One very disturbing aspect that I don't see discussed much is the continuous mention of a difference between "U.S. citizens within the country" ad "persons outside the country". As a U.S. Citizen who frequently travels outside the country, does this bill imply that constitutional protections of search and seizure etc. become null and void once I cross a border? I didn't realize I give up all rights as a U.S. Citizen if I am not on U.S. soil. Hmmm, I don't see where in the Constitution that it implies the U.S. Government can do whatever it wants to me if I go on vacation to Europe. In fact, I really don't really see where it says the constitutional restrictions on Government activity don't apply to foreign nationals as well, since I would like to view the Bill of Rights as principles that we, as a nation, believe in. I know, THAT is just totally loony-tune thinking....

Even if it something isn't at the level of Constitutionality, laws that treat citizens differently whether I am home or abroad scare me...

For an example to how an opposition party is supposed to act. The leader of the NDP is demanding the prime minister's chief of staff to render his resignation over the leak of this memo at a crucial moment in the US elections. What comparable thing did the Dems do over the arguably much bigger scandal of the Valerie Plame outing? I mean, demanding real consequences for an administrations actions? What a concept....

or, you can simply look to your left... http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/03/pew/index.html

Again, missing the point. First, I did not say that "If you voted for Hillary it's because you are a racist". What I did say was that race was a major factor in this outcome. One of the most important factors in every Democrats mind is "can he/she win the general election". Both candidates have the handicap in the general election, because the Democratic party is on average less sexist and less racist than the Republicans. However, in this race, it really was if Hillary doesn't win, then the Democratic candidate is black. "Can a black win in the general election" was a factor to be considered by every voter, just as is "can a woman..."? However, sexism is less geographically important than race (Texas has had a woman governor, after all) for the simple fact is there is no geographical area that is "predominantly female". I'm just pointing out that the extreme geographical distribution of votes suggests that, at crunch time, a significant fraction of rural white democrats in Texas and Ohio, in their heart of hearts, don't believe that America will elect a black for president. And that this was more of a factor in Hillary's slight win over Obama than just about any of the others all the pundits are coming up with.

Thanks for proving my point. Even though in the real world one would be considered brain dead if, among friends, one were to say the color of your skin no longer matters to anybody in the rural, deep south, if you mention that as a probable cause for an electoral result, you get some thoughtless , reflexive "no it isn't" response from partisans of the person who, in one particuar incidence, benefited from that residual racism. I was just pointing out that this obvious factor in this election result is being avoided like the plague. And your reference to "rednecks who don't get the paper or internet" actually strengthens my point. They got the same attack ads, scurrilous rumours, candidate messages etc. from the media in the rural areas and the urban areas. But, the divide along racial lines remains. Of course it was a factor, and likely a major one. Why is everybody trying to pretend it wasn't. It is the one unique critical question brought up by the Obama campaign. Same as whether sexism is a major factor in Hillary's electability. Actually, to me, Obama and Hillary have more similarities than differences in substance, although in rhetorical ability Obama is as amazing as.. well, Bill. The interesting subtext of this campaign is whether this country is more sexist or racist?

It is hard to find anywhere in the media when they talk about who voted for who the simple fact that urban areas voted for Obama and rural areas for Clinton. To me, that says one thing... racism. Which has been the one "don't ask don't tell" topic of the election coverage.. other than everybody congratulating themselves how the CLinton and Obama as front runners means we've gotten behind that. Maybe those rural, white, over 65 Hillary supporters who grew up in the pre civil rights era south and midwest think a Black is still unelectable by their neighbors. Of course, there might still be some old style southern democrats.... On the other hand, we can hope it really was the Republican crossover vote in those open primary election states that was being called for by Rush Limbaugh and all the other wingnuts to "vote for Hillary because McCain can beat her" that help make up those large majorities for Clinton in the rural, predominantly white (at least in Ohio, compare the second figure in http://www.bgsu.edu/organizations/cfdr/ohiopop/opn2.pdf to the CNN county vote map) counties. What worries me is that these Clinton "victories" may really just mean that America isn't ready for a dark skinned president.