BTW, I really think this fear of the republican using opposition to the FISA bill against Obama is ludicrous.

CONGRESS HAS A 9% APPROVAL RATING, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

Amurikans may not understand FISA, but they do understand a principled stand and the strength that it conveys. There are very basic arguments against this bill which, if given some real medie exposure, most Americans would agree with. Poll after poll (see Greenwald archives) have shown this and Obama is the one person who could have garnered that attention.

What he did what pure chickenshit and it's going to hurt him, one way or another.

To invoke some football parlance, the Democrats, once again, are playing pass defense (i.e., PLAYING TO LOSE).

An example of PLAYING TO LOSE:

"Yes, Senator Obama truly disappointed me with some of his votes and statements of late, but I truly feel he has done so in a prevent defense of what the Republicans would have been saying about him come September and on. The Republicans will, like the Clintons, do and say anything, except for talking about issues, to become elected or keep a Democrat from being the same."

I got news for you: the republican will take Obama's neat little rationalization and do the same thing. People have to stop compromising themselves to "prevent" the republicans from saying something nasty, because it's going to happen regardless.

"No, what the American voter will understand is that Obama voted to give the terrorists more freedoms. They'll believe that because it will be repeated on TV and on Radio over and over and over again."

Only if you let them, which is what you do when you declare that you will filibuster retroactive immunity and then CAVE when the going gets tough.

I can only imagine what our country would be like if that kind of thinking pervaded during the Revolutionary War.

"Obama's FISA critics from the left can be roughly divided between those who consider telecomm immunity as the deal breaker, and who may subsequently forgive him for making a different calculation about whether it was achievable, and those who think the underlying bill is an unconscionable assault on constitutional liberties, and won't quickly get over Obama's ultimate stance"

You can put me in the latter camp. I'll vote for him, but my faith and trust in him was eviscerated, along with the 4th Amendment.

"But I'm sure Obama would be happy to put FISA behind him until such time as he takes office, and would actually have the power to determine surveillance policies."

For people who value the Constitution and our system of government, this won't go away for a long time. We can forgive, but we won't forget.

There's a fine line between these two concepts and its called "principle." Compromising for the sake of passing legislation without regard for principle is what Harry Reid does.

If a compromise can be made without damaging a core principle, such as the 4th Amendment, then that act can be seen as leadership as far as it promotes the welfare and values of the country. This was not the case with the FISA bill.

I think McCain should have Phil elaborate and expand on his views of the economy and why most Americans are "whiners." Go, Phil, Go!!

Both houses of Congress are like a badly neglected garden, overrun with weeds. We need to pull the weeds, keep the vegetables (they're good for you!) and add to the crop.

It takes a lot of hard work (I just started a backyard garden, so I know first-hand), but the results can be gratifying.

We need to recruit more weed pullers and find some good seeds!

to that marketplace gaffe and his statements that Petraues could drive through Bagdad without protection because it was so safe.

The problem with McCain is that there is such a wealth of material and his sound bites that can be used to counter any allegation he tries to make.

I share your feeling of redemption. Living in LA, we were in the same fortunate situation with locally owned power keeping prices in check while the rest of the state suffered under Enron's extortive price gouging.

As screwed up as LA is, we at least got that one right.

When has deregulation ever served the best interests of the consumer?

Used to be paid for through investment tax incentives, not by charging the consumer exorbitant prices.

Totally unsurprising. The only surprising aspect to all of this is that it's taken this long to even start asking the questions.

Can you imagine what might have changed if congress had gone after Bush like they did against Clinton?

Some of which are not so micro, but 100X than the crap the Big 3 put out.

Given no other option, I'll choke down a Bud, Coors or Miller, but only because it's cold and wet and I might feel something if I drink enough of them.

Thank god for Trader Joe's!!

People who call BushCo conservative don't know the meaning of the word. These people are radical authoritarians, and serving the people is the last priority on their list (if it's there at all).

Bill Moyers had Mickey Edwards and Ross Douthat on last week, who were trying to explain where the Republicans went wrong. Edwards, a Goldwater conservative, was very upfront and direct about the authoritarian hijacking of the party, while Douthat was defending and making excuses. Towards the end, they both partially blamed the Democratic Party in the 70s, which is typical.

Republican moderates need to wake up and transition out of the denial stage of their affliction. True conservatives, like Barr and Edwards, have kept their perspective, but many wannabes have no clue because they've never really thought about what constitutes being a conservative.