Do I think that Clinton is 'pure'? Of course not. But the idea that she was the 'establishment' candidate, given how she has been savaged by the real "establishment", is laughable. -- paul_lukasiak

Sorry Paul but no. I realize you are blinded by your Clinton faith but she is absolutely an establishment candidate. A good deal more so than Obama at this point. We are only beginning to see Obama's willingness to sell-out. We have been watching it from the Clinton's for years. And you know what pisses me off about Clinton supporters who try to pull the lie you are trying right now? It is that they insult the true anti-establishment candidates such as Kucinich and Nader and their supporters with that lie. All candidates except Republicans are savaged buy the media to a certain extent. That in and of itself doesn't mean those candidates are anti-establishment. True anti-establishment candidates don't make it far enough along in the process to be savaged.

I am not a fan of blind Obama supporters and I was never going to vote for him, short of him forcing impeachment proceedings, but I have grown to positively despise Clinton and her supporters for how they handled the primary. Their true colors really shined on through. Clinton is not a liberal, she is a corporatist. Clinton is establishment, Obama is establishment and thus their supporters are enablers of the establishment.

What worries me is the idea that people will actually make real political decisions like casting a symbolic vote (or not voting) based on this kind of empty-headed sentiment. -- achilleselbow

And if I said you actually have an empty head -- that you and those like you will keep us all in chains for the foreseeable future -- you would have what to say? I am curious.

If I were an administration lawyer, I could argue that it says nothing about privacy and I have not searhed your person, house, papers or effects by grabbing a cell phone call out of the air. -- L.W.M.

Is everyone seeing this? Make a note of it if you will... this self-described "liberal gatekeeper" and champion of the more and better democrats, one-step-forward-two-steps-back plan for change, is now telling us that "well the definition of what is private is decided not by you but by administration lawyers." It could be argued you know!

Are you seeing this Glenn? What a reasonable and legitimate argument. It must be, it has been said...you know..out loud and everything.

You are a fucking snake LWM. A smarmy fucking snake.

I am outta here. This place is an insane asylum and most of you are fucking nuts.

This brings to mind something I have been contemplating. It's not just more and better Democrats. It's better politicians we need, Republicans as well because we have a two party system and both parties need a better class of politicians for the system to function properly. -- L.W.M.

The "more and better" fantasy again...

For the system to function properly? The system is functioning properly. Just like they want it to. The problem, for us (we the people), IS that system. It has been gamed out of our control. Working within the system to "reverse the trend" is like asking the Bush administration to investigate themselves -- it ain't gonna happen.

More and better politicians of any stripe are not the answer for two simple reasons. First, we will never be able to elect enough of them in any given election to affect substantive change in the short term. It will not happen and everyone knows that. The results of the 2006 election go a long way toward proving ths fact. What were they elected for? What have they done? What are they doing right now??

Secondly, because we can not elect enough of them this round, those that we are successful in electing into the current gamed system will either be compromised and/or marginalized by the time we are able add to their number with even "more and better." How are the few good ones that do get elected going to get rid of the corporatist influence? Wish it away?

"More and better" is a fantasy. It ignores the underlying systemic problem. It is a truly retarded, "one step forward, two steps back" approach that leaves us farther behind at every turn.

Let's Bribe Congress

If the difference between Dems who voted No and those who voted Yes is only an average of $5,000 in telecomm support, why don't we take the money we're raising and buy them off?

And yes, I am an effing genius. -- Argonaut

I don't know if you are an effin genius or not but I think you might be on to something. I think it would be great if you all made a big production out of attempting to "bribe" them.

Set up appointments with the worst of the capitulators who have received the most in telecom donations. Call every network and local news organization you can think of and alert the papers and bloggers. Give them times and places and tell them that they DO NOT want to miss what is going to go down. Then send in Grandmother's armed with the numbers of telecom donations and have them, with cameras rolling, say something like, "Senator so-and-so, you took X amount in political 'donations' (said as sarcastically as possible) from telecom giants y and z and now you are preparing to vote for retroactive telecom immunity. We have raised this greater amount and are willing to give it to you if that you will instead vote to protect we the people from illegal spying."

Man how I would love to see that happen.