... that the telcos weren't in violation of the law?

That fact needs to be made plain and public.

Thanks,

I hope Steny and the Blue Dogs realize that they'll get NO CREDIT for this "bipartison agreement" from the Republicans when election time rolls around. They'll STILL be criticized as being soft on terror. Nice work, guys.

Of course not. That's why they get rolled each and every time.

Cheers,

Glenn,

As you've noted, habeas hangs on (at least) one soon to be retiring vote in the Supreme Court. This is to name but one of the fundamental protections of our republic that is currently imperiled.

By all means, let's take Obama to task here, but let's do so in a way maximally favorable to him. Or at least minimally- he will not have dictatorial powers on the Democrats repsonse here. Pelosi, Hoyer Reid, Clinton and other power brokers with vested interests et al may indeed also have strong opinions and certainly have a say. We simply don't know what's gone on behind closed doors, and hence where most appropriately to attribute blame (outside of the blue dogs that are clearly applying the pressure and their corporate masters).

For the love of pete though, let's try not to forget what hangs in the balance. That would amount to our playing a role as villain too. Already in two threads on this subject we have numerous people claiming they won't vote Democrat, which, btw, is the height of stupidity given the ramifications FOR THIS VERY ISSUE and related ones. In this context, lame defenses of Obama remain lame, but are hardly so contemptible as to merit caustic snark by way of response.

In light of what you've written, and the constitutional prerogatives of the next President of the United States, I defy you to disagree.

-- How is the gop going to stop anything we put through? How?

By standing up and running parliamentary procedures, filibustering and voting as a bloc, you know the kind of things the Dems almost never do.

-- This is the gop's issue. If you want to hold someone responsible hold them resonsible at the ballot box.

Two words here: Bull and shit. The Dems hold the power in both houses. This passes ONLY because enough Dems capitulate and vote it through. This therefore becomes the issue of both parties.

-- Obama has done an enormous amount of good for the progressive movement.

And he needs to do more, right now, by showing leadership on this issue. If the Constitution is gutted, that does absolutely zilch for progressives -- or even regressives, not that they care. Enough talk. You want to lead? That requires action.

-- Don't sell him out now, when we're about to win.

This isn't a sell-out, it's a simple request: Be the leader we need you to be. Show us that you'll take a stand on this issue, this HUGE issue. Show us that our support will in fact lead to better things once you win. Show us that change is possible. Trust only takes you so far. Action tells the tale.

-- hold obama to account but be respectful and not demanding.

Fuck that. My country's being taken from me by right-wing corporate interests who don't give a shit about respect. Is it too much to ask our leaders to lead?

Just got my Obama vid linky via email from the campaign telling me how he's opted out of Public financing, and urging me to help.

I saw that he'd done that. If he doesn't make some real moves and just lets the Rethuglicans steamroller him and Congress, he won't get my money.

Cheers,

"And can we PLEASE now dispense with the notion....

... that the telcos weren't in violation of the law?

That fact needs to be made plain and public.

Thanks,

-- Arne Langsetmo"

The gop feels they never have to submit to reality or live by the governing rules. Doesn't change the laws. Just makes them criminals that get away with their crimes. Hopefully they follow bears sterns and enron

I got it from Swampland's Karen Tumulty. Her post is at 5:38pm (can't link directly on their boards)

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/intern_survival_guide.html

In light of what you've written, and the constitutional prerogatives of the next President of the United States, I defy you to disagree.

I've made repeatedly clear, including in my post today, that I consider it vital that McCain not win.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to refrain from criticizing Obama when it is merited. As dangerous as a McCain victory would be, so, too, would be replicating the 2002-2003 years when we have a Leader with a movement behind him that simply does not believe that he can err -- or that it should never be spoken of when he does.

I think candidates are more effective leaders when they're criticized, cajoled and pressured to be better.

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

-- GlennGreenwald

I understand you are upset by all this. I only repeated what was said by another guy in comments at another blog. Mostly so people would stop with the funeral dirges. He suggests they will play their own parliamentary games in the Senate and maybe some pubbies will balk there. But in the final analysis, as you are beginning to see, it will go down like I suspected it would. It was a fait accompli. I don't know what else you can do but vote for Bob Barr. That will probably only get Obama elected. Being upset with me and accusing ME of being the problem and the Greatest Threat like adnoto does, while it may make him feel better,isn't accurate and it won't solve anything either. Neither will anything he has suggested to date. This isn't 1776 and i-Pods and i-Phones are in plentiful supply, as are SUVs. I don't own any of those things.

Thanks for posting the number. Someone (very nice) answered the phone and even asked a few probing questions. She said they had been getting a lot of calls. Keep it up all!

Glenn--I hope you get praise commendations and rewards for your leadership on this issue.

I'm a strong Obama supporter. I think it's critical to hold him (and of course other elected officials) accountable on these kinds of issues. Thanks again for your work.