"Democrats" didn't capitulate on this bill. Congressional Blue Dogs and Senate DLCers did, as they invariably have on other bills that pitted the country's true best interests against their (perceived) political interests and their corporate overlords' business interests. Just look at the roll call for this vote, and you'll see that the vast majority of Dems who voted for this odious bill were either Blue Dogs or DLCers (along with a handful of conservative Dems like Webb).

These are not liberal or progressive Democrats--which I personally believe you have to be to be a real Democrat--and frankly I don't view them as Democrats at all, but as corporatist political whores who have no core principles save to protect and enrich and empower themselves and their corporate sponsors. They just happen to call themselves Democrats because at present it suits them politically, but I've no doubt that if they thought that it would be more politically advantageous, they'd switch to being Repubs or Indies or National Socialists in a heartbeat.

I'm not trying to exonerate other Dems here, and especially its leadership, which has been generally quite weak in standing up to Bush and the GOP on many issues. But I think that people make a mistake in lumping them all together as one big capitulation coalition. Just as there are Dems who have been tough and aggressive in going after the administration (albeit in a manner that superficially appears to be weak and perfunctory and which has not impressed some on the left), there have been Dems who have been weak, and yet other Dems who have been traitorous in their facile persuit of political self-interest and corporate whoring.

And it is a mistake to view them as one big cowardly and capitulating entity, not so much because it's unfair to them--they can or at least should be able to take it, and if they can't then they don't belong in politics--as because it's politically counterproductive. We have to go after Dems who fail to do not only what they were elected to do, but what, as Dems, they should be doing without needing direction from us. But we have to go after them according to their motivations for voting the way that they do, which is not as uniform as some seem to think.

And by far the biggest block of those who vote against their constituents' and the country's best interests are Blue Dogs and DLCers, and thus they are the Dems we should be going after most aggressively. If we can make inroads there, I believe that those other Dems who might mean well but lack the courage to do right will be either emboldened or frightened into voting their convictions more frequently--or more easily replaced by Dems who will do so once we show that none of them are safe. We can't go after the entire party, but instead have to focus on those genuinely "bad apples" who effectively keep Dems in the minority on so many issues.

I.e. the Blue Dogs in the House, and the DLCers in the senate. The correlation between them and Dems who have voted the wrong way on so many issues is astounding and undeniable.

I also suspect that they are likely the most corrupt Dems as well. Certainly they are morally corrupt in how beholden they are to big corporations. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were also legally corrupt. You don't throw away over 200 years of civil liberties and separation of powers unless there's something in it for you. So what's in it for the Nelsons, Carpers, Salazars, Landrieus, Herseths, Davis's and Ellsworths (and perhaps Webbs) of the party? Figure this out and use it against them, and perhaps they won't be so quick to vote they way that they do.

As always, it's the politics, stupid. Not the principle, which it very rarely if ever is. The Repubs figured this out decades ago. It's time that we did too, and stop being such naive purists when it comes to our elected officials and how and why they do what they do. They are not our parents, spouses or friends, but our representatives. We don't need them to be "good", but merely to DO good, whether it's out of principle or political expediency.

And right now there are enough sufficiently unprincipled Dems who believe--with good reason--that it's more politically expedient for them to vote against the public's interests, and so long as this continues to be the case, they will keep voting the way that they do, country be damned. If we can find a way to either make it politically expedient for them to vote FOR the country's best interests, or replace them, we will go a long way towards turning the political equation around.

So we can and I think should complain all we want about weak Dems, and try to either get them to "grow a pair" or replace them with stronger Dems. But the real, much more serious problem in our party is these Blue Dogs and DLCers. We need to do something about them, and fast.

Next time Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria, she's going to need more than a head scarf to protect her from omnipresence. And the new 168 hour provision gives them more time to crack public keys. And they can bug her office, since once she's overseas, they can now legally monitor her from any location here, without disclosing the means. Then they can continue the surveillance once she returns, until the time limit when they would have to pursue a warrant in court. With respect to checking up on any of the Administration's foreign policy claims, the senators and representatives are now under house arrest. Secret Democratic strategy? For what, political suicide?

No, what will happen if Hillary should win (or any Democrat) is that the Rebuplican contingent will scream and howl about the terrible, terrible excess of authority that the president has, and their obedient servants in the media will help fan the faux outrage.-- Brian Schlosser

Actually we'll contend the election was stolen and that any Democrat in the White House is illegitimate. Needless to say we'll do that for the entire term, and declare any initiatives from said Dem, illegitimate as well.

Hopefully House Democrats will have a gay member that says something inappropriate and another in the Senate that calls someone a name in another language. Then we'll be able to take Congress.

You guys hate one-party rule, right?