One thing I can say for Obama's campaign is that they've got a heck of a database. I sent a fax this morning that had my real name and street address and got this reply just now to my e-mail address with my nickname at the top. That's very impressive from a strictly technical point of view that they matched those up.

Anyhow, the e-mail says:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the President’s domestic surveillance program. I appreciate hearing from you.

Providing any President with the flexibility necessary to fight terrorism without compromising our constitutional rights can be a delicate balance. I agree that technological advances and changes in the nature of the threat our nation faces may require that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted in 1978, be updated to reflect the reality of the post 9/11 world. But that does not absolve the President of the responsibility to fully brief Congress on the new security challenge and to work cooperatively with Congress to address it.

As you know, Congress has been considering the issue of domestic surveillance since last year. Just before the August recess in 2007, Congress passed hastily crafted legislation to expand the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant or real oversight, even if the targets are communicating with someone in the United States. This legislation was signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007.

As you are aware, Congress has been working on reforms to FISA. On November 15, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3773, the “Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007” (RESTORE Act) by a vote of 227-189. The House bill did not provide retroactive immunity for private companies that may have participated in the illegal collection of personal information, nor does it provide immunity for Administration officials who may have acted illegally.

On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, making its own reforms to FISA. During consideration of this bill, I was proud to cosponsor several amendments, including the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision, which would have enhanced privacy protections while maintaining the tools to fight terrorism. However, with the defeat of this amendment, the bill did not provide for a mechanism that would allow the American people to learn exactly what the Bush Administration did with its warrantless wiretapping program and provided for no accountability.

The House and Senate worked out a compromise, reconciling differences between the two versions of the bill before it can be signed into law. While I recognize that this compromise is imperfect, I will support this legislation, which provides an important tool to fight the war on terrorism and provides for an Inspectors General report so that we can finally get to the bottom of the warrantless wiretapping program and how it undermined our civil liberties. However, I am disappointed that this bill, if signed into law, will grant an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President's warrantless wiretapping program, and I will work with my colleagues to remove this provision.

The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe, and that our intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved. What they do not want is for the President or the Congress to use these imperatives as a pretext for promoting policies that not only go further than necessary to meet a real threat, but also violate some of the most basic tenets of our democracy. Like most members of Congress, I continue to believe that the essential objective of conducting effective domestic surveillance in the War on Terror can be achieved without discarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties.

Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch as this debate continues.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

United States Senator

So Pelosi is implicitly saying the bill should not have been rammed through the House as if she were just a regular Congressman, not Speaker.

And Reid is saying this:

Unfortunately, the FISA compromise bill establishes a process where the likely outcome is immunity...

This is just kabuki. Reid is majority leader in the Senate. Surely, if he wanted to, he could bring a version of the bill without immunity and force advocates to produce 60 votes to add it as an amendment. He just doesn't want to.

"But empowering the worst subset of Republicans in order to do it is insanity."

While I can understand your reasoning, especially keeping SCOTUS appointments in mind (actually, I can think of no other reason to vote Dem at this point), the party, it's leadership in particular, "is empowering the worst subset of Republicans."

With regards to the e-mail from Obama's office, is the capitalization in the phrase "War on Terror" just as you have reproduced it?

Absolutely agree it's Kabuki. Both Reid and this new Pelosi "post-victory" spin. Pure Kabuki.

Just like we should expect better bullshit from Justices like Scalia, we have a right to better-quality Kabuki from our Democratic leaders. We're the greatest damn nation on earth--and this is the best they can do?

What do you thnink about Dodd, Feingold and now, Wyden? Is that Kabuki also? Will they really press this tomorrow?

That's the complete letter with everything after

Dear [Nutella]:

exactly as written. I cut and pasted it straight into the Salon input box.

1) They fear voters ("weak on terror" theme)

2) They want these laws

3) Blackmail

Which is it? I can't tell. Anyone know?

Not exactly on topic, except in a broad sense, but I thought this Bill Moyers Journal segment provided excellent insight into the current political culture in the US, in the way that a good reading of history can do. It's an interview with Steve Fraser talking about a second gilded age in America.

"The greatest single difference between the first Gilded Age and the second is what I call the great silence. That is to say, the first Gilded Age was informed by enormous resistance to this amassing of wealth and political power in the hands of the small elite."

Link at the sig.