Let's see what happens on Russert's program with Hillary. I predict he gets strongarmed throughout.

--Shooter242

I had wanted to address this earlier and am glad someone else brought it up again.

I tend to agree with Shooter (!) that Hillary should be able to control the interview, at least to a greater extent than she would have just a week or two ago. Hillary is nothing if not a superb strategic thinker, and she has chosen this interview at the perfect time.

Right now, we are in the midst of a significant backlash against pundits' rampant and gleeful writing-off of Clinton's nomination prospects, and although the media's treatment of her still leaves much to be desired (Chris Matthews, I'm looking at you), it has definitely been put on the defensive. Just today, even David Brooks self-immolated himself on Russert's show about how terribly wrong the media was about New Hampshire, in the same predictable way that journalists try to create readership and ratings by making "stories" of their own ineptness.

Hillary goes into this Tim Russert interview holding a distinct psychological advantage. Russert will likely still have some reasonably challenging questions for her, but the tone will be much more hospitable to her than if the interview were being held immediately prior to the New Hampshire primary. Of course, there's no way to compare that in any "scientific" way, but I have little doubt that the timing benefits Hillary.

(An aside: we may see Russert sublimate his aggression by questioning Bill Clinton's recent behavior and words, and by off-setting Hillary's victimhood with similarly sympathetic racial issues, as relevant to her rival, Obama.)

The only question in my mind is whether, with all the self-interested self-flagellation of the media in the wake of New Hampshire, the pendulum swings too strongly in the other direction, giving Hillary much more leeway in the coming weeks than is warranted. Or, will the media simply revert to old form more slowly than the uninhibited Chris Matthews, seeking only to survive the backlash against it by erecting a superficial and temporary shield of apology?

I'm betting on the latter.

the next time they have to interview Hillary Clinton.

Don't forget the rules: "hard hitting journalism" is for the uncool politicians; shootin' the s**t is for the cool ones.

It may be too late for this, but what about suggesting a provision that provides indemnification to the telecoms, provided they appear and cooperate in the litigation? ...[T]his approach would separate their interests from those of the Administration people who are looking for cover for their own lawlessness.

This ignores the fact that at least part of the problem of governmental abuse of power -- perhaps even most of the problem -- stems from the private sector's willing participation in those abuses. As we all know, corporations now have a hand in more human activity than ever before, and telecoms in particular have the nearly singular ability to meddle in our rights to private conversation.

Immunity, indemnification, or otherwise, any effort to exempt these very, very legally and politically savvy companies from the known potential consequences of their illegal activities is nothing short of not only a symbolic, but an all-too-real, abandonment of the very concept of the rule of law and its attendant necessity of equal application to all people and entities, no matter how wealthy or well-connected.

Telecom immunity (or indemnification) would be nothing short of Glenn's description: a blatant announcement to the country and the world that money and influence can indeed buy a person an exemption from the laws that we supposedly cherish as a democratic republic. It would be simultaneously emblematic of the rot that has seized our lawmaking institutions, and itself a catalyst toward their further adulteration.

To paraphrase John Adams, we are a nation of laws, not of men. The issue of telecom immunity is a critical test of the modern equivalent: whether we are a nation of laws, not of ledger sheets.

WT and others ... are of course free to ignore, in whole or in part, the following...

Done.

What?

Do we have ownership of our bodies?

I maintain that we do not..

Stop being opaque and come out with it. I have no freaking idea what you're talking about.

"Do we have ownership of our bodies?"

This is, almost certainly, a Drug War reference...

Ah, thanks for the assist. I seem to have inadvertently pissed all over Aycharaych's attempt at facetiousness. Apologies.

[HRH]: "Do we have ownership of our bodies?"

This is, almost certainly, a Drug War reference...

Hmmm, lessee. Author: His Royal Highness. Yep, Paul, think you nailed that one. It was a gimme, though.

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not very familiar with everyone's regular point of view, hobby horse, etc. I'm forced to be a rather casual reader of the comments section most of the time.

I can usually get a general sense, however, of which commenters are the biggest pains in the arse.

But if it works, who am I to ridicule solipsist American myth-making courtesy of Survivor, 24 or the Senate floor?

Who pissed in your apple pie?

I'm getting impatient with you Americans and your troubling penchant for treating symptoms rather than disease. I realize it's more profitable for some. But why is that stopping YOU? Your strategy of avoidance is killing the patient - the United States of America.

Boy, for the lost cause we monolithic, singular-minded Americans are, you sure seem to worry a lot for our future. If you'll forgive me, however, I'm unable to engage in the same risible level of sanctimony in response, as you have not availed us of your nationality for us to make equally facile, sweeping generalizations about you.

Now, please excuse me, I have a burning need to satisfy my need for Hollywood fluff by watching Senate floor proceedings on C-Span.

Comedians.