It doesn't matter if Obama did intend to go after the telecoms once becoming president (which I happen to believe is one of the most naive beliefs I've encountered in a long time - I will be amazed if that happens ... if Dems are so worried about being called weak on terror that they will vote for amnesty then they will too worried about being called partisan to prosecute telecoms criminally). The point is that regardless a precedent will be set whereby the President can order a corporation to illegally violate the civil liberties of its customers with civil immunity. Citizens lose a means to defend their rights in court and they do so because they can't outspend the telecoms who used their money (both as customers and taxpayers) to buy the amnesty votes of members of Congress.

Is it really worth trading access to the courts in the hopes that every 4 to 8 years we can unseat an administration that is violating our rights on the imagined hypothetical grasping-at-straws-that-probably-don't-exist possibility that the next president will do something about it? Do we really want to make the enforcement of our laws a matter of partisanship? - where what is "law" becomes a matter of the fiat of the sitting executive?

I think Mr. Olberman has run into a bit of cognitive dissonance and is doing his best to resolve, but he is heading in the wrong direction, and might benefit from downloading and listening to Carol Tavris explain the dangers with this form of rationalization.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=121

What Obama is doing with his flip-flopping on issues on which he based his primary compaign is nothing less than practicing the political equivalent of the bait-and-switch sales technique: promote a sale on a certain product, but when the customer comes in for that item it's, "Sorry, we just ran out of that. Could I interest you in this item over here?" I'm quickly losing interest in an Obama presidency, and for reasons beyond his switching positions. Frankly, I don't think his election is a done deal. Is it too late for a challenger (Wesley Clark?) at the convention?

What you said to Jim Montague.

When in the garden, wear a shirt.

YKW (Chertoff) has a pair of binoculars.

Pedinska. If you are ever on a garden tour,

put on the eyeliner if the bus has poor shocks.

No expect Ohio pot holes to be fixed. Why? The war.

thanks for keeping it sane, yo.

i'm telling you. that part about why it is not clear that the biggest threat to obama's success is and has always been that his entire brand was but a brand is lost on me. i mean, all the much-heralded New Voters and Youth Support will vanish if this happens on a wide scale. young people are ideal and have powerful passions. it doesn't mean they are stupid.

that's just one aspect, but on the point of the Myth, i agree so much...Dems still don't get it. all they really need to do is be as strong and unafraid as the neocons pretend to be. that's it. that's it right there, wrapped tight and simple. that's success.

Is it too late for a challenger (Wesley Clark?) at the convention?

Umm, I don't think that would happen. But if I had to guess, Clark is probably in the top-tier of VPs. My projection as of now is:

1) Hamilton

2) Clark

3) Schweitzer

I'll hang some car freshener, beer cans, and fish bones,

and a few Lysol spray cans filled with sardines aroma's.

Hang the grocery store items from the rear view window.

O, I meant hang them from the computer window, okay.

O, I hope try to be able to be more accurate from now on.

I (and others) answered your flood plain question in yesterday's thread.

I saw that and to be honest, I've been feeling quite guilty about how I worded the question. It was meant to be retorical in nature, not actually a quest for real meaning.

Without going off-topic here to awfully much, I'll explain.

After Katrina, there was much rightwing bloviation regarding the value of rebuilding New Orleans (they should bulldoze the place) and caterwalling about how those stupid New Orleanians "should have known better than to build where they did, good riddance to those liberals down there".

I was wondering why we have not heard such comments from the Right when Iowans, Kanasans, and Missourians (like Limbaugh) are getting damp.

No need to answer here. I already know the answer.

The technology available to the government is incredible. Just look at some of the things they have prepared for the Democratic Convention in August. Drones, electronic mosquitoes, microwave crowd control, laser listening devices, radar, electronic signal detection, and overhead imagery (you know what that is), your confederates fears were well founded. Given RWA penchants for bullying and revenge, these are devices best kept out of their hands.

By all means, target districts which split or nearly split Bush/Kerry - but these are not blue-dog districts.

Also, keep in mind that another serious terrorist attack or various potential events in the Middle East could change public attitudes literally overnight (as happened Dec. 7-8 1941 or 9/11-12 2001). Such things draw a predictable visceral reaction from most people - Bush's approval rating shot up to almost 90% after 9/11 and this had nothing to with his actions or policies or those of his partisan opponents. Never think that people act rationally in such situations.

The fear of terrorism has declined since 9/11, while the public's dissatisfaction with the lack of success in Iraq (not so much the illegality or injustice of it or the sufferings of the Iraqi people), among other things, has increased. This is not necessarily a permanent situation.

First, print the thing out, all 114 pages (pdf), and hand it to your Senators. Best if you can say "I've read it, I expect you to take the time to do so yourself." For extra credit, take a highlighter to the printout and mark up the sections you consider problematic.

Bring an accomplice with a vidcam. An admission that they haven't and won't read the bill makes nice youtube, come re-election time.

How to find your Senators' appearances? Start with their Senate and Campaign websites. Next, search Google News for "YourSenator'sname Parade" "YourSenator's name Barbeque" "YourSenator'sname Picnic" "YourSenator'sname fundraiser" If you don't get hits, make a Google Alert.

Senator Feingold plans to introduce 6 Amendments. He explains them, not in great detail, in Fact Sheet: Potential Feingold Amendments to FISA Bill. http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_fisaamendments.html

Print it out too, and when you catch your Senator, ask that they support them all.

If your Senator won't budge on immunity shift the conversation to the problems with the parts that go forward. If any Amendments pass, and the Senate approves the revised version, it throws the whole deal back to re-negotiation with the House, which would then have to start it's process all over again. The package can not go to Bush's desk until both the House and Senate pass identical versions.

More at Docudharma http://www.docudharma.com/frontPage.do