Their reluctance to take credit for the defeat of al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq is due to the uncertain outcome of the big battle now being waged here at home. They, and our soldiers, fear that the political class in Washington may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They know that Iran and Syria still have a free shot at us across long borders, and Gen. Petraeus told Congress last month that it would not be possible to win in Iraq if our mission were restricted to that country.

Not a day goes by without one of our commanders shouting to the four winds that the Iranians are operating all over Iraq, and that virtually all the suicide terrorists are foreigners, sent in from Syria. We have done great damage to their forces on the battlefield, but they can always escalate, and we still have no policy to direct against the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran. That problem is not going to be resolved by sound counterinsurgency strategy alone, no matter how brilliantly executed.

*24 favorable for Bush puts him in Nixonland for the first time, doesn't it? Seems like Nixon's numbers were in this range just before he resigned.

*I believe there is something to Zogby's "anti-incumbent" interpretation. If it is valid, I believe it gives GOP something to at least hope for, in that the voter disapproval is shared between two parties, rather than solely focused on GOP. Look at the recent Mass. district 4 election. The republican ran a good race and made it close.

*I agree with Greenwald re: the unbelievably poor democratic strategy. I believe that, for whatever reasons, they are still stuck back in 2002-2003, very fearful of saying "no" to just about anything the GOP wants. The voting public has clearly changed since 2003-2003. Every poll shows this, repeatedly. And yet the conservative democratic leadership simply doesn't see it.

I believe mrkcohen was simply saying that Gore could not be stuffed into the beltway box. Of course, Gore is not a candidate, as mrkcohen implied, and he neither said nor implied anything about Gore's chances, were he to announce.

That is interesting, but I find it falls short of explanation:

when it comes to political process, it is the liberals who have been embedded in level 3, taking the socially-defined limits of the American political system for granted

why are the liberals stuck in level three? what is the cause?