Okay, if the Democratic leadership seems determined to betray the citizens who trusted them to end our involvement in this war, we need to develop a strategy. Taking to the streets has been mentioned, but that will only work if it is done massively, frequently, and in a manner that disturbs the routine. In other words, the people who participate have to take the risk of losing their job. In fact, merely abstaining from work in mass numbers would send a very significant message. As long as the demonstrations are weekend picnics, they won't do a thing. Any other ideas?

ScottWatches, thank you for also asking for a strategy. The power that the Internet brings to this discussion is to decide, mobilize and act.

What if we agitated for a general strike on September 11, as a memorial (to our country before Bush) and as an opportunity to witness the Petraus report. There are few of us who couldn't plan to be gone from work that day. If there's some agreement, let's go to our other favorite places on the Internet and see if there's support. Then we can figure out how else to pass it around.

Hey Bryan Hayward - thanks! And I thought it was my idea! I'll pass this to everyone I know, and the blogs I visit!

Please read the Harpers article by Garret Keizer. Please support and help publicize a general strike on November 6.

"What is it in the writer's value system aside from mindless sentimentality that would have him support vulnerability of companies that shared information with the government in an effort to avert harm to the citizenry of this country?"

Let's take first "vulnerability of companies": I guess we're all vulnerable to criminal and civil penalties for breaking the law. In fact, what is it in the country's value system that would have it support my vulnerability in supporting my local economy by drinking wine and driving home, without hurting a soul, yet be convicted of drunk driving?

As to "effort to avert harm to the citizenry of this country": interesting that JJ is able to discern the true intent of (he doesn't make clear) either the corporations or the administration who unlawfully spies upon its citizens.

Although I agree 100% with Glenn's post and am too extremely frustrated with nominal Democrats such as Feinstein, the idea that an Al Gore presidency, or even a John Kerry presidency, would have been no better than a George W. Bush presidency is absurd and so, so dangerous. The way to deal with senators like Feinstein is to be more active in the Democratic party at its grassroots level and require them, through involvement with the DNC and other fundraising bodies, to insist that Democrats act like Democrats. Obviously Feinstein is a lost cause, and there are others, but that doesn't mean that the party can't be reformed. Let the Republicans be the party who splits and experiments with making a three party system viable. I'm all for it if it happens, but until it happens, we're just going to lose elections if we split our parties.

Hillary is not my candidate, although I will vote for her if she's nominated (and whatever third-party-loving Naderite fool took me to task for saying that before - we just don't have enough time in this life, never mind space on this blog, for me to hurl enough insults and vent enough anger that you helped, in any way, to give this country to George W. Bush in 2000). But I agree 100% with Edwards about learning from the first war vote. If this country goes to war with Iran, the blood is now on her hands.

Several weeks ago, I posted my belief that a general strike, for which Garret Keizer made a compelling argument in Harper's, might be the most effective means for the majority of the country who wants to bring the troops home, to make their point emphatically. I see that Harpers has the article by Keizer posted now at http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/0081720

flypsyde, that's not really true, that Hillary has supported the Bush regime. I don't like a lot of the things she's done: war vote, flag burning charade, Iran vote yesterday, and other things, but I'm fairly confident she wouldn't shred the constitution, and I don't think she would have invaded Iraq. I don't think (if it's not been done already) that she will start a war with Iran. She does pay too much attention to the Israel lobby (which explains her vote yesterday) and she does have way too many corporate backers. So there's a lot of negative things to be said.

I've sent money to John Edwards's campaign, and am considering sending more (although I'm pretty impressed by some of the off-the-radar candidates, such as Dodd, for whom I used to have nothing but suspicion). I won't vote for Hillary in my primary. But I certainly will vote for her if she's nominated, because the Republicans are pure fascists and allowing them win is tantamount to being a Nazi enabler - I don't know what I'll do if they win again (although if that happens, given our decline, I might not have much choice).