I'm so thankful that he's my representative, despite the efforts of Tom DeLay, et al. Go Lloyd, go!

Or an oncoming train?

And why do I get the sense of imminent dread? A foreboding that after this, nothing will be the same again?

and asking for help.

http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

I remember reading an article when Feinstein was first running for the Senate. It was from a Democratic activist who initially supported Feinstein because she was a woman and Pro-choice. Then she actually began to listen to Feinstein talk and realized the she was very pro-business and pro-military and that in fact outside of abortion and couple of other social issues Feinstein was basically a Republican.

When she switched her support to Feinstein’s opponent in the primary (who was a white man) she was vilified by many of her fellow Democrats for not supporting a pro-choice woman for office. Her argument that the man was not only pro-choice but also for strengthening regulation and cutting the defense budget was met with ‘but Feinstein’s a woman.’ It didn’t matter that 90 percent of her positions were basically Republican. All that mattered was that she was a woman and that she was pro-choice.

To many in the California Democratic party that’s all that has mattered. Feinstein’s a woman and she’s pro-choice. There was never any need to look beyond that. It’s about time the party began to look past her sex and at her actual voting record. Maybe now a true progressive can challenge her in the primary.

Then create the legislation on how you want FISA to provide the needed checks and balances.

had a lead editorial castigating Feinstein on her position. I doubt it will do any good - I get the impression the Chronicle and Feinstein don't get along - but let's hope we get lucky or the gods are with us or whatever it might take - certainly not reason and justice - for us to prevail.

Using Chris Dodd's form -- free phone call! -- I just called Leahy's office. They don't know how the Senator will come down on this. They then transfered me to the Judiciary Committee's office, where they reiterated that point, but told me how good Leahy has been. I agreed and asked that he step up and support Chris Dodd and rule out telecome immunity.

Call, people!

http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

I heard some of Diane Feinstein's comments on amnesty on a remarkably one-sided NPR report on the matter. In a sound-bite Feinstein was complaining about how unfair it was for the poor telcos, since everyone knows that they can't defend themselves in the civil suits because the evidence is secret! Well, that's a bald-faced lie. I wonder how the chairman of the Democratic Party of California feels about lies like that? Oh, I forgot. I just don't get the Big Picture.

The NPR also frontloaded the report with another sound-bite, this time Orrin Hatch complaining that those patriotic telcos wouldn't help us in the future if we didn't grant them amnesty. Could he be so simple, or does he think we're so simple? Warrants, as has been explained here and elsewhere, compel them to help when the courts issue them; when not used, they are not to help eavesdrop. That's the whole point!

The NPR report did play a sound-bite of Russ Feingold, but since Feingold's remarks did not address the two points above, and the reporter did not address them either, the report was worse than useless.

(Name changed to make point - apologies to thorin01)

HILLARY Democrat in Name Only

I remember reading an article when HILLARY was first running for the Senate. It was from a Democratic activist who initially supported HILLARY because she was a woman and Pro-choice. Then she actually began to listen to HILLARY talk and realized the she was very pro-business and pro-military and that in fact outside of abortion and couple of other social issues HILLARY was basically a Republican.

When she switched her support to HILLARY’s opponent in the primary (who was a white man) she was vilified by many of her fellow Democrats for not supporting a pro-choice woman for office. Her argument that the man was not only pro-choice but also for strengthening regulation and cutting the defense budget was met with ‘but HILLARY’s a woman.’ It didn’t matter that 90 percent of her positions were basically Republican. All that mattered was that she was a woman and that she was pro-choice.

To many in the Democratic party that’s all that has mattered. HILLARY’s a woman and she’s pro-choice. There was never any need to look beyond that. It’s about time the party began to look past her sex and at her actual voting record. Maybe now a true progressive can challenge her in the primary.

-- thorin01

Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:05 AM

As I have been saying for more than 20 years now, the only thing worse than voting against a good woman candidate just because she's a woman is voting for a bad woman candidate just because she's a woman.

Goes double for DiFi and Hillary, who have not just set back the cause of women in public office, but actively damaged the Democratic Party, the U.S. Constitution, and the safety and future of the United States.

Female, minority, disabled, whatever - No More Republicans in Democratic Costume!

I just got off the phone with Jeffery in Senator Feinstein's office, which I called using Chris Dodd's tool. Jeffery said that she has not yet come out with a position on retroactive immunity, so he did not know where I had been reading that she was in favor of it. Is it possible she is beginning to feel the heat? Can't hurt to put in some more calls. I know we're very angry at her, so please just try to let her know we can begin to improve our view of her if she does the right thing here.