Isn't about being progressive or conservative. It's about whether preserving the provisions of the Constitution and the core framework of our form of government outweigh strategic electoral considerations. Obama clearly believes (as his fanatic followers do) that his winning the election is more important than protecting people's right to privacy. But it's OK, they say, because Obama is a GOOD person (I'm not so sure anymore). I remember people saying the same thing about Bush eight years ago.

God help us all now that we have to rely on the personal character of our leaders for our basic constitutional rights. The courts remain our last chance, but with the current SCOTUS, it's a very slim one.

I'll vote for Obama, but he has lost my support and will have to really show me some leadership (i.e., doing what's right even though it's not popular) to redeem himself in my eyes.

and will post it legally wherever I can. People need to see this, whether it's at a bus stop, street corner or public kiosk. Hopefully, it can draw enough bystanders to generate some momentum.

Also, if Obama can't fully support and actively work to pass the Bingaman amendment, then my "audacity for hope" in him will be utterly destroyed.

Seriously, all the other issues pale in comparison to this tragedy. Without our core civil liberties, this country is nothing.

Excellent job, as usual.

Because the crowds are handpicked repug zombies who can't understand why people don't appreciate the wonderful service he has given these past 7.5 years.

Was my first pick in the primaries. I volunteered for his campaign and got to hear him speak a couple of times. To my mind, he embodies the best the military can offer: experience, intelligence and an unwavering compass regarding the right course in complex and difficult situations.

My pick for SecDef in '09.

He can buy into the RW BS and hide under his bed, or he can stand with Clark and speak the truth: military experience without a larger understanding of foreign policy does not qualify you to be President.

I'm waiting.

Did he see Clark's statements in context?

The truth is, getting shot down and being tortured does not confer the kind of knowledge and leadership (executive experience) needed to run this country. The fact that McCain is unable to distinguish between Shia and Sunni interests and thinks Ahmadenijad is the center of power in Iran is evidence that he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to Middle East foreign policy.

Clark made a stark distinction regarding McCain's military experience and the knowledge and judgment required to direct military forces as part of a larger foreign policy. I am (yet again) extremely disappointed in Obama for (yet again) reacting to RW noise on an issue that doesn't exist and emasculating a position that works in his favor. He needs to slow down and make sure he is proactive, not reactive, on these matters.

"Pedinska

Yes, actually there are. They're called objective sources. Factcheck.org is a good start.

-- bucks4mccain"

From Factcheck.org:

"Fear and False Claims

February 28, 2008

Updated: February 29, 2008

Playing the terrorism card, a GOP-linked group twists facts about a controversial electronic surveillance bill.

Summary

A widely-seen ad pushes a White House-backed bill that would make it easier for the government to wiretap Americans. It also would give retroactive legal immunity to telecom companies that cooperated with Bush's secret, post-9/11 warrantless wiretapping program.

Sponsored by Defense of Democracies, a group with GOP connections, the ad takes the House to task for not passing the bill, as the Senate has. The ad appeals to fear, with its image of Osama bin Laden and similar ploys. But we find that it also makes several misleading claims.

Specifically, the ad says that:

"The law" allowing government eavesdroppers to intercept al Qaeda communications has expired. But the main, 30-year-old law that lets them listen in, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is still on the books. It's a law amending FISA, making it easier for intelligence-gatherers to eavesdrop on communications that might include Americans, that has expired.

"[T]he House refuses to vote" to replace the lapsed law. Actually, the House passed its own version of the legislation months ago. The House and Senate are now in conference to resolve the differences in their bills, which is the normal legislative process.

"[N]ew surveillance against terrorists is crippled." The administration has admitted that surveillance authorized under the expired bill will extend at least into August. It has also admitted that when a new member of a known terrorist organization is discovered, that person can be surveilled via authorizations granted under the expired law. And at any rate, FISA itself hasn't expired, and any time the government has strong evidence that someone is a member of a terrorist organization, it can still get a court order to eavesdrop on that person."

Not completely on point, but states the truth about FISA: as configured prior to this "compromise," FISA is all you need to conduct TARGETTED surveillance against individuals and groups. But that isn't what this "compromise" is really about. The main result is extending to the government the ability to conduct UNTARGETTED surviellance against extremely large groups, if not the public.

The stinking pile behind all of this is that absent verification through judicial review, the telecoms appeared to have granted an open tap to everyone's communications, which were siphoned into data storage for later sifting. If they didn't, or had mitigating evidence, they could have provided it to the court. But for some reason they didn't want to do that.

To the morons asking for evidence: that's what these telecom cases were all about and why the telecoms, the Bush Administration and now both parties and houses of congress have been working so hard to block the only path of inquiry to the TRUTH.