Read Seymour Hersh's latest in the New Yorker (click sig).

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

Since Democratic leaders know some of what is going on, it may well be that they see this election, which otherwise is almost a sure thing for them, at risk because of an impending start to war with Iran. People would rally around the President and his candidate. This is why they would be so desperate to innoculate themselves against charges of being weak on security.

(Sorry if the name is wrong, I am on a slow line today; so I won't go back and look.) wrote:

When asked by my government to provide information vital to the countries security I would do so unhesitatingly. To be subject to lawsuits based on fulfilling these requests, I would be stunned and saddened.

You might know about or remember the government surveillance of the 60s and 70s, and even earlier. Congress passed laws to explicitly make this illegal except under certain conditions. (Yes, it was already illegal anyway.) What happened since 9/11, and probably somewhat before, was not some minor violation of a little known law under "24-like" extreme conditions. It was rather the transfer of huge amounts of private information to NSA.

This is not acceptable under the fourth amendment. And it has nothing to do with Shooter's idiotic assertions that it is OK because any law is subject to violation. NSA does not get this information unless they are given it by its protector, the telecom, just as the government did not get telegrams unless they were provided with copies by the telegraph company.

Frankly, I am amazed that anyone, even the baddest RWA, would consider doing this without full public justification that it is necessary and effective. I doubt the necessity and the effectiveness. Shooter claims otherwise, of course, but he cannot provide any real evidence. Warrants are not hard to get, and can be skipped temporarily when necessary under certain conditions.

Obama's turnabout on this is disgusting. I have said before here many times that he is an unusually good speaker and writer, and is far more intelligent than the average pol. But that is apparently all the better for concealing what his intentions are. I do not think anyone has a clue as to what he will do when he gets elected.

Some argue that politicians follow polls.... Here is a link to the latest polls about what is most important to the American people:

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Note that protecting the Constitution and ones individual liberties is not something that is yet asked about. And the only open-ended poll, while some people may have included this as under "other", it is apparently less than 4%

The politicians will care when people care. The media is trying hard to keep a low profile on the 4th amendment rights aspect of this, and to keep the focus on the politically more titillating immunity aspect rather than the more fundamental individual rights issue. The fact that ANY of our politicians are fighting so hard for a virtual "non-issue" is the amazing part.

Glenn, the fight is long and hard, and don't get discouraged. This is the core fight. Getting even a small number of people to wake up and pay attention to such fundamental issues is vital.

It indeed is quite the "melody" that while the GOPers can put up and get elected a G.W.Bush and his darkside puppeteer Dick Cheney who clearly are some kind of bad version of what the GOPers think of as being "real men and leaders" this idea of them 'moving to the center' never seems to get mentioned.

Nor is it mentioned regarding any of the GOPer low wattage types who infest Congress in either the House or Senate. Is that not just so odd? The GOPers can roll out any number of throwback political gimmicks and seldom(never?)get brought up on charges of being extreme,silly or just plain stuck on dumb.

In particular the GOPers willingness to engage in murky realms such as intelligent design creationism,truly faulty tax cut and borrow mantras and running with false flags on national security falsehoods.

Meanwhile as GG correctly relates here the DC DEMs get caught up in this move to the center to get elected tilt-a-whirl.

Indeed is this what took place in November 2006? And did that elections positive results for DC DEMs only mean they must cave-in,wobble and stumble from early 2007 onwards trying to placate the GOPers and Bush/Cheney regime over and over?

TOMDISPATCH.com had an article up in recent days about how the Pentagon basically is on a trillion $$ diet yearly now. When one considers the fiscal wreckage coming out of WashingtonDC anymore and combines that with this fiscal wastrel Pentagon bloat the entire pile of ruination is surely plain to see.

Despite this ongoing nonsense in American politics that the American Left is "way out there and extreme" just what is so extreme about what the American Left has to say when compared to what the GOPers run with and want to sell as being valid?

What is so extreme about not wanting to be in Iraq as a imperial colonial power? About wanting the American social security system anchored on solid footings in this planets largest economy? About wanting rule of law? About wanting American militarism curbed,leashed and premised in reality?

Why must the "center" be so damn far to right of where some very valid,truthful and factual American Left positions are?

Who is framing this peculiar American Left-Center-Right scale?

Why must it have a start point in this American Right political hall of mirrors?

Scare? Maybe. Pants off? Probably not. My wife told me not to have any more supermodels sending me risque photos...

Besides, fer sure the NSA reads my stuff coming and going.

Krugman never said that Obama is a stealth Republican.

What Krugman actually said is:

http://nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html

I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals [Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards] on matters of domestic policy.

- - Paul Krugman 01/14/2008

* * *

Krugman's parsings of the position papers have been very good.

For some reason, some people said that was simply because Krugman was a Hillary-bot, but there was never any evidence of that.

Well, the (neocon "think tank") Manhattan Institute flip-flopped on their previous support for school vouchers, so lets hope that President Obama flip-flops on those, too.

Anyway, President Obama can't just do whatever he wants on domestic policy.

Congress does impose constraints on domestic policy.

For instance, a president, unlike a British PM, can't simply announce a new tax policy and then get it passed in a week.

In foreign policy, where Congress has less inherent power and where Congress is also less inclined to even attempt to impose constraints, so the presidency matters more - - Obama's judgments have generally been the best (or the least evil) of the major candidates.