I’m trying to figure out why Edwards seems reluctant to take on this issue. I agree with Glenn and others that he could be the stimulant to move Obama and Clinton into a more aggressive stance and apparently has little to lose and much to gain. Some speculation.

Since SC is so important for Edwards to have a chance to be a viable candidate, he may be worried about muddying the water by introducing something this late in the game. If he says it is such a big deal to the SC voters this late, the voters will wonder why he took so long to mention it. And it could make him look weaker when Obama and Clinton pay little attention to it. If Edwards waits until his last chance is over to then make it a big deal, he could look desperate to voters on Feb 5. Also if he is already angling for a chance at an important cabinet position in the Obama or Clinton presidencies, he would not want to tick them off by pushing too hard on an issue they seemingly don’t want to gain prominence.

I’ll leave speculation for the motivations of Obama and Clinton for another posting.

She was supposed to start out as the putative front-runner, then coast to victory in the primary by never, ever saying anything even slightly controversial, because pointed words pop the bubble of her image in the public mind, which is one of such total and complete blandness that voters are invited to project their wishes upon her.

FISA immunity is controversial, so she'll avoid it, and if forced to comment on it, she'll hedge as much as humanly possible. Which is a lot.

It would be a real victory to get Hillary to commit to restoring Habeas Corpus. It would be near impossible to get her to commit to actually asking corporations to adhere to the laws regarding the privacy of America's citizens.

Obama has similar motivations, I think, but in his case, he's selling a great big glowing ball of hope (and good for him to have managed to make it in the first place). Too much reality or specifics can only taint it.

But if Edwards winds up 3rd in South Carolina and just withdraws before making a principled stand for a cause that rightly should be his (he is the one who's supposed to be about sticking up for the little guy), then he's useless.

Dear Candidate Edwards,

The preservation of our Constitution is paramount in my mind. Awarding the telecoms immunity, warantless wiretapping, and basket warrants strikes at the very core of what it means to be an American. I've been hoping that a candidate would step forward and pick up this issue where Senator Dodd left off. I supported Senator Dodd's bid for the presidency, and was sorry he felt it necessary to withdraw. He has, however, promised to make good on his campaign pledge to filibuster any bill that includes telecom immunity.

It's my understanding that as a former Senator, you have privileges which allow you to be on the Senate floor. Please. Can you support Senator Dodd with your presence? Can you take up the mantle of opposing the Protect America Act by using your campaign megaphone to cast some much needed light on this issue? Polls indicate that Americans are opposed to warrantless wiretaps. Bush's approval rating has never been lower.

I just made a $XXX contribution to your campaign. I would like to donate more. I would like to see you take the lead on the FISA issue in as much as your campaign and your former status as a Senator allows. I want to vote for you in the general election. This could be a breakaway issue for you. Please help restore our Constitutional protections.

Thank you for your time,

Dear Senator Edwards,

I was a strong supporter of your campaign in 2004, contributing both my vote in the Florida primary and my financial support long before that. Your campaign this year is quite exciting and I especially appreciate your more aggressive language on populist issues.

I believe that with bold action, you can seize the initiative in a campaign that now appears to be mired in sniping between your opponents. There is no better issue on which you can move to the forefront than that of retroactive immunity for telecom companies. This is your fight. This is the little guy protecting his information against the huge corporations. This is fighting back against government abuse that has broken the law. You have the desire, the vision and the experience to lead this fight for the American people.

Polling on this issue is clear. A majority of Americans want only legal wiretapping and want no part of retroactive immunity for corporations which broke the law. The American people are desperate for new, bold leadership based on principles. For seven long years, we have been subjected to erosion of our rights because of overplayed fears. The result is that the abuses put in place by the Bush Administration have made us no more secure but, instead, have lined the coffers of their favorite corporations.

If you will take the lead now and commit to fighting retroactive immunity, you have the power to focus the country on this issue. A large number of us in the progressive community stand ready to support you in this fight. We will see that you have a large influx of funding. In December, we mobilized over a half million emails to the Senate in one day. We can do that and more again, with your leadership. I believe that your standing in the current campaign can be given a significant, and victorious, push if you will take the lead on this issue.

Many thanks to you and Elizabeth for your faithful service to our country.

Sincerely,

Jim White

The billing problem the telecoms may be having with the government on their spying contracts is a great way to publicize the more serious matter of amnesty.

What upstanding taxpayer would not chortle at the telecoms' problem, and while chortling, consider what these contracts are all about?

Many moderate or conservative voters, those who rate "fiscal responsibility" as a really important virtue, will relate to the billing problem. The critique can be expanded, emphasizing the amnesty issue all the way, to underline the hypocrisy of this particular conservative government, which has broken all records for spending and racking up debt, just like the conservative government of the beloved Ronnie.