Glenn, thanks for the recap of the events leading to yesterday's triumph (even if it's only a temporary victory). It is glorious to bask in this success, even if all the heavy lifting has to be repeated all over again in a few weeks.

Senator Dodd mentioned a number of speakers who supported his position on the floor. I emailed my thanks to Senator Kennedy and Senator Feingold yesterday evening. It seems I overlooked:

Ron Wyden

Bill Nelson

Barbara Boxer

Sharon (?) Brown - or, is it Sandra?

These were folks Senator Dodd mentioned in the clip you posted. I, humbly, suggest as many people who are inclined email their thanks to these folks as well. I may not be one of their constituents, but I owe them my gratitude for their willingness to act on behalf of the whole country - which includes me. Perhaps someone could correct the spelling or names of those Dodd mentioned as I've listed them here. I didn't catch every speaker on C-Span, but Senator Dodd is right, the folks he mentions, whom I did see, offered tremendous support.

for those inclined to take this route.

# Chris Dodd: (202) 224-2823

# Barbara Boxer: (202) 224-3553

# Sherrod Brown: (202) 224-2315

# Russ Feingold: (202) 224-5323

# Ted Kennedy: (202) 224-4543

# Bill Nelson: (202) 224-5274

# Ron Wyden: (202) 224-5244

From Jane Hamsher:

As Margaret Mead once said, "never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

This is why I am so wedded to Glenn’s blog and others. You can see something go down, and while your eyes and ears don’t deceive you – you’re not exactly sure what to make of the events you’ve just witnessed.

DiFi. Jane Hamsher has another way one could look at DiFi’s choices which makes me a little less inclined to shoot her some nasty email or encourage one of her constituents to do so.

As Marcy notes, the Post's rather superficial analysis of the situation also leaves out the subject of the Feinstein Amendment -- and that may have been a poison pill which split the Senate into three factions and made the passage of a bill that Bush would not veto impossible. Since Reid is very much committed to passing a bill that will be in place when the old FISA bill sunsets on February 1, that probably posed a real problem for him.

Feinstein said she'd have a tough time voting for immunity without her amendment, and according to Marcy, it appears that this amendment "would have required the FISA Court to review the authorizations the telecoms received, to see whether they were legal, before the telecoms got immunity. If the FISA Court determined that those authorizations were not adequate under the law, then the telecoms would not get immunity."

This seems to have damn near sent Orrin Hatch into apoplexy, who -- after he got done sputtering about blogs with an "irrational fear of government" (a little Ron Paul-itis, perhaps?) -- said that Feinstein's amendment might be "a poison pill for him--and presumably the other Republicans following Dick Cheney's orders dutifully."

It’s worth reading the whole thing. I’m not a 100% sure what to make of it, but it does make me hesitate a bit.

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/18/why-did-reid-pull-the-telecom-bill/

The vote for cloture. For me, Kagro X, is becoming a resource for understanding the arcana of the legislative procedure.

As a result, the traditional media coverage of yesterday's events by and large simply got the procedure wrong, mistaking the cloture vote on the motion to proceed for a cloture vote on Dodd's filibuster of the bill itself (which we never even got to), and forgetting entirely about the 30 hours of post-cloture debate, which is what we were actually seeing yesterday.

Also worth a read as the comparison is made between how nimbly the blog world could respond versus the clumsiness of traditional media.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/18/93350/800/358/423733

Yeah. I know. The double speak, empty speak, obfuscation speak of the absolute junk I get back as replies from my legislative representatives drives me to howl at the moon (along with the coyotes). It makes me nuts. Drives to to shrill distraction. I just wanna pick up the phone, get 'em on the line, and s*h*r*i*e*k at them. But, then a colleague offered this... "You have to understand that what they put into print can haunt them for a very long time. They can't necessarily be sure that you're on their side, in their camp, or who you might forward something they've written to. So they are very, very careful what they put into print."

So, it's back to another friend's social worker maxim: Listen to what people say, then watch what they do. Diane may be saying *nothing* useful in her responses to individual constituents. But if her poison pill was deliberate and tactical, then I thank her for it.

I don't doubt for a nano-second that whatever support DiFi might offer - intentional or inadvertent - is self-serving. It probably has to be self-serving before DiFi even considers it. And, I suspect that's true for all of 'em (and, even Dodd to a degree). That's okay with me. It's finding out where their needs/desires are coincident with my own/our own that we can get folks to move an agenda for us. Altruism is nice, it's a tough phenomena to model or explain, I know better to depend on it. Quid pro quo is a bit more predictable.

And, MacK's point is an essential one. We want those cases being advanced by EFF and the ACLU to go forward. In addition to my donation to Dodd's campaign, and last night's donation to the ACLU, EFF is up next (just as soon as my checkbook balance recovers a little bit).