That is the cited reason just given on c-span by Pelosi for why retroactive immunity is being granted in the “compromise.” What Nancy was thinking as she said this was “We don’t need to punish anyone, including me, we just need to keep future leaders from making the same mistake we did and the poor telecoms were just dupes in this whole affair.”

This capitulation to the illegal wiretapping of Mr. Bush reminds me of a recent news item :

If you're gonna get raped, better as well enjoy it.

Mr Bush raped the constitution and the Democrats just decided to enjoy it themselves.

That whenever "let me get this straight" appears in a post, what follows is invariably a nasty but transparent pile of dog-$4!^.

"Where's Hillary?" was a rhetorical question. I know exactly where she is -- sucking up to the Republican right, exactly where she's been since I regrettably helped get her elected to the Senate.

Perhaps if she chose to lead on an issue like this, she would be the Democratic nominee today. Perhaps if she picked up the baton right now, she'd sweep into the convention on a wave of grateful grassroots support and have a chance at an upsetting the nomination.

But that would require courage, integrity and leadership, wouldn't it?

The Democrats are not capitulating because they don't want to look soft on terror. The Democrats are capitulating because whatever will come out in the lawsuits will incriminate Democrats. I didn't think of it before it was explicitly cited on Countdown last night by a Professor of Law at GWU. Before then, I really couldn't understand the calculation.

This calculation would have been the same months ago, when the Democrats did repel this. What changed? Without that this explanation is incomplete.

I'm not sure I understand what we are being asked to donate money for. Is there anyone even running against Steny Hoyer? I would imagine that the primaries are long over and that he ran un-opposed in that process. And since that district pretty solidly in the D column I wonder if the GOP is even putting out token opposition. So, we can put an ad on every page of the Washington Post between now and election day it's not going to amount to anything other than paying Fred Hiatt's salary.

Obama has the nomination. Obama has the netroots, the progressives, etc. He doesn't care. So the 'leadership' doesn't care. Because the Obama supporters have no where else to go.

The end.

Buck off you bucking buckhead.

don't give me this nonsense about 'where's hillary'.

-- paul_lukasiak

You can't possibly believe what you wrote. Hillary is just a clone of Obama so she can't talk now? Geebus Cripes! Talk about making excuses for someone.--Kitt

Sure he believes it. Apparently, though, he was mislead when he believed that Hillary was a 'strong' woman.

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.

Apparently PL thinks women are supposed to be submissive once they are beaten. But, IMO, she wouldn't be doing anything but 'supporting' Obama's stated position, and giving dems a boost (not to mention maybe forcing Obama to step up to the plate) if she spoke up right now. That's my notion of what a 'strong' woman should be doing (but I'm considered 'uppity' by my menfolk, so what do I know). So, it looks to me like her spine, like Obama's, Pelosi's, Hoyer's and countless other dems' is just hanging in a closet somewhere. She's no better or worse than he right now.

This defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory moment is a searing wound to the body politic. Obama's passivity is, simply, heartbreaking -- after all, he is just another pol, dammit.

I have three questions:

1. Why? Cowardice alone cannot explain it. Stupidity alone cannot explain it. It is some form of self-interest. If the way in which this serves the venality of these leading Dems is not evident to us, there is some hidden axis of selfishness that remains opaque to us. What is it? If we cannot stop it, we must at least seek to understand it.

2. Is there any realistic chance of stopping this with a filibuster again? The House seems utterly in the tank this time. Dodd and Feingold have made oppositional noises, but I have not heard the "f-word."

3. Is there the possibility of overturning this in court? I note that Article I of the Constitution prohibits the Congress from passing ex post facto laws. I know that clause is generally interpreted to bar laws that criminalize after the fact. I don't have time to research the question, but the language in Article One:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

does not seem to exclude laws that immunize after the fact.

If this is about election year politics, then I want that explained to me. Pelosi and Hoyer: Run through your calculus here in a deliberate and logical way and tell me how capitulating on FISA helps you. Believe me, I'm not closed-minded or prejudiced when it comes to this. I want to understand and to be convinced.

If this is because you really believe that telecoms deserve amnesty, then similarly make your case.

But do not lie to your constituents. Do not issue bizarre newspeak-filled press releases or hypocritically claim you believe in open government and abhor special interest policymaking when you have just wrapped up a feverish week of craven backroom horsetrading in the service of a few wealthy telecoms that will ultimately let your own "political enemies" get away with breaking the law.

Do you have political enemies? If so, how do you battle them? By cleverly using the vast array of tools at your disposal--the machinery of Congressional procedure, media contacts and the "bully pulpit" of sorts that comes along with your positions of leadership in your party, your network of wealthy donors and experienced fundrasiers, your powers of persuasion? What are your goals?

It seems like you don't know how to really use these things effectively and that you don't really have any goals, other than maybe perpetuating your own power.

But what I don't really understand is that you already have power. If you can't use your power in the service of protecting something as precious as a constitutional right, then when will you ever use it? I fear that you will never see yourselves as having enough power ever to feel comfortable using it for anything other than protecting yourselves.