The filibuster is a custom of the SENATE, not the HOUSE. HOUSE members can not filibuster. This legislation is going to the HOUSE and therefore cannot be filibustered.

SENATORS Dodd, Feingold, Obama, Clinton and the rest can do little more at this point that speak out publicly (or maybe wield some influence behind the scenes) because they are members of the SENATE not the HOUSE.

I was thinking yesterday while reading comments about what (if anything) Hillary might do or say about this horrible bill.

If nothing else, perhaps we can add her to the call/fax/email list and if she were to make a strong statement, Mr. Obama could not sit idly by.

As for this statement of yours:

I'm hot for Lara Logan.

I could not agree more :-)

I am not advocating or calling for violence here. I am asking that we collectively wake up and take a bodily stand. The only kind of stand that will scare the establishment. They should be scared of us, not the other way around.

-- adnoto

I'm advocating that you go out and take a bodily function, like a bowel movement. I think constipation may be one of your problems. It makes me feel cranky and bloated too. And take some of these other nutbars with you.

This is being done, supposedly, to protect us from "Terrorism."

Oddly, in a system designed to squash and deter all other legal and legitimate recourse, illegal and illegitimate acts of terror seem to be the only method left in which injured parties can speak in a manner that will make their grievances heard.

It was nice living in America while it lasted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/19/press-dissatisfied-with-t_n_108094.html

Apparently, all of the Washington Bureau Chiefs (Russert?) got together to complain the Obama isn't kissing enough ass.

They're threatening to take off the kid gloves if he doesn't give them more access!!

Ha ha ha! "Let us in your bubble! We want to be cool too! Let. Us. In. Your. Bubble!!"

As someone said over in the comments at DDay's post at Kos. Obama's position on this is well known and it may be a matter of comity or protocol to not poach on Hoyer's turf.

Oh, absolutely. The Constitution, the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law are all assigned to Steny Hoyer by Committee Resolution. It would be terribly gauche of Obama to poach on Hoyer's turf by taking a stand on this bill.

Look at Russ Feingold and Pat Leahy opening their mouths like rude children and speaking out of turn by saying they oppose this bill. How dare they not let Steny Hoyer have his day.

If Barack Obama kicked an infant in the face, what would the justification be for that?

Why can't Dodd (and Feingold and perhaps a few others) mount a real, Jimmy Stewart-style filibuster on this monstrosity?

He should. On an email list that contains some Dodd staffers (who sent around a statement from Dodd opposing this bill), this is what I wrote:

Is there some reason why Dodd's vow back in December to place a hold on, and to filibuster, any bill with telecom amnesty is no longer applicable? A lot of people relied on that commitment when they donated to and supported Dodd, and didn't think the vow would disappear if he was no longer running for President.

Quite the contrary, I recall Harry Reid's whispering to The Washington Post that he thought Dodd would give up on the whole obstructionist commitment once Dodd was no longer running for President -- implying that Dodd's commitment to opposing amnesty was just about cynically exploiting public sentiment to gin up support for Dodd's presidential campaign and he wasn't really authentic in his stance. I and others wrote very critically about Reid's disparagement of Dodd's motives.

I'd hate to think that Reid was right.

As far as I'm concerned, Dodd has the obligation to filibuster, even though it will be defeated.

Tomorrow, we will be taking up the FISA bill. As you probably know, the bill has been filed. It is a balanced bill. I could argue it either way, not being a lawyer, but nonetheless, I could argue it either way. But I have to say this about it: it's an improvement over the Senate bill and I say that as a strong statement. The Senate bill is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. This bill improves upon the Senate bill.

But you probably know that. What you may not know is that it's improvement over the original FISA bill as well. So it makes progress in the right direction. But these bills depend on the commitment to the Constitution of the President of the United States and of his Justice Department. So while some may have some complaints about this, that, or the other about the bill, it is about the enforcement, it is about the implementation of the law where our constitutional rights are protected.

But I'm pleased that in Title I, there is enhancement over the existing FISA law. Reaffirmation, I guess that's the word I'd looking for. A reaffirmation that FISA and Title III of the Criminal Code are the authorities under which Americans can be collected upon. It makes an improvement over current law and the Senate bill in terms of how you can collect on Americans overseas.

It's an improvement over the Senate bill in terms of – the Senate wanted to say, “Okay, we will agree to exclusivity,” which is, in my view, the biggest issue in the bill, that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the President of the United States. They said, “We will agree to exclusivity, but only a narrow collection of things will fall that that category. Under the rest, the President has inherent authority under the Constitution.” That's out. That's out, thank heavens.

And it is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity. It has a strong language in terms of an Inspector General to investigate how the law has been used, is being used, will be used.

So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow. We will have a lively debate I'm sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress. It has bipartisan support.

I commend Steny Hoyer for his important work on this legislation, working in a bipartisan way. On the supplemental, Mr. Obey, as usual his virtuoso self, and Chairman Rangel was masterful in his piece of the legislation. As much as I admire Mr. Murtha, I'm not as enthusiastic about the war part of the bill and will not be supporting it.

Oh my God.