...there's still a difference between bending over backward and bending over forward. The Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, have failed us again.

I was not thrilled with Obama's support of Lieberman in the CT primary (way back in summer '06), but I tentatively embraced his historic candidacy at the beginning of '08, in part because of his steadfast opposition to the Iraq adventure. Gave a little money, got a button, put it on my briefcase, so I could advertise a little on the subway, etc. I threw the button in the garbage can as I was leaving work Friday after reading about Obama's craven, inexplicable support for taking away my constitutional rights. No button, not one more penny, and since I live in a state that he will take without breaking a sweat, no vote in November. It will be the first presidential election where I have not voted for anyone at the top of the ticket, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who is content to see the Constitution gutted.

An excellent earlier post on why even the original FISA was so much spit in the eye of the fourth amendment and due process:

FISA created secret courts, hearing secret evidence, decided by judges appointed by the executive,

FISA judges are not appointed by the executive. It's worse than that. They are appointed by the Chief Justice.

Formerly, by Rehnquist, which helps explain why they were such reliable rubber stamps. For the rest of my natural life, by Roberts, which guarantees that any new ones that come in will be fully on board with the unitary executive. No matter how many Constitution loving Presidents we manage to elect. And as we just learned, to elect the first of those, we'll have to wait at least four more years.

Bush made huge messes in every domain. McCain will aggravate them all. Barack will do a lot to clean up quite a few of them. It's sad that the Republic's prime document will apparently be left bleeding in triage, but in the real world you take what you can get.

Production

After reading the original two-page synopsis of the Columbia Pictures project based on the novel, Frank Capra "saw it immediately as a vehicle for Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur."[1] To ensure authenticity, an elaborate set was created, consisting of Senate committee rooms, cloak rooms, hotel suites as well as specific Washington, DC monuments. Even the Press Club of Washington was reproduced in minute detail.[2]

Impact

When it was first released (the film premiered in Washington, D.C., on October 17, 1939), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was attacked by the Washington press, and politicians in the U.S. Congress, as anti-American and pro-Communist for its portrayal of corruption in the American government.[3] However, neither the Republican nor Democratic party is mentioned in the film.

The film was banned in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia and Falangist Spain. According to Capra, the film was also dubbed in certain European countries to alter the message of the film so it conformed with official ideology.

When a ban on American films was imposed in German-occupied France in 1942, some theaters chose to show Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as the last movie before the ban went into effect. One theater owner in Paris reportedly screened the film nonstop for 30 days after the ban was announced.[4]

Mr. Smith goes to Washington has been cited as one of the quintessential whistleblower films in American history. Dr. James Murtagh and Dr. Jeffrey Wigand cited this film as a seminal event in U.S. history at the first "Whistleblower Week in Washington" (May 13-19, 2007).

It is now viewed as an excellent depiction of how activists mobilize grassroots support to preserve unique places from corrupt government development projects.[citation needed]This film is also one of the first "environmental" message films of the 20th century.[citation needed]

It is further cited as a patriotic tribute to democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_Goes_to_Washington

I have been searching my usual haunts like Diogenes, looking for someone who will rightfully criticize Obama for this shitty and cowardly move, and, indeed, all I see is people making excuses and defending Obama as "shrewd" and "smarter than us" or saying he will fix it later. Right. Keep dreaming.

We cannot let this go. We cannot stop pressuring politicians. Ever. That is our job as citizens.

Glen Greenwald. My hero.

Can we lobby the Democratic Congress in earnest to change their leadership?

I am thinking about mailing each each Democratic member on a regular basis (bi-weekly?) our critique of their leadership and their actions, and including evidence of our conviction that their actions are out of touch with the voters on a massive scale.

.. as a part of the campaign you have begun with the ad targeting Steny Hoyer. Perhaps focusing on Steny Hoyer-- or Hoyer and Pelosi.

It can include several voices -- or many voices. And also send to the Congressional Quarterly and other editorial outlets.

We can use a petition with signatures, we can interview people about WHY and HOW Congress has failed us ,,,

We can grow a subscription list -- asking for donations --

We can bring it together under a banner--

WHY WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP

Maybe Obama didn't really have a chance to stop that law, but if anybody had a chance, it was him.

Obama kept his powder dry, and the MCA passed the Senate on 9/30/2006.

I'm the last person to come to Obama's defense, but the fact is that first term Senators have no power -- and are told that if they expect to be effective for their constituents, that they need to maintain a low profile --- there are a lot of massive egos in the Senate, and they don't like sharing attention with newbies.

Obama's vote in itself was meaningless -- it may have been the "wrong" vote, but it wasn't a decisive vote, and it showed that Obama was a 'team player'. It WAS NOT a precursor or predictor of this current betrayal.

It was, however, a sign that Obama was no better than Hillary Clinton when it came to being your 'average politician' -- and all the little Obots who thought Obama was somehow 'special' or 'different' have been kidding themselves all along -- Obama's rhethoric never matched his actions...

But this betrayal was being telegraphed throughout the campaign itself -- Obama's abandonment of core democratic principles, especially the 'race-boating' of the Clintons, signalled that Obama was unfit for the Oval Office; this was "HIS" campaign, he was in charge, and it was one of the ugliest and most dishonest campaigns in history -- but it was only possible because Obama's supporters and the media were so obsessed with CDS that they refused to see what was right before their eyes.

The only thing to be done now is to bite the bullet -- make it clear to the DNC that you will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee -- AND MEAN IT.

You don't have to support Clinton -- while I think that she is the single best qualified person available, she's not the only Democrat that is qualified, and I'd be more than happy to support a Gore or Edwards, and would support an alternative over Clinton if it ensured a Democratic victory in November.

But, supporting Obama cannot be an option -- anymore that an abused woman should stay with her husband because life will be difficult for her for a few years. Sometimes, you just have to stand up and say NO!.... and this is one of those times.