As usual, I appreciate the thoroughness of your thinking and writing. Your example of a speech class brings it home.

I don't really think Obama is defending his actions. He seemed genuinely embarrassed, and I'm sure he was kicking himself like crazy that he just didn't fit in an attribution somehow (although you and I both know, as English majors, that that would have seriously cut into the cadence). Mostly I just wonder what you think he should do or say now that this has become an issue. I think if you were his campaign manager, you would probably have him do something along the order of what he has done: apologize and say it's no big deal. Surely you don't think this is a drop-out worthy offense?

We might all think that HRC really believes that she made a mistake in Iraq or really thinks her own vote on flag burning was pandering; people who expect her to admit to these things in the kind of groveling, "beat me" way that James Frey succumbed to Oprah are sort of sadistic I think. I don't expect this kind of groveling from Obama on this thing either. I also don't think it is an issue that disqualifies him for the presidency or even my vote.

I reiterate my point from an earlier post (the Greg Brady syndrome): this is going to come back to haunt all of them, and it's going to hinder everybody's speech on the campaign trail. I want more freewheeling speech, not less. (Greg Brady took advantage of some vaguely worded rule of his parents and then, when they found out he "violated" their rule, he was able to show them, with much parsing, that he hadn't technically violated their "exact words." They told him it was a standard that he himself would find hard to live by, but he took them up on it. Needless to say, it bit him many times.)

My major argument is that Obama's giftedness in rhetorical ability (a genuine advantage in public service) is not really under suspicion. Nobody thinks he's a fraud in that arena.

WRT: I will not answer those who attack me and not the substance of my post. I wanted to apologize for the single time that I feel I violated some kind of argumentation ethic with you. Not sure you ever caught it b/c it was at the tail end of a thread, but if this is to what you refer, I felt immediately that I had crossed some line. No need to reply--just wanted this out there.

I noticed that this was the date on the video (from Keith Olberman among other sources) showing W lying about spying (You know, the one where he talks to us like Kindergartners: "When we talk about wire tapping, we still have to get a court order. Nothing's changed...blah blah")

Anyway, it's vaguely coming back to me that this breaking story was held up by the NYT until AFTER the election in 04. What's up with that? Did anybody ever get a straight answer on that? Glenn? Or am I wrong about this?

A fellow student in my graduate class gave me a transcript of a Frontline interview with John Yoo.

Here it is online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/yoo.html

Anyway, this student, who works in intelligence and was defending the illegal surveillance, thought he was supporting his case when he gave me this interview. !! You'll understand the exclamation points when you read through the transcript.

Some highlights:

"I think the biggest problem with FISA...you need reasonable suspicion that someone is a terrorist; you really need to have information; you really need to have something that person did already that point(s) him out as a terrorist." Imagine that!

and

"I think the American people want the government to do things secretly to defeat them (al Qaida) or to harm al Qaida that we can't publicly talk about. That's always got to be the case in war."

In almost every answer he justifies the spying as necessary in wartime, and he draws great distinction b/t wartime and peacetime. He also makes clear that this is not a traditional war against a nation-state. That begs the question, which the interviewer did not ask: This nontraditional war against a tactic (terrorism)--When, then, will it be over? When will it be peacetime again so we can get back all this stuff you've given away?

His answers are breathtaking, and I can't believe someone gave this to me in support of the view that this surveillance is justified.

Please remember these aren't the words of just anybody; this is John Yoo, deputy asst atty general in the Office of Legal Counsel (2001-2003), author of the legal basis for the NSA domestic surveillance program (among other things: He helped draft the Patriot Act and, according to this morning's Plain Dealer, wrote the famous 2002 "torture memo.")

I'm pretty sure it was McCain who said that about Chelsea Clinton--that Janet Reno was her father.

Very presidential.

Rush made some comparison b/t Chelsea and the dog.

Not that any of this deserves to be repeated. Just a correction.

Great post by Bill Owen.