That's what I'm on about.

Hey, those were your words that I was quoting, in italics in my previous message. I realize it was only an aside, but trite assumptions like that rub me the wrong way, particularly when they're coupled with offhanded self-assurance about their accuracy.

Greenwald's only in it to sell ad revenue, that's the ticket...spare me. He had a blog long before he got hooked up with Salon. Along with the same incisive commentary, aimed at the same powerful targets.

I'm hopeful that you can put some more thought into your observations in the future. Because insight, that wasn't.

I've read much worse, mind you.

And I'm not going to pursue you about it...consider the matter dropped as of this comment.

I can't help but notice that, aside from a newbie here and there, the trolls are ominously scarce today. Could it be that they're all having some kind of Super Bowl-grade celebration together at our expense, quaffing and grinning more broadly and Nauseatingly than Cheney and Lieberman?

I'm trying to get the image of Shooter popping out of a cake out of my mind.

[Obama's] "I don't do cowering" is looking mighty thin at this point. But as a slit-eyed poker player, he sure doesn't do naked.

His motivation may not be naked, i.e. plain and obvious to all, but the fact that he did not change his FISA position on principle or substance most certainly is. As I also mentioned in my post:

I think the contradiction of his own past and present stances on FISA allows us to safely conclude that he voted in favor of today's amendments primarily for political purposes.

This is what I meant by his displayed ability to "calculate as nakedly as any other politician." The omnipresent cries from all quarters that he is "moving to the middle," "distancing himself from his base," "shifting to a general election strategy," and even the less cliched descriptions from unorthodox observers all point to an overwhelming consensus that he is maneuvering politically.

This tells me that his efforts are indeed quite naked, even if many differ in their interpretations of the motivation behind those efforts.

I'm trying to get the image of Shooter popping out of a cake out of my mind.

The only dessert Shooter would "pop" out of is a cow pie.

I can't disagree with any of your assertions, and the subsequent headlines support your position. But what would the headlines be if this bill didn't pass? Not in the NY Times, but in main street media? The fact of the matter is the dems are in a lose lose position on this. I agree with you, they should have taken the right position - pro Constitution. They win the academic debate hands down. Not to mention they preserve the concept of a democracy. But Glenn, have you looked at the number of people that STILL believe Saddam was involved in 9/11? And do you understand the ramifications of the "Barack is a radical muslim" phenomena?

The nation is broken. While I believe the Obama people are looking to 2004 too much...when those only those paying attention knew Bush was certifiably incompetent and the country was on the wrong track, the fact remains they have a big hurdle to clear. I am surprised at the people I talk to that fear Obama.

I have to say, I want Obama to stick to his principles, but not to the point he will lose the election. I want them to pander/concede to the extent that is what it takes to win. Because for him to lose is too high a price to pay. And then we need to look at what could ail a nation so that it would elect a GW Bush twice and fix it.

To avoid a similiar fate, I suggest you avoid my comments.

You act like I already don't?

blah blah blah my wife

blah blah blah William

[Cocktailhag]: I'm trying to get the image of Shooter popping out of a cake out of my mind.

[Jebbie]: The only dessert Shooter would "pop" out of is a cow pie.

You beat me to it, but my same exact thoughts as soon as I saw Coctailhag's post. Or a "Moose Turd Pie". For more on the recipe for such (and on the sadly recently departed author of that fine story), click my sig (read through the pages for his life work [he was a Wobblie!], and click through on the "Moose Turd Pie" link for the lyrics).

Cheers,

blah blah blah my wife
blah blah blah William
-- Chris Sinnard

... for the demonstration of your reading comprehension skills. I now understand how it is possible for you to believe that the people who live in Switzerland are called Swedes.

Is the Zappa family forming a political party? How cool!I would just love to vote for someone named Dweezil. I mean, since all things are now equal and all that.

I'm still waiting for "the evil Hillary" promised by someone in the letters about another, past column. For some reason I can't stop thinking of Hillary Clinton, dressed like Alyson Hannigan from the "evil Willow" episode of Buffy, sighing into her microphone and announcing, "bored now."

Pelosi has said previously that impeachment "was off the table," so her comments this morning were surprising, ... although no one in the Democratic leadership believes that is likely since the president has only six months left in this term.

Does anyone outside the Democratic leadership seriously believe otherwise?

Pelosi didn't take impeachment off the table. We did, by not giving the Democrats power enough, early enough, and then pushing to make it happen. Even when the Democratic party was at or near the zenith of its modern power, it took 2 years of investigations, hearings, failed resolutions, and debate to even bring impeachment to the floor of the House.

I don't pretend to know what kind of conversations are going on in the House Speaker's back room, but I do know one thing — she's not putting it back on the table now, because she can't.

A practical impeachment scenario for 2008? The GOP in Congress does the math and concludes (for whatever reason) the only possible way they can salvage their "brand" is to cut the dead albatross from around their neck. Like the Republicans who took "the walk" to the White House in 1974 to tell Nixon his time was up.

It might have happened a year ago. In fact, if the GOP had known how 2008 was going to shape up, they might have done it then. And it might even have turned things around, who knows?

Anyway, if it hasn't happened already, a full-scale intra-party revolt against Bush isn't going to happen. But that's the only way impeachment could go forward before at least the next election cycle.