How to vote in yesterday's California Democratic primary was troubling me: I'll be more than ecstatic with either Hillary or Obama succeeding W, yet I'm not so certain between the two that I wanted to see either "decisively" in or out at this juncture. I have been viewing Bill Clinton as perhaps the one American who might restore some international good will and, thus, have given Hillary's campaign a nudge up on that basis, yet I've recently been coming around to the effect on international relations that a non-white "face of America" could bring as well. I've been concerned about whether Obama has "experience" but am now more impressed with his flat out smarts -- and fondly remember Carville's best line about the last Clinton presidency: "it was just always reassuring to know that the smartest person in the room, any room, was the President of the United States." It's been awhile on that one, to be sure.

So I entered the voting booth unsure of my ultimate prioritization between Clinton and Obama, sure I would support either in November and not wanting to contribute to a media "finalization" of their campaigns. What to do?

And there it was: the California ballot still named those who have dropped out. There was Senator Dodd -- the one person whose stand in favor of the United States Constitution has been the singularly best conduct by any US Senator this past year.

I voted for Senator Dodd. Anyone wondering why he didn't get zero since he dropped out, that's why.

So the Bush Administration does waterboard people, but only if they're "really, really bad". This is a straightforward admission of conduct that is criminal on every conceivable level and, if what Newsweek is reporting is correct, they're only admitting it now to try to spin a slip of John Negroponte's tongue last week.

But these public assertions that "yes, we do it and we'd do it again" are being stated as if the Bush Administration actually has the right to make that kind of decision, and they are coming from people who apparently live in a bubble in which they tell each other that the law doesn't apply to them if they disagree with it. And there is virtually no media attention to what they are saying -- even Olbermann simply lumped these recent admissions into the "isn't this just another example of Bad Bushness" segment of his show, not ascribing any particular significance to the announcements.

But this is a war crime. The US has prosecuted people for war crimes for doing exactly this. It's torture. The Bush Administration has been dancing around whether they "did or didn't authorize this" for a long damn time but now -- because one of their own accidently forgot the playbook and made a definitive statement -- it's suddenly "yes we did and we'll do it again." In your face, world. They are banking on us being so desensitized by their parade of illegal actions that this one just slides by as "old news."

There's a joke among lawyers. Ridiculously inadmissible evidence is offered in court; the defense lawyer says "objection, hearsay" and the judge asks the prosecutor if there is an exception to the hearsay rule that would permit it. After a moment's thought, the prosecutor says "well, it's really good hearsay, Your Honor." This is funny because there's no such thing as a "really good hearsay" objection, that's not what matters under the Rule of Law. But the Bush Administration is looking us all in the eye and saying they have the unilateral power to ignore international law, American law and morality if they think it's "really good torture."

Glenn, hurry back and walk us through this wilderness, please.

So long as there is a "Terrorist Threat" out there, the United States Congress would rather eviscerate the Constitution of the United States and grant absolute power to the President than risk having voted to rein in some draconian abuse prior to a possible car bombing.

Game, set, match. The Terrorists won. And Americans don't really care so long as they have American Idol, cheap gas and Nike shoes.

There will always be a "terrorist threat." There has always been a "terrorist threat", though. Always. We didn't always cower and embrace fascists in response to it, but there has always been somebody out there who wanted to kill us. We built a country in the face of threats from people who wanted to kill us. Now, our elected representatives will give it all up -- and we'll allow them to -- so long as it won't inconvenience us in getting to the mall this afternoon.

The Ramones got it right: I wanna be sedated.

Don't you get the feeling that Bush et al are really just trying to see how far Congress will let them go? And that the answer is "we don't know yet"?

Bush's latest speech about the urgent need for Congress to adopt the Senate's FISA bill was a caricature, an outright joke -- Americans will die by the thousands, right now, if telecom amnesty isn't implemented, and it was phrased in such mocking hyperbole that rational person could possibly believe what this guy is saying. But heck, let's throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. If nobody calls them on it, it's doctrine.

The thing nobody is asking is whether Obama or Clinton would seek to reverse any of these attacks upon the Constitution. Another thing nobody is asking is why President Bush and his cronies would seek to implement doctrines of presidential power that they would never tolerate if the Democrats proposed them -- and what does this suggest about whether Bush/Cheney has already decided that we're one explosion away from martial law and the suspension of elections.

Impeachment has to be put back on the table. Now.

Let's just waterboard the lot of them, and be done with it.