Glenn, you again perform a vital role in calling politicians to task and your reasoning is impeccable. I have had to take a break from your blog though, to think through these past two weeks, especially since I made that trip to Unity in the middle of all this "pivot to the General" weirdness.

Who among us isn't disappointed in the FISA capitulation? All I can think is that he had to make this deal due to the backroom politics that is Congress. I also read Matt Taibbi's Great Derangement last week, so my mood is sour on the DC front. [Sidebar: the book as a whole doesn't cohere, but the individual chapters on Hagee's church and the daily life of a Congressional rep is, imho, brill.]

I can't/ don't want to necessarily defend each of Obama's actions, and I'm not certain I'm informed enough to discern his grand election scheme or posit his "true" motives. I do believe he wants to advance a progressive agenda and can't find the quote from Feb or so where he said he thought the best way to do this was to "mainstream it," in other words not making it seem Far-Left, which, like it or not, seems to have a bad rap in our media's coverage and within the corridors of power in this country.

All I can say is that at Unity, one of his remarks was that "sometimes when you spend too much time in Washington it can get you discouraged." He looked like he felt and meant what he said. Politics is compromise. I'm glad you and others are trying to hold his feet to the fire, but I also think the stakes are pretty high right now to elect Obama over McCain. As disappointed as I am in some of these stances, and despite how much I hate how his actions could be seen as conforming into these soundbite, false-dichotomies of "true" vs. "center," "weak and liberal" vs. "strong and conservative," I'm trying to keep my powder dry for McCain and biased media.

I will always fight for the Constitution, and expected Obama to do the same given his educational background and rhetoric in the primaries, but I can't pretend to understand the trade-offs he's making at this level. I wish he would explain more about it but more importantly, I hope that President Obama will act to mitigate the FISA travesties and the many others that have come to pass under Bush. Here's hoping.

On the way home from work, I was thinking that Sen. Obama will be a one term President.

Next election, he won't catch opponents by surprise. The Republicans will diligently search for and run a much more dynamic personality, with just enough nuance, to EASILY win back the votes of conservative minded people he's had to sweat and break his back for.

He's going to have improve a lot of people's lives economically for this not to happen. (Money talks, bullshit walks). As P. Mooney would say, "He doesn't have the complexion for protection" - so he's going to have to put Money into MANY pockets. Electing the 1st Black President won't change that.

Ralph Nader had a point the other day. Problem is he only shows up at election time to make his points and makes them very badly. "Talkin' white" was an awful term to use. But I understand what he was trying to say. If Nader was looking to get a rise out of Obama to get some discourse and publicity he should have said:

"If Obama is diplaying a good deal of cognitive dissonance (a term used by a radio show host today to describe Obama's latest political moves), it's a direct outgrowth of his life as described in his 1st book. He's always had to live in two worlds as a child of mixed race. It's the way his mind works."

In Obama's current world, the votes of the conservatives are the ones that count and are valued. He can present both sides of an argument (like most lawyers), but he truly believes both sides. As a politician, he feels he has to go with the side that has had the best press the last 40 years.

This is why he hasn't written a book called "Dreams of My Mother". She was the "liberal" many thought they were voting for. And she may be the moral compass (NOT his father) that would point toward a way that some feel has gone missing this election cycle.

I'm at the point now where I'm voting for him because maybe he won't bomb as many people as McCain would. That's saving some lives at least. I hope. Maybe. And, just maybe, Obama's change will be that he won't get in the way when people try to bring about change.

Ok, Mom, I stand corrected.

I still don't like to see taxpayer dollars transfered to religious organizations.

Can I have my spanking now?

Please?

No, you're standing. Bend over the chair and the paddle will fly.

Ok, Mom, I stand corrected.

I still don't like to see taxpayer dollars transfered to religious organizations.

Can I have my spanking now?

Please?

The reason I liked Obama was because he was not letting the radical right/MSM gang define the issues and just reacting weakly to their very distorted priorities and imaginary crises. But he's dropped that bold attitude completely now. It's not just us; everyone respects conviction and despises wimpy capitulation. How has he managed to forget that so quickly?

And the Clark thing is just pathetic. My first reaction was: OK, Mr McCain, what is your command experience? That's what should have happened next: more information! But it's my reality-based attitude getting in the way again.

Ok. Let's dismiss who wins the selection this year. Doesn't matter.

Let's assume that the world suspends the day before the president takes office.

Ok, the FISA bill has passed and Bush, as foretold, has immunized the telecoms and three quarters of his staff (including Rove).

There are several questions that need to be thought about, deeply thought about.

Who would have jurisdiction over this new FISA law.

Can it be overturned?

Who would overturn it?

Is there any way to find out if you are being bugged?

Would having proof of being bugged be enough to alter the FISA landscape?

What are the chances that yet another Church Commission could be seated to address this horrible legal landscape?

Is there anything that the European Commission can do to be brought into this?

Could the EU bring sanctions against the US for this obvious threat to their commerce and national sovereignty? (It's my understanding, such as it is, that this FISA bill opens the pipe to the vacuum cleaner and everything gets sucked into it. Bush's 'black hole'.)

Shouldn't the corporations of the world be concerned that the 'data' sucked into the vortex could end up in the drawing room of a politically friendly corporation?

Isn't the fourth amendment pretty much gone anyway in view of the Bush administrations lust for cell phones and ipods and especially notebook computers of those crossing the borders?

And now for something completely different:

Late one night I stumbled upon a website that would allow someone to encrypt a string of text into an easily unencryptable block for use in signature lines. I've lost that URL. Anyone heard of it? Anyone got a link?

I did mine and I think it says like 'people that read other peoples emails for a fascist government suck dead rhino ass and how proud of this country the founding fathers must be'.

But anyway, I digress...

People that wish to answer these questions should use the same title and append their alias and then copy the questions and then answer them in the order presented. I'm very curious to see what the answers are.

I'm seriously less likely to support Obama because he seems to have craven idiots advising him but lets see if it's all that bad...

Have at it... Bring it on...