A similar resolution in the Senate -- sponsored by Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh -- now has 32 sponsors, a list that includes, in addition to Joe Lieberman and some of the most extremist GOP warmongers in the Senate, 13 Democrats as well.

You mean presumptive VP candidate Evan Bayh? That should "shore up Obama's national security credentials" for sure. And give us our very own Lieberman!

As the most recent, astonishing piece of evidence, look at House Resolution 362, a resolution sponsored by Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman which spouts every neoconservative accusation against Iran and then demands -- literally -- that the Bush administration order a naval blockade against Iran (see clause 3), an act of war.

So, I guess this means that if Bush doesn't bomb Iran we'll have a new article of impeachment to offer against him. After all, for the President to not follow through after the Congress declares war is pretty much the ultimate impeachable offense. I really wonder how Congress can not understand that this resolution is a declaration of war and an effective command--not a mere authorization--to use military force.

Gary is my Representative, and between this and his FISA vote it would be a vast understatement to say that I'm disappointed. I used to take comfort in the fact that my Representative wasn't one of the bad guys, but I guess I was wrong. Gary now seems intent on proving himself to be a despicable and worthless human being.

The bottom line is that the civil-libertarian left and libertarian right hate each other too much to really cooperate, even if they occasionally form kissy-face groups like this one.

The economic issues just create too much bad blood.

The funny thing is that I think both groups realize that the secular left and the secular right need to get together to prevent the country from spinning down into a toilet that is half John Bolton and half Mike Huckabee, but they just hate each other too much to really care.

Please understand that I actually agree with GG's larger point that the Strange Bedfellows/Accountability Now campaign is fantastic precisely because it is attracting support from across the political spectrum. And it's getting some traction in the media (however small, so far).

But as a specific example, Barr is just irrelevant. He is no more newsworthy than Nader or any other third party candidate if only because any media coverage of him will be strictly limited to "will he spoil the 2008 election for Republicans like Nader did for Democrats in 2000?" and that's it. There will be literally no coverage of his substantive positions, including this endorsement. If anything, his endorsement only detracts from the larger message. I'd hate to see this project be smeared as "fringe" because "Look who supports it! Third party kooks and angry bloggers - how much more irrelevant can you get?"

This is likely true for Traditional Media, but also for any internet/direct mail marketing. Barr's just a non-starter for most folks.

As a media strategy for Accountability Now and Strange Bedfellows, I think the money bomb angle is more intriguing to the Traditional Media. August 8 will generate a lot of coverage if it pulls in seven or more figures. It's frustrating that more bloggers haven't pushed this more aggressively, but as Atrios might say, nothing is more annoying than being told by others what he "should" cover. So I spread the word as best I can, and let others do the same without preaching at them. So even if I take issue with the Barr thing, words can't describe the praise GG deserves for pushing this pro-active plan of action to restore the rule of law so hard and relentlessly.

Glenn: I have never doubted that you are on the side of the 'angels', but the sentiment that the Democratic Party or significant portions of it are responsible for the Bush administions activities during the past seven plus years, because they lacked courage etc in opposition, is getting a little tiresome for me. While I value and admire your skilled and perceptive comments on these subjects, I would hope that you would consider the problems that Democratic legislators faced during the first six years of Bush's White House tenure. Being outnumbered was just one problem. The GOP minions used every trick in the book to exclude the opposition from participating in the process. Even with the vicories in 'o6 the margin was so slim with Lieberman the controlling factor in the Senate majority, and in the house the Blue Dogs (from mostly conservative or southern districts) often the margin of passing progressive measures, major changes have been extremely difficult. That is not say that more inspired and agressive leadership in both houses might not have surmounted these problems and accomplished more. I hate to quote Rumsfeld, but as he said 'you go with the army you've got."

Please understand that I actually agree with GG's larger point that the Strange Bedfellows/Accountability Now campaign is fantastic precisely because it is attracting support from across the political spectrum. And it's getting some traction in the media (however small, so far).

But as a specific example, Barr is just irrelevant. He is no more newsworthy than Nader or any other third party candidate if only because any media coverage of him will be strictly limited to "will he spoil the 2008 election for Republicans like Nader did for Democrats in 2000?" and that's it.

The NYT called today to do a story on the Strange Bedfellows coalition and the August 8 Money Bomb, which the reporter became aware of due to the Barr endorsement.

If anything, his endorsement only detracts from the larger message. I'd hate to see this project be smeared as "fringe" because "Look who supports it! Third party kooks and angry bloggers - how much more irrelevant can you get?"

The point is that these views are being ignored and trampled upon by the political establishment, so obviously, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and David Broder aren't going to be behind it.

"If anything, his endorsement only detracts from the larger message. I'd hate to see this project be smeared as "fringe" because "Look who supports it! Third party kooks and angry bloggers - how much more irrelevant can you get?"

The point is that these views are being ignored and trampled upon by the political establishment, so obviously, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and David Broder aren't going to be behind it.

-- GlennGreenwald

Also, I don't and probably will never put a lot of faith in Bob Barr due to his history in the Clinton impeachment, but I don't think he can be labeled as simply a "Third party kook". He was a congressman for many years.

Jane Hamsher did a wonderful job of dealing with Barr in the link you posted, Glenn. I watched the whole thing. That's partly because Jane is just flat out irresistible. She's a 10+ on the charm scale.