In April, Michael Chertoff announced that the government will turn the most advanced spy satellites in its arsenal on American citizens, and the announcement brought barely a whisper from the media.

A number of years ago I created a garden at a local apartment building that housed women who'd been homeless and who were trying to get back on their feet with the help of some local agencies.

One woman was an almost complete recluse, rarely emerging from her small room. I was able to coax her out and get her to talk while showing her how to weed and take care of the garden. Her overwhelming fear, stated repeatedly in low whispers, was of the "satellites watching and listening to us".

At the time I was overwhelmed with pity and hoped that the gardening would provide her with a way to overcome her "irrational" fear. Now I have to wonder if she was simply more perceptive than I, or perhaps merely prescient.

One would think that Democratic losses from 2000-2004, and their gains in 2006 when they began speaking more forcefully against the Republicans, would have proven the "move to the center" strategy to be a loser. It is terrible strategy, not to mention terrible policy.

It's like they are stuck in 1990s Bill Clinton mode, trying to emulate his strategy in order to reap his level of political success. But Bill was successful for reasons other than his centrism, not to mention the circumstances and perceptions of Americans have changed. Maybe if politicians were forced to experience the circumstances that most of us experience -- for example, if they didn't have guaranteed excellent health care plans; if they didn't have their job security guaranteed for a certain number of years; if their incomes were closer to the incomes of most Americans; if their children felt more compelled to join the military -- maybe then they would be more convinced of the need for a strong change of policy direction.

I am sorely disappointed in Obama's recent moves. I saw the Olbermann interviews in question and while I personally do not view them as worshipful of Obama as Glenn does, I think the idea that Obama was being some kind of strategic mastermind by being willing to jettison the civil suit option against the telecoms in favor of keeping the criminal prosecution option open is wishful thinking and willful blindness. Unfortunately this same idea has been reiterated on liberal talk radio this week; I heard a host lambasting a caller for "not understanding" how retroactive telecom immunity for civil suits was really unimportant compared to criminal prosecution. Apparently Scooter Libby's pardon never existed...?

I always wonder how Nature made a tuna fish so perfect and round that it fits into a tin can.

A vegan grocery store checker I know always advises the guy who bought a ham to return it.

In a bad neighborhood never honk. The Tuna Fish lovers will come get you for some lunch.

They are staying put.

The center is right, far right.

All power to the corporations.

Fund War! Not People.

Vote Democrat or Republican!

Support the status quo!

Your Vote makes them Strong!

I live in Chris Murphy's district, and it was Chris' courage and staunch stand against Johnson's fear mongering that helped him win the election, and it will cause him to win reelection as well. His courage in the face of fear mongering.

I supported Obama during the primary, much to my chagrin now. I had pledged money to support him, and I refuse to honor that pledge because of his actions on FISA. It is sad to see that the support of millions of people have been for naught.

It is clear that Obama intends to keep the status quo on presidential power. And why not? Who would not want to be president with the amount of power GWB has acquired for the position?

This is because the Democrats are spineless and refuse to prosecute Cheney or Bush for their anti-constitutional actions and lack of oversight. So Obama is being given a huge gift by Bush...and who would look a gift horse in the mouth?

my suspicions as well but let's see how it plays out. one thing: i like to consider myself a political realist and probably lean more center/left than many salon bloggers, mr. greenwald included. thus, if obama chooses an old white guy i don't have a huge problem it with so long as the guy's voting record is largely liberal (i'm thinking a biden or dodd off the top of my head). but guys like webb and nunn are largely republicans dressed in donkey suits. don't get me wrong. it's nice to have webb on our side, i was glad to see him defeat allen, and he seems generally likeable. that said, i don't want him a "heartbeat away" in a democrat's presidency.

funny, a week or two ago i saw an article on this site positing an obama/hegel ticket. now hey, i largely like chuck hegel as well (as republicans go), and as a politican, he strikes me as guy of some integrity when it comes to his positions. but again, do we really need to nominate a republican as our veep to win the election? i think it's ridiculous, and moreover, potentially dangerous if something were to happen to the head honcho.

anyway, tracking to the center is not always a bad thing, but too often the democrats either a) do it to a fault, and/or b) do it when it's unnecessary. and let's face it, such compromising would be a lot easier to swallow if we knew those on the other side of the aisle would do it in like fashion -- something history has proven is not the case.

I agree that changing positions on an issue like telecom immunity, while dressed up as a move to the centre or pro-national security by the MSM, has the effect of projecting weakness for Obama the candidate. Strength comes first and foremost in being able to project the appearance of resilience in times of uncertainty and to communicate a clear and constant message that can be heard through the commotion.

But it's not like Obama or his team are now suddenly clueless about what got them to where they are. Nor do I believe the notion that he's just a craven politician following mindless advisers.

I think that in the US, there are two very different constituencies that politicians must serve, and they often, if not always have different demands that result in compromises that are reinterpreted as moves towards some popular political centre. That first constituency is the actual voting public, first in the nominating process and second in the election. A candidate is sold to the public, marketed to the public. A brand is developed, shaped, tested and then promoted with millions of dollars of communications in every conceivable format. To this constituency, Obama's message has resonated, marginally more so than Clinton's, and the GOP's message has by and large failed.

I think of the second constituency by its representation, it's lobbyists. The second constituency, consisting largely of the investment class, is not "one person, one vote"; it's members' influence are proportional capital and the capacity to communicate messages to segments of the public. Obama's groundbreaking fund raising apparatus has given him more independence from this second constituency than any other candidate in modern history. But he will remain forced to pass muster with this constituency to have any reasonable expectation to: a) get elected and b)if elected, be able to deal with real issues instead of having to put out fires that were started specifically to distract and weaken his political influence.

While I think his assessment of the telecom immunity measure was mistaken and it was a battle he need not have given up so readily, I do think that it would be nearly impossible to antagonize the telecom sector and have a productive first term. And it's not just the telecoms: the health insurance industry, pharmaceuticals, big oil, defence--these are industries that an American politician cannot just fuck with even with overwhelming popular support.

I'm not saying that caving into big lobbyists is always the right move or the smart move, but that to think it is the result of outdated Beltway thinking or some blundering strategic move toward a centre that patently does not exist, is mistaken.

At the same time, I think it could be more productive to oppose moves like Obama's telecom immunity flip-flop by making sure that the telecoms themselves get as much bad press if not more. Where are the ads comparing them to all the other war criminals who were "just following orders"? Where are columns that compare the complicity of today's corporations with Bush's war on terror to those of the past? Sure you can find some ads in good British stand up comedy (link at sig) or the odd foreign written best-seller like the Shock Doctrine. But I don't think it's enough.

As important as it is to keep the Democrats on a righteous path, it will remain equally important to clearly identify and prioritize who are the common enemies. Doing the former without the latter leads people, who aren't being as rational as they could be, to think criticism is rejection. People are angry and want to vent that energy at someone or something. The telecoms, with their shit service and shit rates, eagerly lining up to spy on Americans for a juicy fee--that's a target. And so are the senators and congressmen who take their money. And so is the legislation that flows from that unholy union.