I like to find ways to imagine that what is happening in the Senate is part of some Amazing Democratic Plan to Trick the GOP into Shooting Themselves in the Foot. But, one past responder to such naiveté on my part claim i was "totoro in wonderland" ... a claim that amuses me. (what better place to be).

But, I ask you ... is there any validity to this? Is it possible? My imagined revolution? I could see that this is /the/ moment that that Dem party challenges Bush on his manipulation, and actually comes together in a cohesive way to force Republicans to filibuster for partisan politics /against/ the Constitution. What could be better for them during an election year. Maybe they have lured the WH and it's minions into believing that they can ask for anything they want, and get it. Maybe this is a trap?

And yet, I can't figure out why Reid would have chosen the SIC version instead of the Judiciary Committee's version for initial consideration. I just don't understand Senate procedures enough to comprehend the politicking at that level.

What do you, or others, think?

so true, bryan. thanks for your thoughtful reply.

i think i will remain in wonderland, though. at least for the next few hours. i'm going to try to manifest intelligence in our congress by thinking of them that way. a fool's journey, perhaps. but, if any of you hardened activists want to join me there, you'd be welcome.

:)

gg:

I think they ought to extend for 30 days.

Can you explain what needs to happen for this to occur? It's very confusing.

if the best case scenario is breaking the debate ... and this requires 60 votes ... how in the world is this going to happen? when 10 dems voted with the repubs to kill the judiciary version?

what's the second best option?

i didn't get my wish, exactly, that this would begin the revolution of wisdom in washington ... but ... it does strike me that by dem/indy voter turnouts and the popularity of "change" messages and reform messages by all dem candidates ... that the dem rebuttal should be a strong and persuasive one. i think (i hope) the tide is turning.

voter turnout and the popularity of change messages /seems/ to indicate to the hiding-rabbit-democrats that they can be popular and principled ... and retort an emotionally charged argument.

i believe!

strikes me that the bushies want this passed to erase the trail of their wrongdoing ... but also to set precedent to absolve ALL wrongdoing in the face of DANGER. to validate all the yoo memos, and all memos we don't know of. to retire and swim in pools os oil, blood, and money forver.

as a sidenote ... i saw pt anderson's "there will be blood" ... and believe it should be required material to understand the depravity of folks like cheney and bush.

He was coddled, like the rest of the fab five, by U-M "coach" Steve Fisher. When Webber went pro, he brought that absurd entitlement to the Warriors game. I chalk it up to just being human, young, and very talented. And I don't fault Nelson for trying to actually coach him ... although I didn't follow this too closely. I gave up on Webber when he blew the Duke game with his "one more time out, please." On the other hand, he is a powerful power forward. Not even close to Karl Malone, though, in tems of ofensive tools. Watching him run the fast break with visinos of Barkley always made me cringe. Webber has always been thinking he's better than he is. Yes, he's big. Yes, he dominates. Yes, his ego gets in his way (what else is new in pro sports). So, maybe Webber's aged, maybe he's more humble, more hungry, more mature. If so, I'll route for him.

I think examining this issue, plainly and honestly, is a good idea. If a politician is running on integrity, then looking deeply at his actions is fair game.

McClelland seems to have some desire to portray this in the worst posible light, though. He writes:

On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the vacant lot for $625,000. They later sold a portion of the lot to the Obamas, for $104,500, so the family could expand its yard. The Rezkos then paid $14,000 to build a fence along the property line.

The context of this was suggesting that Obama had involvement with something shady. While that is possible, what is also possible is this:

- Perhaps the "portion" of the land was exactly the percent of $104,500 / $625,00. Meaning = perhaps it was at market value. Curiously no mention of this at all. Just allusion to wrongdoing.

- The $14,000 fence tab may have been a portion of the entire fence ... meaning = perhaps the Obama's paid $75,000 for most of the fence, and they split the cost with their neighbor. this is what almost all Americans do. And yet, not a word offering how much Obama paid on the fence.

I've basically given up on this website providing insightful, balanced commentary. I go elsewhere for it. But, this one is still in the mix.

I don't begrudge Joan, and I applauded her when she finally owned this:

But as I try to parse moldy New Hampshire exit poll numbers on a rainy Sunday afternoon, I'm forced to do something my pals at MSNBC probably won't: admit I'm inclined to look for ways to defend the Clintons from astonishingly unfair media attacks, because of the despicable media crusade against them in the 1990s.(I'll say it again: That doesn't mean I favor Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in this race.)

A current example of the biased editorship here is the article on Obama and Rezko. There are many, many misleading statements and examples of truly poor journalism in this.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/

Seems this website is choosing a marketing position for Clinton supporters, and the gender that this likely goes along with. Smart business move. Terrible journalism move. I lose respect ... but don't take personally.