the reason that there is a lack of coverage is simple -- its not part of the Obama message.

Seriously, all Obama has to do to make this an issue is make a speech attacking McCain on his support for telecom immunity, and saying that its completely contrary to Democratic Party principles to support immunity, and that he will do everything in his power to stop it --- and ask the American people to contact their representatives (both Democratic and Republican) and tell them that they don't think that huge corporations should be above the law.

At that point, telecom immunity will be the lead story on every network newscast, and the first topic discussed by every cable gasbag show.

The campaigns are now driving virtually all news coverage -- if the campaigns -- especially the Obama campaign -- want to make something an issue, the media follows along. (see the RFK 'assassination' non-story, and how a relatively minor proposal like the gas tax holiday suddenly became a major issue because the Obama campaign willed it).

If any one needs to wretch, I hope they use a ceramic commode.

The war bloody ones can't sing a clear note in a wood outhouse.

On a fair day, a politico sounds like a old Pharisee about to croak.

Scratch a cynic, find an idealist. While I don't really expect to be happy about the outcome of this whole scenario, there is one way it could turn out well. And since I just love being devastated by disappointment, I think I'll cling to this last hope for the duration:

Where is Barack Obama? Any chance he could swoop in and save the day by finally giving the country some home truths about just who exactly wins and who loses if we give the Bushies their retroactive immunity? It's not all that hard to understand, and Obama has a knack for explaining complicated things so that people will get it.

It sickens me that our elected leaders have the level of integrity suggested by Jonathan Turley's explanation for the Dem's capitulation on this bill. Would it hurt our representatives so much to do a blanket mea culpa for being rolled by the Bush administration, given the supposedly dire terrorist threats? Wouldn't it be so much more dignified to just admit that they allowed themselves to be seduced and then promise to not be such sluts in the future?

Kit Bond Quoted on NPR This Morning

I heard Kit Bond on "Morning Edition" this morning. He said:

"When the government tells you to do something I think we all realize that's something you should, uh, do"

Does anyone have a link to this?

I am completely disgusted by the Democratic party. I emailed my Congressman, who happens to be Nancy Pelosi. Obviously, that did no good whatsoever. This, for me, was the final straw. I have officially changed my party affiliation to basically nothing. I will not donate a dime to the Democratic party and will vote against Pelosi come November. Through many disappointments I've remained a Democrat, but I just can't continue to pretend or wish that they defend the issues that are important to me, and supposedly important to the Democratic party. I simply cannot fathom why they have done this. There just isn't any political upside to this. And, as I'm sure has been asked already, where was the new de facto leader of the party, Obama on this? Apparently, no where to be found.

Jeebus!

And can you blame Republicans? If I were a hard-core Bush follower

More and more, I think that when referring to Dems, REpubs, etc., one must ditinguish between those parties' politicians and voters who designate themselves members.

In my view, citizens from all point on the political party spectrum are so fed up with the unconstitutionality and unethical actions of politicians that the voters are entirely uncoupled from the politicians on these issues.

And as a point of interest, just how many people still call themselves Republicans now, and what is the change from 2000? 2004? Same questions for Democrats?

If I recall, aren't there now more people who identify as unaffiliated or as Independents than with either party?

I think voters are fed up and the best way to get at this disaffection is to market fundraising to oust incumbents, regardless of party, who exhibit contempt or ignorance for the constitution and for the citizenry.

Probably here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91724115

click on sig

How dare the Democrats actually participate in bi-partisan negotiations in the interest of national security? It's an outrage! Why can't they just stick to the same old tired partisan politics and keep pushing the socialist agenda? Let me get this straight. You want the government to provide everything for you like healthcare, welfare, affirmative action, education, a job, quality of life, infrastructure, mass transit systems, stop global warming, prevent mass floods and hurricanes...etc (I really could go on and on). Yet, when it comes to national security, you want the government to be powerless. So big government on 98% of the country's concerns and small government on security. Yep, sounds like a utopian society to me. Unfortunately for us all, reality isn't so nice is it? Although it seems as though the FISA bill violates your civil liberties, it in fact does not because you all elected your current congressman and senators. So, therefore, you gave them the ability to determine what is best for you. If you don't like it, vote them out of office or re-locate to another country that you believe is better. Good luck.

Face it people, any time you give power to someone else, your rights you believe you are guaranteed are not rights at all. They are privileges that can be given or taken away at any time.

Funny, I was just thinking that with Hillary out of the presidential race, she has plenty of time (and leftover energy) to lead on this issue.

Where is she? What is she doing about it? All I hear are crickets.

she's exactly where Obama wants her to be. She has agreed to support Obama in any way possible -- and that includes being invisible on this issue. If Obama wants her to take a leadership position on this, she will -- in the name of party unity. If he wants her to stay invisible she will -- in the name of party Unity.

Hillary Clinton is not the party leader. Barack Obama is. The fauxgressive blogosphere spent months trying to shut her up, and now that she has shut up in the name of party unity, don't give me this nonsense about 'where's hillary'.